JUDGMENT :

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioners by questioning the legality and validity of initially the officiating arrangement of the private respondent no. 5 as the Secretary to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court (hereinafter HCJ) and the subsequent order of regularization of the services of the respondent no. 5 in the said capacity. The challenge is mainly based upon the lack of eligibility and qualification of the said respondent no. 5 in both the aforesaid processes.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in these cases, it would be convenient to state the facts in brief.

3. In the first writ petition, registered as WP(C)/1376/2019, there are 9 numbers of petitioners, who at the time of filing of the writ petition were serving as Administrative Officers (Judicial) in the Principal Seat of this Court. Such service was in substantive capacity which they have reached from the post of LDA which they were earlier holding on the strength of their selection in the period 1988 to 1997. It is the case of the petitioners that the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) is one of the feeder post for Secretary to the HCJ as per the Rules holding the field. There is no dispute that the concerned Rules are the Gauhati High Court (Service) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter the Rules). The respondent no. 5 was appointed as a Lower Divisional Assistant in the Gauhati High Court on 13.12.2004 and thereafter, was promoted to the cadre of Senior Judicial Assistant (SJA) which he is holding in a substantive capacity. The said post of SJA is in the feeder cadre to the post of Administrative Officers (Judicial), which the petitioners were holding. On 25.11.2016, the respondent no. 5 was appointed as Protocol Officer temporarily. Thereafter, vide an order dated 10.09.2018, the said respondent no. 5 was appointed as Secretary to the HCJ on officiating basis. In both the orders of promotion, it was, however recorded that the respondent no. 5 shall maintain his seniority in the original cadre, i.e. Senior Judicial Assistant and his future promotion will be made on that basis. The aforesaid order dated 10.09.2018 is the subject matter of challenge in the first writ petition WP(C)/1376/2019.

4. During the pendency of the first writ petition wherein, the officiating promotion of the respondent no. 5 as Secretary to the HCJ is under challenge, one out of two posts of Protocol Officer had fallen vacant. Accordingly, on 14.09.2018, a Notice Inviting Options from intending Senior Judicial Assistant was issued to fill up one vacant post of Protocol Officer in the Principal Seat. The petitioners alleged that the notice dated 14.09.2018 was issued with an ulterior motive of regularizing the officiating appointment of the respondent no. 5 as Secretary to the HCJ as in case of appointment of someone as the Protocol Officer, there would be no option for the respondent authorities to revert back the respondent no. 5 to the post of Protocol Officer and in the process, his service as the Secretary to the HCJ can be regularized.

5. As per the petitioners, by flouting all rules and regulations, the officiating arrangement of the respondent no. 5 as the Secretary to the HCJ was regularized vide an order dated 24.08.2020. As the representation dated 24.09.2020 submitted against the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2020 was not considered, the second writ petition WP(C)/3845/2021 has been filed. In the second writ petition, there are 20 numbers of petitioners, who are serving as Administrative Officers (Judicial) in the Principal Seat in their substantive capacity.

6. It may be mentioned that in WP(C)/1376/2019, an application for impleadment of party respondents was filed which was registered as IA(Civil)/1577/2019. The 42 numbers of applicants in that IA support the case of the petitioners. This Court vide order dated 22.05.2019 had allowed the application by impleading the applicants as Interveners no