THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Dhiren Das, S/o. Sri Thanuram Das – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented by the commissioner and secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department, Guwahati & 3 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.3037 Of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420/468 - Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 32(1)(iii)(i), 6 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Assam District and Sessions Judge Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 - Rule 6(2), 16, 3 (1) - Selection Board - Cancellation of Minutes of Meeting - Challenging minutes of meeting of Selection Board whereby respondent No.4 was recommended for promotion and appointment in post for cancellation of said minutes of meeting of Selection Board; for setting aside order - Held, Minutes of meeting clearly shows that same was done without taking into consideration Office Memorandum inasmuch as in minutes of meeting, case of petitioner was rejected on ground that he is a Government servant under suspension, a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending against him and prosecution for criminal charge is pending against him - Under such circumstances, said minutes of meeting is in violation to Office Memorandum and Petitioner’s case was not considered in manner mandated under law - It is also relevant to take note of that in meantime, petitioner has been already exonerated from all charges and disciplinary proceedings have also been dropped insofar as petitioner is concerned - Therefore, taking into consideration that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and petitioner has not been considered in manner in which it ought to have been done in accordance with provisions of law and Office Memorandum, Court therefore sets aside minutes of meeting view of setting aside of minutes of meeting, selection of respondent No.4 to post of Head Assistant and consequential appointment order is also interfered with – Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. U. K. Nair, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. A. Chetry, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
2. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board dated 08.02.2021 whereby the respondent No.4 was recommended for promotion and appointment in the post of Head Assistant in the Office of District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur; for cancellation of the said minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board dated 08.02.2021; for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2021 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur thereby promoting and appointing the respondent No.4 in the post of Head Assistant in the Office of District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur and for cancellation of the same; for setting aside the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Head Assistant in the Office of District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur by the Selection Board in its meeting dated 08.02.2021; for setting aside the gradation list dated 06.04.2022 so far as the Seniority position assigned to the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent No.4; for a direction to the respondents to forthwith promote the petitioner to the post of Head Assistant in the Office of District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur with effect from 10.02.2021 and a direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh Gradation List by placing the petitioner at Serial No.1 by considering his seniority.
3. The facts of the instant case as could be seen from a perusal of the writ petition is that the petitioner pursuant to a selection process vide an order No.41 dated 10.12.2004 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur was appointed as Civil Assistant in the Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court at Dhakuakhana against a sanctioned post. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had joined in service as Civil Assistant/Lower Division Assistant on 14.12.2004. The petitioner thereupon was promoted to the grade of Upper Divisional Assistant vide order No.155 dated 23.12.2013. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Sheristadar in the Office of the Munsiff, Dhakuakhana vide order No.37 dated 06.03.2017. It is relevant to take note of that at present the petitioner is serving as Sheristadar in the Office of the Munsiff, Dhakuakhana. It has been further stated that in the Gradation Lists of the Grade-III and Grade-IV employees serving in the Establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur prepared by the concerned respondents for the years 2019 and 2020, the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.1 as the petitioner was the senior most incumbent serving in the cadre of Sheristadar.
4. On 17.07.2019, the petitioner was arrested in connection with Dhakuakhana P.S. Case No.106/2019 under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon, on the basis of a meeting held on 22.07.2019, the District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur had placed the petitioner under suspension as per Rule 6 read with Rule 32(1)(iii)(i) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 w.e.f. 22.07.2019. During this period when the petitioner was in detention, an advertisement was published on 30.07.2019 for filling up the vacant post of Head Assistant of the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur.
5. The petitioner was enlarged on bail vide an order dated 22.08.2019 by this Court in B.A. No.2122 of 2019. It has also been mentioned that a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner vide an order dated 23.10.2019. The petitioner submitted his written
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the seniority-cum-merit criterion in promotion decisions, emphasizing the priority of seniority over merit, as per the Rules of ....
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
The court established that the Selection Board and the Appointing Authority have discretion to consider the suitability of candidates for promotion, taking into account their service records and ante....
The court established that the criteria for promotion can include unpublished guidelines and that the Chief Justice has the authority to determine suitability for promotion, which may extend beyond t....
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
An illegitimate promotion violating recruitment rules and seniority is void ab initio and curable via review. Challenges to long-settled appointments are unsustainable under the principles of delay a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cut-off date for promotion eligibility, as prescribed under Rule 11 (C) of the Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules 1993, applies ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.