Point of Law: Assam Subordinate Secretariat Service Rules, 1963 clearly includes PWD Secretariat within its fold, it cannot be said that Water Resources Department should be treated to be outside purview of Rules.

JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, General Administration Department (GAD), Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 7.

2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was initially appointed in a Grade-IV post (Peon) under the Flood Control Department (now renamed as Water Resources Department) on compassionate ground, by the order dated 01/08/1997, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Flood Control Department, Guwahati. Since the time of his appointment, the petitioner has been serving in the Assam Secretariat in a Grade-IV post. It appears that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Daftry, which is also a Grade-IV post. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was entitled to be promoted to the Grade-III post of Junior Administrative Assistant (JAA), yet, he has not been considered for promotion to the said post although his junior have been promoted as JAA long back.

3. It appears that the condition of service of the petitioner at the time of his recruitment was governed by the “Assam Secretariat Grade-IV and Record Suppliers Service Rules, 1963” (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1963). The Rules of 1963 provides for promotion of Grade-IV category employees to the next higher grade i.e. Grade-III. As per the Rules of 1963, one of the eligibility requirement for promotion to Grade-III post of JAA was that the candidate should be HSSLC passed. However, the Rules of 1963 was amended on 19/20-10-2012. Under the amended Rules, it was provided that the educational qualification for promotion to the Grade-III post would be graduation. It appears that at the relevant point of time, there were as many as 9(nine) departmental candidates serving in Grade-IV post, who were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of JAA (Grade-III) but they did not possess the qualification of graduation. As such, aggrieved by the amendment carried out to the Rules of 1963, as notified on 19/10/2012, as many as 9(nine) Grade-IV employees including the writ petitioner herein, had approached this Court by filing WP (C) 4647/2013, inter-alia, contending that they were entitled to be considered against the 9 (nine) vacancies in the Grade-III post of JAA under the pre-amended Rules since the vacancies arose prior to the amendment of the Rules of 1963. The petitioners had also contended that the authorities were duty bound to hold selection for filling up those vacancies year-wise. It was also canvassed on behalf of the writ petitioners in WP (C) 4647/2013 that as per the Rules of 1963, 10% of the posts in Grade-III category were reserved for being filled up by promoting the Grade-IV category employees and, therefore, if the 10% ear-marked quota is applied, then there would be as many as 9(nine) vacancies, which had arisen prior to the amendment of the Rules.

4. After taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition being WP (C) 4647/2013 by the judgment and order dated 27/11/2014, inter-alia, holding that the authorities would be bound to apply the pre-amended Rules so as to fill up the 9 (nine) vacancies which were existing prior to the amendment of the Rules. The aforesaid conclusion was recorded by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah and Others vs. J. Sreenivasa, (1983) 3 SCC 284. The contention of the department that the provisions of the amended rules will also be applicable to the vacancies arising prior to amendment of the Rules, though canvassed, was not accepted by this Court. The learned Single Judge had accordingly, issued the following directions by order dated 27/11/20