Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Smt. Anita Haldar D/o Basudev Haldar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 3772 of 2011
Decided on : 01-08-2023
Promotion to post - Regularize services - Writ petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order thereby directing respondents to allow petitioner to work as (LDA) as well as for a direction upon respondents to regularize services of petitioner as Work Charged Khalashi and promote petitioner into post of Grade-III – Nothing has been brought on record to show that on basis of extant applicable Rules, petitioner can be given a promotion to post of LDA which is a Grade-III post. Para 9.
Finding of the Court: Non-interference by Court to order by which petitioner was reverted back to her original post having already attained finality, order was nothing but a reiteration of reversion of petitioner vide other which had already attained finality and as such cannot be assailed before this Court again - First aspect of matter pertains to whether petitioner being a Work Charged Khalashi can be promoted to post of LDA - Nothing has been brought on record to show that on basis of extant applicable Rules, petitioner can be given a promotion to post of LDA which is a Grade-III post - It is specific stand of respondent authorities that could be seen from affidavit-in-opposition that only regular Grade-IV employees can apply for being considered for promotion to a Grade-III post of LDA - Court does not find any merit in instant writ petition.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 27.06.2011 issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads), Guwahati City Division No.I; for a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Office of the G. K. Sub-Division in terms with the order dated 30.09.2004 as well as for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Work Charged Khalashi and promote the petitioner into the post of Grade-III by appointing her as LDA in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads), Guwahati City Division No.I.
2. The facts as could be discerned from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Work Charged Khalashi in the year 1994. The petitioner thereupon, in the year 1997, passed her Bachelor of Arts Examination. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.4253/2004 wherein the petitioner claimed that as she was a graduate and there were approximately six vacancies in the cadre of LDA, the petitioner be considered for appointed as Grade-III employee as per the Government policy embodied in the letter dated 25.05.1992. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 22.06.2004 thereby directing the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No.3, namely, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads), Guwahati City Division first to ascertain the number of vacancies in the cadre of LDA required to be filed up by promotion under the Government policy and thereafter to fill up the same by promoting Grade-IV employees having requisite qualifications. It was further observed that the petitioner, being a graduate, is entitled to be considered for promotion under the aforesaid policy and her case should also be considered along with the other similarly situated eligible persons in accordance with the provisions of law. It was further directed that the representation so submitted by the petitioner on 08.06.2004 should also be taken into consideration while making appointment to the post of LDA. Thereupon, on the basis of the order dated 22.06.2004, there have been certain inter-departmental communications.
3. On 30.09.2004, an order was issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads) whereby in pursuance to a letter issued by the under Secretary to the Government of Assam dated 29.09.2004 as well as the Finance Memorandum dated 19.03.2004, the petitioner was temporality promoted to the post of LDA and placed in the G.K. Sub-Division in the scale of pay from the date of joining in her promoted post until further orders. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined her promotional post.
4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads) issued a show cause to the petitioner on 29.07.2005 wherein it was mentioned that as there was no Rule for promotion to Work Charged persons and as such the petitioner was asked to show cause why she should not be reverted back to her original post. The said show cause reply was directed to be submitted within two days. On 01.08.2005, the petitioner sought for time on medical ground.
5. Be that as it may, an order was passed on 01.08.2005 by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads) whereby the petitioner was reverted back to her original post. This order was put to challenge by the petitioner in WP(C) No.5492/2005.
6. This Court, vide an order dated 19.08.2005, had stayed the said order and it was further directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue in the post of LDA. It is further seen from the records that the said writ petition so filed by the petitioner being WP(C) No.5492/2005 was disposed of vide the order dated 13.06.2011 along with WP(C) No.4366/2009 filed by another person. It appears from the said order dated 13.06.2011 that the said order dated 01.08.2005 by which the petitioner reverted to the
Only regular Grade-IV employees are entitled to get promotion to the post of LDA.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees holding personal posts are not entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher cadre, as per The Assam Ministerial Distri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondents to address the representations of the writ petitioner and make a decision within a specified timeframe, without....
The court determined that a petitioner cannot claim seniority or promote based on service from a distinct establishment due to separate seniority rules.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, affirming equality of opportunity, while promotion itself is not guaranteed.
The amendment allowing work-charged employees to seek promotion is constitutionally valid, as it involves rational classification and does not violate equality provisions.
Rule 6(6) is reproduced Junior Assistants – (a) By direct recruitment on basis of a competitive examination as laid down in Schedule-I of rules to be conducted by Deputy Commissioner at beginning of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
