IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
A.M. BUJOR BARUAH, J.
Asomi Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 493 of 2018
Decided On : 21-06-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion process and candidates’ details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding promotion seniority and process. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's examination of selection process validity. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. implications of sealed cover method for promotions. (Para 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 41) |
| 5. final judgment on entitlements and promotions. (Para 77 , 79 , 81) |
JUDGMENT :
A.M. BUJOR BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 being the authorities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. TK Barman, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 being the authorities under the Assam Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission). In respect of respondents No. 4 and 5, namely Sri Rabi Sankar Borgoiry and Sri Sonmoni Das, the office note dated 9/7/2018 provides that the A/D card has been received in respect of the said two respondents and the perusal of the A/D card reveals the receipt of the notices by the said two respondents. In respect of respondent No. 6, the petitioner was allowed to serve dasti as per the order dated 16/7/2018 and to that extent an affidavit of dasti service is available which shows that the respondent No. 6 Smti. Mamata Hojai had been duly served. Accordingly, service of notice on the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 are accepted. But inspite of such notices being served, none appears for the said respondents for the past four years and accordingly, we are required to proceed in the matter in the absence of the said respondents.
2. The petitioner, Dr. Asomi Gogoi and the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 were all in the cadre of Deputy Director in the Assam Education Services and as per the gradation list dated 22/12/2011 in the cadre of Deputy Director, the petitioner Dr. Asomi Gogoi is at Sl.No. 14, the respondent No. 4 Sri Rabi Sankar Borgoiry is at Sl. No. 15, the respondent No. 5 Sri Sonmoni Das is at Sl.No. 17 and the respondent No. 6 Smti Mamata Hojai is at Sl.No. 18. It is taken note of that the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 all belongs to the reserved category respectively being S.T.(P), S.C., S.T.(H), whereas the petitioner belongs to the O.B.C category. The petitioner as well as the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 were all subjected to a process of promotion to the next higher cadre of Joint Director in the Assam Education Services. A statement is made that the promotion process was for 8(eight) available vacancies and a further resultant vacancy, the total being 9(nine) vacancies and the cadre strength for the post of Joint Director is also stated to be 9 (nine).
3. The selection board constituted under the Rules initially recommended six candidates for promotion against six of the available vacancies in the following order:
2. Shri Sanjeev Kr. Bhuyan
3. Dr. Loknath Sarma
4. Shri Rabi Sankar Borgoiry ST(P)
5. Shri Sonamoni Das SC
6. Smti Mamata Hojai ST(H)
4. The selection board further provided that there were departmental/court proceeding against three of the candidates, who were also subjected to the promotion procedure, namely 1. Shri Nagen Boro, ST (P), 2. Shri Satyapriya Brahma Patgiri ST(P), 3. Shri Prakash Ch. Baruah, and, therefore, a decision was taken to keep their recommendation in a sealed cover. As the three recommendations were subjected to the process of sealed cover method, three further candidates namely, Dr. Bhupen Talukdar, Shri Ratul Kr. Borah, the petitioner Dr. Asomi Gogoi were recommended by providing that their promotions shall be subjected to reversion to the cadre of Deputy Director in the event, the persons whose recommendations have been kept in sealed cover are to be given the benefit of promotions after the sealed cover method are given its effect. In the resultant circumstance, by the Notification dated 8/7/2014 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam in th
Airport Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Airport Authority of India (2006) 10 SCC 1
PPC Rawanti and Others vs. Union of India and Others
AI
Service Law - Non- implementation of order of promotion - Appointments of officers are subject to DAR/Vigilance/ Criminal case clearance by Railways - Officers should be advised that above officiatin....
Selection Committees must not use sealed cover procedures for promotion unless formal charges are framed against an employee, preserving rights to promotion.
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
Promotion upon assumption of duties validly contingent upon completion of disciplinary proceedings; no vested rights to promotion established.
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....
when a new post is created, the concept of Rules obtaining when the vacancies arose is inappiicable as what is created is a new post on account of re-structuring of the cadre.
Promotion in government service cannot be denied solely based on the pendency of a vigilance inquiry; a charge memo or charge-sheet must be issued for such denial to be lawful.
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.