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 1987 and the principles established by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. The petitioner, herein, who is presently working as a Supervisory Assistant in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge’s Court at Dhubri, being aggrieved by the promotion granted to the respondent No. 6 vide Order bearing No. 31 dated 03.03.2022 has filed the instant writ petition.

2. I have heard Mr. I. Hassan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6; Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Ms. S. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, being the State of Assam.

3. The facts which are discernible from the perusal of the pleadings on record show that the petitioner herein joined in the services of the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge Dhubri on 01.06.2006 in the post of Lower Division Assistant (for short, LDA), thereupon on 01.03.2015, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant (for short, UDA). Subsequent thereto on 21.12.2020, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Supervisory Assistant. It is also seen from the records that the respondent No. 6 was also appointed as an LDA in the same establishment on 01.06.2006, however, he was promoted to the post of UDA on 01.04.2015. Be that as it may, the promotion of the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 to the post of Supervisory Assistant is on the same date i.e. on 21.12.2020. The records further reveal that a notice was issued by the respondent No. 5 on 15.02.2022 for the purpose of filing up the post of Civil Sheristadar, wherefrom it is seen that various employees including the petitioner and the private respondent were informed that an oral interview/viva voce for promotion to the higher post was scheduled to be held on 17.02.2022 in the Chamber of the District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri. The petitioner along with others duly participated in the said selection process. Pursuant thereto on 03.03.2022, an order was issued by the respondent No. 5 whereby the respondent No. 6 who was junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Civil Sheristadar in the office of the Munsiff No. 1 Dhubri, whereas the petitioner was not. It is under the said circumstances, the petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court challenging the order dated 03.03.2022.

4. This writ petition was filed on 20.06.2022 and this Court by the order dated 29.06.2022 had issued notice. This Court, however, did not stay the impugned order dated 03.03.2022, but made it clear that the impugned order would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 5. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that though the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 6, in terms of the gradation list of the year 2021, the selection board having considered the higher marks scored by the respondent No. 6 than the petitioner and finding nothing adverse in the ACR of the respondent No. 6 for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 promoted the respondent No. 6 to the post of Civil Sheristadar, Munsiff Court, Dhubri. It was also mentioned that the resolution dated 17.02.2022 revealed that in that particular case of promotion, the selection board had given weightage to the factor of seniority first, rather than merit for this particular case of promotion. However, as all the candidates appeared in the interview, the selection board considered the factor of merit to some extent, and, therefore, decided to promote the candidate scoring higher marks, which is why the petitioner along with two other Upper Division Assistants, who appeared in the interview were rejected upon an overall assessment of their eligibility. This Court has also taken note of the minutes of the selection board meeting which has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit-in-opposition file