IMPORTANT POINT
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 District Establishment Services Rules, 1967.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for petitioner. Also, heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents in the Public Works Department.

2. The petitioner had instituted the present proceedings praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to upgrade/promote her to the post of LDA/Typist in the manner such promotion was effected in respect of a similarly situated employee Shri Diganta Sarma.

3. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as a Muster Roll Worker on 24.07.1992 in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD, PCC Division, Guwahati. The case of the petitioner for regularization of her services was considered in terms of a policy decision of the Government to regularize the services of Muster Roll Worker/Work Charge Employees engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and who were working as of 2005 in their respective establishment. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner being considered, approval was granted by the competent authority vide communication dated 30.09.2005 to regularize the services of the petitioner. The Respondent No. 4, vide his order dated 05.10.2005 proceeded to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the approval as granted vide the said communication dated 30.09.2005. The petitioner thereafter continued to serve in the establishment in such capacity till the date of institution of the present proceedings. It is to be noted that the petitioner was so regularized in her services by creating post personal to her. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner although was regularized in her service against a Grade-IV post, however, her service was all along utilized for works of clerical nature. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a process initiated for upgrading the services of qualified Grade-IV employees to the post of LDA working in the establishment of the respondent no. 4. However, ignoring the case of the petitioner, one Diganta Sarma who was contended to be junior to the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of LDA-cum-Typist vide issuance of an order dated 20.01.2011. The petitioner, further contended that her case for such promotion/upgradation was, placed before the Government by the Divisional authorities, however, the said process so initiated was not taken to its logical conclusion. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated the facts as noted, hereinabove and has contended that the petitioner being senior to said Diganta Sarma, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the cadre of LDA-cum-Typist w.e.f the date of promotion of her junior. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner having been deprived of her due promotion, necessary directions are required to be issued to the respondent authorities for effecting promotion in the case of the petitioner in the manner as was done in respect of said Diganta Sarma and such promotion was again prayed to be so effected with effect from the date said Diganta Sarma was so promoted with all consequential benefits.

5. The respondent authorities have brought their stand on record by way of filing affidavits and therein, have contended that the seniority of the regularized Muster Roll Workers is determined by reckoning the date of their initial engagement as a Muster Roll Worker in the establishment. By applying the said principle, it was contended that said Diganta Sarma who had joined as a Muster Roll Worker on 24.07.1991 ranks senior to the petitioner, herein, who had joined her such services only on 01.04.1992.

Accordingly, it is contended that no junior of the petitioner having been promoted, the petitioner cannot have any grievance with regard to the promotion as effected in the case of Diganta Sarma.

6. The stand of the respondents as evident from the affidavits filed by them, reflects that the said Diganta Sarma was senior to the petitioner, herein and according