The main legal point established in the judgment is that seniority does not play a pivotal role in the promotion to Grade-III under the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973, and a transparent and fair promotion process should be followed.

2. It is the promotion of the respondent no. 5 as Junior Assistant in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. According to the petitioner, he was initially engaged as a Muster Roll Worker in the Department on 01.10.1986 whereas the respondent no. 5 was engaged at a later point of time on 01.10.1992. Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 were however regularized vide a common order dated 30.09.2005 in the establishment of the Deputy Director of Diary Development (Zonal) Nalbari. On such regularization, the parties were to be considered for further promotions subject to fulfilling the criteria laid down. In the meantime, a Gradation List was published wherein the petitioner was placed against Sl. No. 37 and the respondent no. 5 was at Sl. No. 128. The petitioner also claims to have participated in a training programme and various documents have also been pressed into service to contend that the petitioner was entrusted with additional duties pertaining to Grade-III post. On 16.02.2018, the Selection Committee held a meeting and in the said meeting, the respondent no. 5 was selected for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, as indicated above, it is this exercise which is the subject matter of challenge.

4. Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter the Rules, 1973) had undergone an amendment on 27.09.2016 as per which, the eligibility criteria for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-III has been laid down. As per the amended Rules, there is a requirement to serve in the feeder cadre for a minimum period of 7 years and the educational qualification is to be a graduate and the candidate is required to fulfill Rule 12(iii). The percentage fixed for such promotion to the post of Grade-III which is otherwise a post to be filled up by direct recruitment is 10%. The criteria for promotion has been laid down as ‘Suitability’ to be assessed. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned minutes of meeting dated 16.02.2018, Shri Ahmed, learned counsel has submitted that the remarks column does not specify any details as to how the respondent no. 5 was selected over the petitioner. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 05.03.2024 whereby the learned Standing Counsel for the Department was directed to produce the comparative statement of the parties to the lis.

5. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that remarks in the ACRs were never communicated as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments including the landmark case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725. He accordingly submits that the impugned promotion is liable to be interfered with. Shri Ahmed has however fairly informed this Court that his client has attained the age of superannuation yesterday i.e. 31.03.2024 and therefore he may be granted notional benefits pursuant to such promotion, in the event this writ petition is allowed.

6. Per contra, Ms. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department has contended that the promotion was made by following the due process of law and in a transparent manner. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed on 04.12.2018, it is submitted that since the post held by the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5 in Grade-IV are supernumerary post which were personal to the parties, Rules of 1973 per se would not be applicable. However, promotion was considered on the basis of continuous service and other reports and the recommendations. She has also pointed out that the date of regularization of the parties being the same, the parties were at par in terms of their consideration and in any case, seniority does not play any pivotal role in the matter of this promotion. She clarifies that the Gradation List is only to