IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cut-off date for promotion eligibility, as prescribed under Rule 11 (C) of the Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules 1993, applies only to the completion of the number of years of service and not to the training and departmental examinations.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Sharma Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondents No.8 and 9 and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2014 issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the private respondents Nos. 8 and 9 were given promotion. The further prayer of the writ petitioner is for issuance of a mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Senior Accounts Assistant and thereby restore his position above the private respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and also to grant all financial benefits with the effect from 21.10.2014.

3. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was appointed as a Junior Assistant and was posted in the Kamrup (Metro) District Treasury. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) prepared a provisional Gradation List in respect of Grade III staff of the Treasury Office under Kamrup Establishment. In the draft Gradation List, the petitioner's name appeared at serial number 8, whereas the names of the private respondents appeared at serial number 21 and 22 in the rank of Junior Assistant. The private respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were initially not appointed under the Kamrup District Treasury Establishment. Subsequently, however, they were transferred to the Kamrup District Treasury Establishment. According to the writ petitioner, the draft Gradation List was never finalized and in the said draft Gradation List, names of the private respondents were placed below the writ petitioner. The department proceeded to fill up the next higher post, namely, the post of Senior Accounts Assistant. The petitioner, the private respondents, as well as other junior accounts assistants were within the zone of consideration. However, by the impugned order dated 21.10.2014, the private respondents were given promotion and the petitioner’s case was not considered as this Election Committee held that he did not satisfy the criteria for being promoted.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that as per the criteria fixed under Rule 11 (C) of the Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules 1993, Junior Accounts Officer must complete at least five (5) years for service as Junior Account Assistant on 1st January of the year of promotion and has successfully undergone training and passed departmental examination, will be eligible for being considered for promotion. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had satisfied the criteria prescribed under Rule 11 (C) of the Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules 1993. The petitioner completed five (5) years of service as on 1st of January of the year of promotion. He successfully underwent training and has also cleared the departmental examination. Under such circumstances, the denial of promotion by the respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 21.10.2014 is contrary to the provisions of the Rules and the same should therefore be suitably interfered and set aside and quashed.

5. The selection is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in respect of Senior Accounts Assistant. If that be so, the petitioner being senior to the private respondents as per the provisional Gradation List published and the petitioner having satisfied the criteria prescribed for promotion, petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion to the next high post of Senior Accounts Assistant. It is submitted that the criteria fixed by the selection committee that the petitioner did not clear the departmental examination on 1st January, 2014 and thereby rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Rules.

6. Referring to Rule 11 (C) of the Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules 1993, learned Senior counsel submits that the criteria required to be fulfilled for