Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Kamini Kumar Das, S/o. Shri Dhiren Chandra Das - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Judicial Deptt., Dispur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 5469 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2023
PROMOTION - Service Jurisprudence - Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987, Rule 6(3), Rule 9, Rule 12 - The court discussed the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987, particularly focusing on the criteria for promotion based on 'seniority-cum-merit'. It emphasized that while merit is important, seniority must be prioritized when candidates meet the minimum merit requirements. The court found that the Selection Board failed to establish a pre-defined benchmark for merit, leading to an improper promotion decision that disregarded the petitioner's seniority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the promotion of the respondent no. 6 to the post of Supervisory Assistant, arguing that the promotion was granted based solely on interview performance without adhering to the 'seniority-cum-merit' principle as outlined in the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Selection Board did not follow the required criteria for promotion, as there was no pre-fixed benchmark for merit assessment. The decision to promote the respondent no. 6 was based on comparative merit rather than seniority, which violated the established rules.
Issues: Whether the promotion of the respondent no. 6 to the post of Supervisory Assistant was valid under the 'seniority-cum-merit' principle as required by the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' necessitates that candidates must meet a minimum merit standard, and promotions should prioritize seniority among those who meet this standard. The absence of a pre-defined benchmark for merit in the promotion process invalidated the promotion of the respondent no. 6.
Final Decision: The court set aside the part of the Order no. 31 dated 03.03.2022 that promoted the respondent no. 6 and directed the employer to revisit the promotion process in accordance with the established rules.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
In the present writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a part of an Order no. 31 issued under Memo no. DJ.XII-7/2018/920-41/E dated 03.03.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5, whereby, the respondent no. 6 has been promoted to the post of Supervisory Assistant [SA] in the Pay Band of Rs.14,000/- – Rs.60,500/- with Grade Pay : Rs.8,000/-, with the further observation that the inter-se seniority of the respondent no. 6 shall be counted above the petitioner.
2. The relevant background facts leading to the passing of the Order dated 03.03.2022 can be, briefly, stated at first. On 15.02.2022, a notice was published by the respondent no. 5 informing the persons named therein which included the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, that oral interview/viva-voce for promotion to higher post[s] was scheduled on 17.02.2022 in the office chamber of the respondent no. 5. As on 15.02.2022, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 were serving in the post of Upper Division Assistant [UDA] in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri. By the Notice dated 15.02.2022, 5 [five] Upper Division Assistants [UDAs] including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, were asked to appear before an Interview Board as per schedule indicated therein. On the scheduled date for oral interview/viva-voce, that is, on 17.02.2022, the Interview Board constituted and headed by the respondent no. 5, interviewed the candidates called by the Notice dated 15.02.2022 including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, to consider them for promotion to the post of Supervisory Assistant [SA]. After the oral interview/viva-voce, the Order no. 31 dated 03.03.2022 has been passed, whereby, the respondent no. 6, an Upper Division Assistant [UDA], then working in the office of the respondent no. 5, has been promoted to the post of Supervisory Assistant [SA] vice one Sri Iftikar Azad promoted/upgraded. By the Order no. 31 dated 03.03.2022, a number of other members of the Assam District & Sessions Judge Establishment [Ministerial] Service have also been promoted to different posts. In the Order no. 31 dated 03.03.2022, it has inter alia been observed that the inter-se seniority of the respondent no. 6 as Supervisory Assistant [SA] is to be counted in terms of his merit position in the interview above the petitioner, an Upper Division Assistant [UDA].
3. The Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment [Ministerial] Service Rules, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1987’ or ‘the 1987 Rules’ or ‘the Rules, 1987’, for easy reference], framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, regulate and govern the matters of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Assam District & Sessions Judge Establishment [Ministerial] Service. As per Rule 2[1], ‘Appointing Authority’ means the District & Sessions Judge. Rule 2[3] has provided that ‘District & Sessions Judge Establishment’ means and includes all non-gazetted ministerial staff in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Assistant District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge and Munsiffs of the District. As per Rule 2[5], ‘Member of the Service’ means a member of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment [Ministerial] Service and as per Rule 2[10], ‘Service’ means the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment [Ministerial] Service.
4. The categories of posts in the Assam District & Sessions Judge [Ministerial] Service cadres are found mentioned in Rule 3 of the 1987 Rules. Rule 3 has provided as under :-
[1] The Service shall comprise of the following categories of posts –
[i] Sheristadar of District & Sessions Judge.
[ii] Sheristadar of Additional district & Sessions Judge.
[iii] Sheristadar of Assistant District & Sessions Judge.
[iv] Head Assistant.
[v] Supervisory Assistant / Sheri
The principle of 'seniority-cum-merit' requires that promotions must prioritize seniority among candidates who meet a minimum merit standard, and any deviation from this principle renders the promoti....
The criterion of seniority-cum-merit mandates that promotions be based on seniority, provided the senior candidate meets the minimum requisite standard of suitability. Comparative merit evaluation or....
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
Promotion based on merit must be prioritized over seniority, requiring a comparative assessment of candidates' qualifications and service records.
Promotion from Class-IV to Junior Assistant follows seniority-cum-merit among those qualifying typing test at 30+ wpm; higher speeds do not justify superseding seniors absent rule prescription.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Promotions must be based on seniority subject to fitness, not solely on merit or ACR grading, as per the applicable rules.
The principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' emphasizes merit assessment through a suitability test, allowing seniority to influence final promotions, as upheld by the Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
