The court upheld the promotion of a Translator to Junior Information Officer, affirming the inclusion of the post as a feeder post under the Assam Information and Public Relations Service Rules, 1986, based on past practice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1-5; Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.6; Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.7; Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 as well as Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.9, 10 & 11.

2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the alleged arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent authorities in not promoting the petitioners to the post of Junior Information Officer (Class-III) in the Directorate of Information and Public Relations and Printing and Press Department and instead promoting the respondent No.7.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are working as Librarians in the Directorate of Information and Public Relations and Printing and Press Department, Government of Assam in the State of Assam. Pursuant to an Advertisement dated 30.10.2018, the petitioners applied for the said post of Librarian and upon being selected on merit basis, their names were in the select list dated 05.03.2019 and thereafter they were appointed and accordingly, joined in service from 08.03.2019 and since then are serving in the said post.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that despite the petitioners being available in the feeder post for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, the respondent authorities in blatant violation of the Assam Information and Public Relations Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1986 Rules’) promoted the private respondent No.7, who is a Translator to the said post of Junior Information Officer. Assailing the aforesaid promotion of the respondent No.7, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rule 11(2) (v) of the 1986 Rules specifically provides that for promotion from one cadre to another cadre of service, more specifically, to be promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer (Class-III), it shall be filled up from the post of Journalist, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Reader and Librarian, which are the feeder cadre posts. He further submits that though the post of Translator is not one of the feeder cadre post under the subject Rules, the respondent No.7, who is a Translator, has been promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer. He accordingly submits that the impugned said promotion is in total violation of the statutory subject Rules.

6. He further submits that the petitioners possessing the necessary requisite qualifications and experience for getting promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer and having continuously serving without any break for more than 5 years and their initial appointments having been made on the same date with that of the respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, i.e., 08.03.2019, except for respondent No.11, who has been appointed later on 11.03.2019 and having successfully undergone such departmental training and passed such departmental examination, the respondent authorities ought have promoted the petitioners to the post of Junior Information Officer. He further submits that the act of the respondent authorities to promote the respondent No.7, who was holding the post of Translator, when there was no provision in the subject Rules for promotion from the post of Translator to the post of Junior Information Officer, such promotion of the respondent No.7 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and de-hors the Rules.

7. He further submits that appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules and the Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed unless the Recruitment Rules provided relaxation.

8. In support of the aforesaid submission he relies upon the following decisions