SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
Vijay Bishnoi, C.J., N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Sri Photick Chandra Neog Alias Phatik Neog, S/O- Late Bhula Nath Neog –Petitioner 
Versus
The State of Assam Rep. By The Legal Remembrancer and Secretary To The Govt. of Assam, Judicial Department and Ors. – Respondents
WA/87/2025
Decided On : 25-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms L Rongpipi, Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, Senior Advocate, Mr Jitendra Das, Mr. Sailendra Deka
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM, SC, GHC

Eligibility for recruitment to the Chief Administrative Officer position requires specific experience as per the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987.

Headnote:(A) Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987 - Rule 6(1) - Recruitment for Chief Administrative Officer - The advertisement for recruitment did not mandate a graduate qualification, which was challenged by the appellant who was not eligible as he lacked the requisite experience. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the appellant was not a 'person aggrieved' under the rules. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Eligibility Criteria - The court emphasized that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria as he had not served in the required positions for the stipulated duration. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the advertisement for the Chief Administrative Officer position, arguing the lack of a graduate qualification requirement, while similar posts mandated such qualifications. The appellant was serving as a Sheristader in a different establishment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, and thus was not a 'person aggrieved' to challenge the advertisement.

Issues: The main issues were whether the advertisement's lack of a graduate qualification was valid and if the appellant was eligible to challenge it.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's lack of requisite experience disqualified him from being a 'person aggrieved' and upheld the learned Single Judge's conclusions as not erroneous.

Result: Intra-Court appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and Mr. Hridip Kumar Das, learned standing counsel, Gauhati High Court, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5.

2. The challenge in the present intra-Court appeal is to a judgment & order, dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)363/2024, dismissing the same and thereby, rejecting the challenge to the advertisement, dated 10.01.2024, issued by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, for recruitment against the post of Chief Administrative Officer.

3. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, vide advertisement, dated 10.01.2024, invited applications for filling-up of a vacant post of Chief Administrative Officer available in his establishment. The advertisement mandated the intending candidate to have the experience of serving as a Sheristader of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, or, as a Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge’s establishment, continuously, for a period of at least 5(five) years.

4. The challenge of the appellant, herein, to the advertisement, dated 10.01.2024, was on the ground that the same did not mandate possession by the intending candidate of a graduate qualification for being eligible to apply against the post of Chief Administrative Officer.

5. The appellant, herein, had further projected that similar advertisements issued for recruitment against the post of Sheristader(now rechristened as Chief Administrative Officer) in various District & Sessions Judges’ establishments in the State of Assam, had mandated that the intending candidate must possess a graduate qualification in addition to other requisite criteria mandated for recruitment to the post of Chief Administrative Officer.

6. At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellant, herein, was, at the relevant point of time, serving as a Sheristader in the establishment of the Assistant District & Sessions Judge, equivalent to the establishment of the Civil Judge(Sr. Division).

7. The recruitment to the post of Sheristader(now rechristened as Chief Administrative Officer) in the establishment of a District & Sessions Judge, is governed by the provisions of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987.

8. Rule 6(1) of the said Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, lays down the manner of recruitment to the post of Sheristader in a District & Sessions Judge’s establishment. Rule 6 of the said Rule of 1987, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:

6. Recruitment to the service shall be made by the appointing authority according to the procedure laid down below-

(1) Sheristadar of District & Sessions Judge - By selection from amongst the persons who must have served continuously as Sheristadar of Additional District & Sessions Judge or as Head Assistant.”

9. A perusal of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, would go to reveal that the post of Sheristader(Chief Administrative Officer) is required to be so recruited from amongst the persons who had served continuously as Sheristader in the establishment of Additional District & Sessions Judge, and/or, as a Head Assistant in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge for a period of at least 5(five) years.

10. Admittedly, the appellant, herein, was not holding the post of, either, the Sheristader(Chief Administrative Officer) in the establishment of Additional District & Sessions Judge, and/or, the post of Head Assistant, in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the appellant, herein, cannot be held to be a person fulfilling the eligibility criteria as mandated in the Assam District & Sessions Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top