Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1657
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
GS 178624N Yashwant Singh Jamwal And Ors – Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India And 4 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 3056 of 2023
Decided on : 27-08-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Chanda, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. U.K. Goswami, CGC
State is constitutionally required to provide promotional avenues to employees to prevent stagnation, as outlined in Article 14 and 16.
Headnote:(A) Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Recruitment and Service Rules - Petitioners challenge 2012 Rules which extinguished their promotional avenue to Charge Mechanic post, contravening prior entitlement under 1982 and 1996 Rules - Court emphasized necessity of promotional avenues in public service. (Paras 5, 11, 15, 17)
(B) Promotion - Normal incident of service - The court clarified that denial of promotional avenues without justification contravenes constitutional mandate and can lead to employee stagnation affecting efficiency. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employed as Turners, had a 10% promotional quota to Charge Mechanic under the 1982 Rules, which was revoked by the 2012 Rules without justification.
Findings of Court:
The respondents must reconsider the petitioners' promotional rights within three months, as previous promotions were unjustly extinguished.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' promotional avenue was unjustly removed and if it violates Articles 14 and 16.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State must provide promotional avenues, reaffirming that the absence of justification for removing these avenues violates constitutional rights.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of; respondents directed to decide on promotions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotional avenues based on service rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arbitrary restrictions on promotion violate service rights. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. requirement for promotional justification in service. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. supreme court precedence on right to promotion. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. need for responsive action on promotional requests. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. directive to address promotional avenues. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.Chanda, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned notification dated 02/10/2012, by which the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Border Roads Development Board, General Reserve Engineering Force (Border Roads Organisation) Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Group ‘B’ post, Recruitment Rules, 2012 (herein after referred to as the 2012 Rules) has been enacted, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The further prayer of the petitioners is to frame Service Rules in consonance with General Reserve Engineering Force (Group – C & D) Recruitment Rules, 1982 (herein after referred to as the 1982 Rules) and the amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 1996 Rules), for providing promotional avenues to the petitioners, including promotion to the posts of Charge Mechanic.
3. The petitioners’ further case is that the 2012 Rules should be set aside, in so far as the promotional avenue of the petitioners, who are employed as Turners, have been extinguished, for being promoted to their earlier promotional post of Charge Mechanic, which has now been re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M).
4. The petitioners’ case is that in terms of the 1982 and 1996 Rules, the Turners employed under the Border Road Organisation (BRO) were having 10% promotional quota to the post of Charge Mechanic. The petitioners, who are Turners, have the educational qualification of 2 years Diploma in Turner trade. The Vehicle Mechanics, who have the educational qualification of 2 years Diploma in Vehicle Mechanic are also in the feeder for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic. However, with the coming into force of the 2012 Rules, the 10% promotional quota for Turners, for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic was done away with. However, the Vehicle Mechanics continued to be in feeder posts for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic even under the 2012 Rules.
5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that promotion being a condition of service, the respondents could not have taken away the promotional avenue of the petitioners, without giving any justifiable reasons for the same. He also submits that though the 1982 Rules was superseded by the 2012 Rules, the 2012 Rules was arbitrary and liable to be struck down, as it was in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
6. Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that there was no infirmity with doing away with the promotional avenue of the petitioners to the post of Charge Mechanic by way of 2012 Rules, in view of the fact that the post of Charge Mechanic (Diploma holders) was re-designated as Junior Engineer (E & M), as the Charge Mechanic (Diploma holders) post was merged with various other posts, such as Superintendent (E&M-I), Superintendent (E&M-II) (Diploma holder) and Charge Electrician (Diploma holder), vide letter No. F. No. BRDB/06/166/2010/GE-I dated 13/05/2010, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Border Road Development Board. Mr. Goswami submits that in view of the incumbents in the post of Charge Mechanic, (diploma holders) being re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M), non-diploma personnel were to keep their status until they were wasted out or till they acquired higher qualification for getting further promotion. Based on the needs and the situation in hand, the 2012 Rules w
