Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Miss Mobi Riba, Daughter of Chimo Riba – Petitioner
Versus
The Gauhati High Court through the Registrar General and Ors. and ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/604 of 2024
Decided On : 14-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Panging, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Pertin, Sr. Advocate Mr. G. Baishya, SC
The court affirmed that eligible candidates, including Court Officers, must be considered for promotion per the rules, and non-consideration infringes constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16.
Headnote:(A) Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 - Rule 7(4)(A) - Promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar - Petitioner, a Court Officer, has a limited right to be considered for promotion - Court reiterated the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to erroneous rejection of petitioner's representation - Interim orders were passed to prevent the declaration of selection results pending the case's outcome. (Paras 4, 5, 8)
(B) Promotion Rights - The Court clarified that non-consideration of eligible candidates for promotion contravenes constitutional rights and mandates fair evaluation for available posts in accordance with established rules. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Court Officer, sought promotion to Assistant Registrar after being excluded from the interview process leading to this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the rejection of the petitioner's representation erroneous, thus allowing the writ petition and interfering with the ongoing selection process for the Assistant Registrar post.
Issues: The primary issue concerned the petitioner's entitlement to promotion under the Rules of 1967 and the constitutional implications of non-consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner has a right to be considered for promotion and non-consideration violates constitutional equality principles and relevant statutory provisions.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court hears arguments from both sides. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's right to promotion based on specific rules. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's interpretation of promotion rights under the rules. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. petitioner's representation and interim orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. court's opinion on merits of petitioner's case. (Para 7) |
| 6. final decision favoring the petitioner with directions. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. D. Panging, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Pertin, the learned Senior counsel as well as the Standing counsel of the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench. I have also heard Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Seat.
2. The issue involved in the instant writ petition pertains to whether the Petitioner herein has a right to be considered for promotion to the Post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in view of Rule 7(4)(A) of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (for short ‘the Rules of 1967’).
3. The issue involved in the instant proceedings have been dealt with by this Court in another writ petition in the case of Jahirul Islam Vs. The State of Assam and 2 Ors. in WP(C) No.2755/2024 whereby this Court vide the judgment and order dated 31.07.2025 categorically held that the Post of Court Officer which belongs to Class-II(C) of the Schedule-I to the Rules of 1967 has a limited right for being considered for promotion to the Post of Assistant Registrar. This Court further held that the Petitioner therein who was the Court Officer along with the A.O.(J).(s) and other Officers who have been appointed to the posts coming within the ambit of Class-II(C) of Schedule-I of the Rules of 1967 have a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, (Ministerial Stream). The reference to promotion to Assistant Registrar (Ministerial Stream) was on account of the fact that in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court, the posts of Assistant Registrar to be filled up from Gazetted Officers of the Gauhati High Court Services are divided amongst the feeder category of Class-II (B) and Class-II(C). Those promoted from Class- II(B) to the post of Assistant Registrar are mentioned as Assistant Registrar (Stenographer Stream) and those from Class-II(C) are promoted to Assistant Registrar (Ministerial Stream). Be that as it may, Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967 only refers to the post of Assistant Registrar.
4. The provisions of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 are pari materia to Rule 7(4)(A) of the Rules of 1967 and as such, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner herein who is a Court Officer has a limited right to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar.
5. The facts in the present case would show that the Petitioner who was appointed as Court Officer at the Itanagar Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court on coming to learn that steps were being taken on the basis of a communication dated 25.06.2024 for filling up the vacant post of Assistant Registrar had submitted a representation for the purpose of consideration of the case of the Petitioner. However, the said representation was rejected as informed to the Petitioner vide the communication dated 29.11.2024 by the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench. It is further seen that thereupon the interview process was initiated vide a notice dated 16.12.2024 wherein the Petitioner was not invited which resulted in filing of the present writ petition.
6. This Court further takes note of that on 20.12.2024 when the instant writ petition was moved, this Court directed that the results of the interview conducted for the post of Assistant Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench shall not be declared. The resultant effect of the said interim order is that till date, the selection proceedings have not culminated.
7. This cour
