IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Manjusri Nayak W/o Shri Bhabendra Ch. Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 3441 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's appointment and promotion history. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding promotion qualifications. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's analysis on qualification requirements. (Para 17 , 18 , 21) |
| 4. court's ratio on meritorious promotion. (Para 22) |
| 5. final directive for promotion process. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, the Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the Assam State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes Limited as well as Ms. P. Seyie, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.M. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026, this court had allowed the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, to be impleaded as a party since the Additional Senior Government Advocate had clarified that the concerned department for the present matter is the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.
3. Accordingly, on the 20th of February 2026, an amended cause title had been filed, and by the order dated 9/3/2026, this court had required the matter to be listed today, showing the name of Mr. R.M. Das, learned standing counsel for Social Justice and Empowerment Department in the Admission Column as a part heard matter.
4. On the first call in the morning, this court was informed that Mr. R.M. Das is attending a matter in another court and therefore the matter may be taken up after some time. However, on the second call, an associate of Mr. R.M. Das has informed this court that Mr. Das is not present in the court due to some personal inconvenience. The court does not appreciate the manner in which the matter was requested to be passed over at the first instance by stating that the learned counsel appearing for the department was on his legs in another court. Since the matter had been heard in-part on earlier occasions and the affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Managing Director, Assam State Development Corporation, Schedule Caste Limited, is already on record, this court is taking up this matter for disposal.
5. The facts leading to the institution of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioner had been appointed as Junior Assistant cum Typist in the office of the Managing Director, Assam State Development Corporation, for Schedule Caste Limited and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 1636 of 1996, the Managing Director of the Corporation had allowed the petitioner to continue in her service as Junior Assistant as directed by the original order dated 30/12/1995.
6. By an order dated 13th of April 1999, the services of the petitioner have been regularized in the cadre of Junior Assistant cum Typist in the office of the Corporation. When the petitioner was denied her promotions, she had made representations for being considered for the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Due to certain alleged unauthorized leave availed by the petitioner, a certain period of her absence from duty had later been regularized as commuted leave on average pay on medical grounds. Thereafter, by an order dated 16th of January 2021, the petitioner had been transferred from the Mangaldoi branch to the Head Office with immediate effect.
7. By an order dated 4th March 2022, another set of alleged unauthorized absence of the petitioner had been regularized by granting her earned leave. The petitioner was thereafter provided a provisional gradation list, where her name reflected at serial number 2, with a remark that although the promotion of the petitioner was due, but it was held up due to violation of punctuality in office attendance and the matter was placed before the Board of Directors for approval since she was granted earned leave for the period of absence.
8. The case of the petitioner was not taken up in the meeting of the Board of Directors he
Promotion rules of a public service entity do not require graduation for advancement when the governing rules do not explicitly mandate such qualifications, emphasizing merit and seniority.
The court established that the right to promotion is determined by the rules in force at the time of consideration, and the Service Rules of 2020 do not permit promotion from Grade-IV to Junior Assis....
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
Promotions in public service must be based on the qualifications of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence, and not on the timing of appointments or subsequent qualifications of other candidate....
Promotion eligibility governed by current administrative rules; previous qualifications irrelevant after absorption into new regulations.
Failure to pass mandatory departmental examination renders employee ineligible for gazetted promotion despite seniority, adhoc service, or pre-retirement DPC; no right to regular/notional promotion o....
The importance of the position in the Select List for promotion and the prospective application of statutes.
Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within exclusive domain of legislature/executive and cannot be subject matter of judicial review.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.