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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 298

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Borthakur
For the Respondents: R. Dhar, P. Seyie, R.M. Das

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.

Headnote:(A) Promotion rules of Assam State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes Limited - Service Rules of 2005 - Graduates required for direct recruitment to certain posts - Court held no requirement of graduation for promotion from Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant as per rules - Petitioner, not graduated, was nonetheless eligible based on seniority and merit. (Paras 17, 21, 22)

(B) Judicial review - Role of courts in ensuring adherence to statutory rules and guidelines in public service promotions - Court directed timely promotion process pursuant to previous recommendations of Board of Directors, emphasizing compliance with rules. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as Junior Assistant cum Typist, was denied promotion to Senior Assistant due to alleged non-graduation despite being second in the gradation list and compliant with other merit criteria.

Findings of Court:
The lack of a graduation requirement for promotion to Senior Assistant was affirmed, with court directing that the petitioner’s case be processed without the graduation qualification criteria.

Issues: The main issues were whether the requirement of graduation applied to promotions and whether the petitioner’s eligibility based on merit deserved acknowledgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that statutory rules of the corporation did not explicitly require graduation for promotion to Senior Assistant, thereby ruling that the promotion should proceed without considering this qualification.

Result: The promotion of the petitioner was directed to be processed and finalized.

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

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