Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Biswajit Das Son Of Late Dhiraj Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ.)
We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. D.J. Das, learned Advocates for the petitioners; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State; Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. J.M. Konwar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 92 and Mr. P. Doley, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.94 to 98.
2. The petitioners, directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Civil), have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 22 (3) of the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 (in short, “Rules of 1978”) and the consequential action by the State in assigning seniority to respondent Nos.3 to 98, who are promotees to the same cadre.
3. The controversy arose because the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers on 21.09.2022, whereas the promotees were appointed on 06.01.2023. However, the promotees have been placed senior to the direct recruits on the ground that they were promoted against vacancies of the calendar year-2022 and under Rule 22 (3), a promotee appointed against a vacancy occurring in a year shall rank senior to a dir
Rule 22(3) of the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 prioritizes promotees over direct recruits for seniority based on vacancy year, complying with Articles 14 and 16 of ....
Seniority – Date of entry in a particular service or date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or other or between one group of officer....
Seniority among direct recruits is determined by the date of continuous regular appointment, with delays due to medical issues not affecting this determination.
Court emphasized that administrative decisions regarding promotion and seniority must adhere to established rules and principles, ensuring equitable treatment for all eligible individuals.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
