IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Tomin Ete – Appellant
Versus
State Of Ap – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
All these four writ petitions and interlocutory applications being connected, the same have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Before going into the issues which have arisen for consideration, it would be necessary to briefly state the basic facts of the cases. Suffice it to mention that the dispute is with regard to the seniority and consequential benefits between the promotees and the direct recruits in the Department of Hydro Power Development. Though the facts are common and overlapping, for the sake of convenience, the facts of each of the writ petitions, along with the submissions made are stated separately.
3. I have heard Shri K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms N. Danggen, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners in I.A.(C) No.217(AP)/2025;I.A.(C) No.218(AP)/2025 WP(C) No.14(AP)/2022 and WP(C) No.295(AP)/2024; Shri D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.284(AP)/2025; and Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicant in WP(C) No. 459(AP)/2022 and IA(C) No.207(AP)/2025. Also heard Shri R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the S
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
State of West Bengaal and Others Vs. Aghore Nath Dey
N. K. Chouhan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Radha Mohan Malakar and Others Vs. Usha RanjanBhattacharjee and Others
Union of India and Others Vs. N. R. Banerjee and Others
R. R. Verma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court emphasized that administrative decisions regarding promotion and seniority must adhere to established rules and principles, ensuring equitable treatment for all eligible individuals.
Promotion and seniority can only be awarded retrospectively when vacancies exist at the time of officiating promotions, and the Department must reevaluate claims based on factual evidence.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
Promotion rights are not absolute; retrospective promotions require clear vacancies and adherence to procedural rules, which were not met in this case.
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Promotion processes must adhere to established guidelines, ensuring fair consideration for all eligible candidates. Clubbing of vacancies across years violates process integrity, and resultant promot....
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.