The criterion of seniority-cum-merit mandates that promotions be based on seniority, provided the senior candidate meets the minimum requisite standard of suitability. Comparative merit evaluation or ranking of candidates is impermissibly characteristic of merit-cum-seniority and violates the seniority-cum-merit principle.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court assisted by Ms. D. Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. J. Singh, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 02.07.2025 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, whereby the respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant (SAA). It is the specific case of the petitioner that the criterion for promotion from the post of Junior Administrative Assistant to Senior Administrative Assistant is seniority-cum-merit and that the impugned order which has been passed is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the said criterion.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Typist against the sanctioned post in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon vide an appointment order dated 28.08.2017. Pursuant thereto, on 14.10.2020, a Notification was issued by the Registrar (Admin)-cum-In-charge, Centralized Recruitment that all LDAs, Copyists, Typists and Computer Typists possessing the minimum educational qualification shall be treated equally for the purpose of promotion to the post of UDA (now SAA) and a combined gradation list would be prepared. Subsequent thereto, on 16.09.2024, a Notification was further published whereby the nomenclature of 12 (twelve) posts in the District Judiciary were re-designated. It is pertinent herein to take note of that from a perusal of the Notification dated 16.09.2024 at serial No. 8, it would be seen that the UDA (Upper Division Assistant) was re-designated as Senior Administrative Assistant (SAA) and at serial No. 9, Lower Division Assistant / Typist / Copyist / Computer Typist were re-designated as Junior Administrative Assistant (JAA). In pursuance to the said Notification dated 16.09.2024, a gradation list was prepared whereby the petitioner was shown at serial No. 25 whereas the respondent No. 6 was shown at serial No. 27. It is further pertinent to take note of that the petitioner was appointed on 24.08.2017 whereas the respondent No. 6 was appointed on 25.10.2017. Subsequent thereto, a selection proceedings was initiated for filling up the post of Senior Administrative Assistant (SAA). Pursuant to a resolution adopted on 24.06.2025, the respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant vide an order dated 02.07.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.

4. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 14.08.2025 after perusing the materials on record, more particularly the resolution dated 24.06.2025 stayed the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 and the said interim order which was passed have been extended till the disposal of the writ petition vide an order dated 25.09.2025. The records further reveal that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 4 as well as by the respondent No. 6. Replies thereagainst have been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

5. From a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, the decision to promot