IMPORTANT POINT
The employer has the prerogative to decide the type of employees at a particular level, and an employee's right to be considered for promotion is linked to additional monetary benefits. A career progression scheme can address the loss of promotional avenues by providing equivalent monetary benefits.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The petitioner is a Grade-III employee and is working as a Receptionist in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Secretariat. The grievance in the petition is that a change in the applicable Rules pertaining to promotion from what was provided under the original Rules of 2011 has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner and robbed the petitioner of the monetary benefits that the petitioner would have gained upon the promotion that she could have obtained in terms of the Rules of 2011.

2. It is the petitioner's case that at the time that she joined the service, there were no Rules in place providing for promotion or indicating which of the posts would be filled up by direct recruitment and which others only by promotion or by a combination of promotion and direct recruitment. The petitioner says that upon the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 coming into effect, the cadre of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Assembly Secretariat was to be filled up to the extent of 20 per cent by promotion and the remaining 80 per cent by direct recruitment. As to the provision for promotion, the said Rules of 2011 provided as follows:

'From amongst the Receptionist/Intercom Operators/Typist and other eligible employees of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Secretariat with 3 years experiences (sic) in any of those grades and possessing Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate qualification.'

3. The Rules of 2011 came to be completely replaced by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 published on or about May 4, 2016.

4. Under the 2015 Rules, 20 per cent of the persons inducted as LDA would be by way of promotion from various streams and the remaining 80 per cent would also be by way of promotion but only from among the Typists as per the seniority list.

5. The first grievance of the petitioner is that when Typists were included as a part of the members from various streams at the Grade-III level who would be entitled to be considered for promotion to be appointed as LDA, the 2015 Rules did away with LDA being an entry-level post to the extent of 80 per cent and 80 per cent of LDA posts were kept reserved from promotees from among Typists. The petitioner claims that this change in the Rules was arbitrary as the petitioner as a Receptionist was earlier required to be treated at par with the Typists and Stenographers to be eligible for consideration for promotion to LDA, but Typists were more favoured under the changed Rules of 2015.

6. The bogey raised by the petitioner pertaining to the 2015 Rules need not be addressed at all. It is the admitted position that the Rules of 2020 have now been introduced and, under such Rules, only existing employees would get entry at LDA level by promotion and, if the promotees do not fill up the vacancies, the remaining vacancies would be filled up by departmental competition from among the Grade-III staff, subject to the candidates possessing a degree with computer knowledge and at least three years' experience at the Grade-III level. Such Rules of 2020 have been challenged in the present proceedings as being arbitrary, whimsical and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner since the petitioner was earlier assured of the promotion and monetary benefits, subject to meeting certain criteria.

7. As to the challenge to the 2015 Rules, there does not appear to be any merit therein, particularly since 20 per cent of the posts at the LDA level, even under the 2015 Rules, had been kept for promotees from among the Typists, Receptionists, Computer Operators and other eligible personnel in Grade-III. It is true that 80 per cent of the posts were reserved under the 2015 Rules for promotion from among the Typists, but what is of paramount importance is that the petitioner's right was not prejudiced since the petitioner and others of her ilk were still entitled to