Post Not in Service Rules Cannot be a 'Feeder Post' for Promotion, Regardless of Pay Scale Equivalence: Gauhati High Court - 2025-10-11

Unlisted 'Accountant' Post Not a Feeder Cadre for Promotion, Gauhati High Court Clarifies

Guwahati, Assam - In a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, the Gauhati High Court, presided over by Justice Devashis Baruah, has held that a post not explicitly included in the service rules cannot be treated as a feeder post for promotion, even if it carries an equivalent pay scale to an eligible post. The Court emphasized that for a post to be considered part of the promotional channel, it must be formally encadred through an amendment to the governing service rules.

The judgment was delivered while disposing of two linked writ petitions concerning promotions to the post of Head Assistant in the judicial establishments of Udalguri district.

Case Background

The central legal question before the Court was whether the post of 'Accountant', created in 2007 for the newly formed judicial districts of Udalguri, Chirang, and Baksa, could be considered a feeder post for promotion to 'Head Assistant'. This issue arose because the 'Accountant' post was not listed in the cadre defined by the Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 , or the Assam Chief Judicial Magistrate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 .

The matter came to light through two contrasting petitions:

• WP(C) No.7112/2023 (Jayanta Borah v. State of Assam): The petitioner, an Accountant in the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) establishment, challenged the promotion of a junior Upper Division Assistant (UDA) to Head Assistant, arguing his post should be treated as equivalent to UDA, making him eligible.

• WP(C) No.662/2025 (Uddipak Kumar Gogoi v. State of Assam): This petitioner challenged the selection of an Accountant for the post of Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge establishment, contending that the selected candidate was ineligible under the rules.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioners' Stance: The petitioners holding the Accountant post argued for equivalence. They pointed out that the post was created by the government, filled by promoting senior Lower Division Assistants, and carried the same pay scale as UDAs. The State of Assam, in an affidavit, also clarified that the post of Accountant "can be treated as equivalent to UDA."

• Respondents' Stance: The official respondents and the successful candidates argued that service rules are sacrosanct. They maintained that since the post of Accountant is not mentioned in Rule 3(1) of either service rules, it does not form part of the official service cadre. Therefore, an Accountant cannot be eligible for promotion under rules that exclusively list posts like UDA and Supervisory Assistant as feeder cadres.

Court's Legal Analysis and Findings

Justice Devashis Baruah undertook a meticulous analysis of the relevant service rules, noting that they explicitly define the posts comprising the service.

"From a perusal of the above quoted Rules, it would be seen that... The post of the Accountant however does not find place in the Rule 3(1)," the judgment noted. "The natural corollary therefore would be that the post of the Accountant cannot be regulated in terms with both the District and Sessions Judges Rules as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrates Rules."

The Court made a crucial observation that the concept of "equivalence of posts is foreign to both the... Rules." It ruled that administrative actions or similarities in pay scale cannot override the explicit text of statutory rules.

"The equivalence in the scale of pay amongst the Accountant, Upper Division Assistant, Nazir, Record Keeper would not render the post of Accountant a feeder post to the post of Head Assistant, unless the applicable Rules permit so," the Court held unequivocally.

Final Verdict and Directions

Based on its reasoning, the Court delivered a split verdict on the two petitions:

• WP(C) No.7112/2023 Dismissed: The Court found no illegality in rejecting the Accountant's (Jayanta Borah) candidature for Head Assistant in the CJM establishment, as he was not eligible under the rules. The promotion of the UDA was upheld.

• WP(C) No.662/2025 Disposed Of: The Court interfered with and set aside the selection of the Accountant (Respondent No. 7) to the post of Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge establishment, deeming it contrary to the rules. However, it also found the petitioner (Uddipak Kumar Gogoi) ineligible to apply, as he did not belong to the Udalguri establishment as required, and thus denied his claim for appointment.

Recognizing the administrative anomaly that has persisted since 2007, the Court issued a significant directive to the State of Assam. It instructed the government, in consultation with the Gauhati High Court, to take necessary steps to amend the service rules and formally encadre the post of Accountant, potentially with retrospective effect, to provide clarity on the career progression of individuals holding these posts.