Gauhati High Court Quashes Stenographer Promotions, Upholds Shetty Commission Norms

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has quashed the promotion of 17 stenographers to Grade-I in Assam's district courts, ruling that the High Court's administrative side cannot repeatedly bypass the binding recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission under the guise of a "one-time measure," especially when eligible candidates from the designated feeder cadre are available.

In a significant judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah , the court affirmed that in the absence of statutory service rules, the Shetty Commission's recommendations, as upheld by the Supreme Court, must be followed. The ruling came in response to a batch of three writ petitions challenging a notification dated April 22, 2025, which selected both Grade-II and Grade-III stenographers for promotion to Grade-I.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case arose from a centralized recruitment process initiated by the Gauhati High Court on December 9, 2024, to fill 17 vacancies for Stenographer Grade-I. The notification controversially allowed both Stenographer Grade-II and Grade-III employees with five years of service to compete, a departure from the Shetty Commission's structure.

The petitioners were primarily Stenographers Grade-II who argued that the promotion process was illegal as it diluted their chances and violated established norms. They contended that according to the Shetty Commission's mandate, the post of Stenographer Grade-I is a promotional post exclusively for Stenographer Grade-II.

Other petitions were filed by Grade-III stenographers on separate grounds, including one claiming some selected candidates were ineligible and another seeking promotion based on seniority.

---

Key Arguments

Petitioners' Stance (Stenographer Grade-II): - The primary argument, led by Advocate P.K. Roychoudhury, was that the Shetty Commission's recommendations are binding on the High Court's administrative side following Supreme Court directives. - They contended that the feeder post for Stenographer Grade-I is exclusively Stenographer Grade-II. Allowing Grade-III stenographers to compete was a "complete negation" of these recommendations. - They pointed out that the High Court's repeated use of a "one-time measure" since 2013 to relax this rule has become a perpetual practice, even when 32 Grade-II stenographers were available to compete for the 17 posts.

Respondents' Stance (Gauhati High Court): - Represented by Standing Counsel H.K. Das, the High Court administration defended its decision by citing a 2018 resolution that permitted the relaxation as a "one-time measure" to fill a large number of vacancies and prevent delays in the administration of justice. - They argued that historical data showed an insufficiency of Grade-II candidates clearing the merit-based speed test, leading to many posts remaining vacant. - It was also argued that since the petitioners participated in the selection process, they were estopped from challenging it.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Baruah first dismissed the preliminary objection of estoppel, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Others (2019) , which held that a candidate does not waive their right to challenge an illegality in a recruitment process merely by participating in it.

The court then delved into the core issue: the sanctity of the Shetty Commission's recommendations. The judgment highlighted that: - The Supreme Court, in the All India Judges Association cases, had directed High Courts to ensure the implementation of the Shetty Commission's report. - The report explicitly lays down a three-tier structure for stenographers, where Grade-I is filled by promotion from Grade-II.

The court observed that while the High Court's administrative committee had adopted resolutions in the past to relax these norms as a "one-time measure" due to a lack of eligible candidates, its continued application was flawed.

The Court noted, "It appears that the Hon’ble Committee routinely applied the Resolution adopted earlier which was specifically mentioned to be a one time measure. It may not be out of place to observe that one time measure refers to an action or policy that is to be implemented or applied once. Bypassing the Shetty Commission’s recommendation each time, in the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be said to be a one time measure. It takes the flavour of a recurring measure."

Crucially, the court found that for the current selection process, there was no dearth of eligible Grade-II candidates. The merit list itself showed 17 Grade-II stenographers had secured marks well above the qualifying score of 30, making the inclusion of Grade-III candidates unjustifiable.

---

Final Verdict and Directions

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Grade-II stenographers and issued the following directives:

1. Quashed the Impugned Notification: The selection notification dated April 22, 2025, and any appointment orders issued thereunder were set aside.
2. Prepare a Fresh Select List: The High Court administration was directed to prepare a new select list for the 17 posts strictly on the basis of merit from among the Stenographer Grade-II candidates who appeared in the speed test.
3. No Right for Grade-III: The court held that the Stenographer Grade-III petitioners had no right to be considered for promotion to Grade-I in this process, given the availability of eligible Grade-II candidates.

This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative exigencies cannot be used to repeatedly bypass binding judicial directives and established service norms, ensuring that promotional avenues remain fair and structured.