Gauhati High Court
Kamal Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 28 June, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010015212016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2813/2016
KAMAL BHATTACHARJEE
S/O LT. KRIPAMOY BHATTACHARJEE, SUBHASH NAGAR, NEAR ASEB BYE
LENE, P.O. KARIMGANJ, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788710
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE
DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM
AGRICULTURE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GHY-32
4:THE JT. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
SOUTH ZONE
ASSAM
CACHAR
SILCHAR
5:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KARIMGANJ AGRICULTURE CAMPUS
MAIN ROAD KARIMGANJ
P.O. and DIST- KARIMGANJ-788710
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
6:PANNALAL CHOUDHURY
S/O LT. PRIOMOY CHOUDHURY
DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KARIMGANJ AGRICULTURE CAMPUS
MAIN ROAD KARIMGANJ
P.O. and DIST- KARIMGANJ
PIN-788710
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S DASGUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.I HUSSAIN R-6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 28-06-2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B Malakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SMT
Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 being the authorities
under the Agriculture Department Government of Assam and Mr. SC Biswas,
learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Pannalal Choudhury.
2. Both the petitioner Kamal Bhattacharjee and the respondent No.6 Pannalal
are Grade IV employees in the Office of the District Agriculture Officer
Karimganj. The date of joining of the petitioner as Grade IV is 17.06.1988,
whereas the date of joining of respondent No.6 is 07.08.1998. By the order
impugned dated 04.03.2016, the respondent No.6 Pannalal had been promoted
as a Junior Assistant in a vacant post under the 15% reserved quota for
promotion from Grade III to Grade IV as per the provisions of the Assam
Page No.# 3/5
Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules 1967(for short, the Rules of
1967).
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of seniority the petitioner
had a better claim to have been promoted in comparison with the respondent
No.6. We have perused the Rules of 1967 wherein Rule 6(5)(b) provides that a
Grade IV staff of a district establishment is entitled to be promoted to Grade III
on the basis of the criteria seniority-cum-merit in respect of those candidates
who have passed the HSLC or equivalent examination and have rendered atleast
seven years of continuous service in the establishment on the first date of the
year on which the selection was made.
4. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 have rendered
more than seven years of continuous service as Grade IV and both of them are
stated to be having the qualification of HSLC or its equivalent and as such both
of them are qualified to be eligible for a consideration for promotion to the post
of Junior Assistant.
5. We have perused the minutes of the District Selection Committee dated
19.08.2015, based upon which the respondent No.6 had been promoted. A
reading of the minutes goes to show that the respondent No.6 Pannalal
Choudhury had made a prayer for promotion as per the verdict of this Court to
the cadre of LDA. The petitioner although is otherwise senior to the respondent
No.6 in the cadre of Grade IV was not considered in the said meeting of the
District Selection Committee.
Page No.# 4/5
6. We have perused the order of the High Court which is referred in the
minutes and a perusal thereof reveals that it was a direction given in respect of
another employee, Latif Uddin Ahmed and the direction of the Court was to
examine the case of the petitioner therein in the light of the existing practice
and pass a reasoned order. Even if the said order of the High Court is made
applicable to the respondent No.6 still the direction is to consider the claims as
per the existing Rules. The existing Rules clearly provides for the criteria of
seniority-cum-merit i.e. first a minimum merit of the candidates would be
determined and whoever is above the minimum merit shall be considered on the
basis of seniority. In the present case, the seniority criteria between the
petitioner and the respondent No.6 was not considered, although the petitioner
is senior to respondent No.6. For both the reasons, the reasoning of the District
Selection Committee in recommending the promotion to respondent No.6 would
be unacceptable under the law. Consequently, the order of promotion dated
04.03.2016 would also be unsustainable in law.
7. Accordingly, the promotion of the respondent No.6 Pannalal Choudhury by
the order dated 04.03.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
District Selection Committee of Karimganj district in respect of the Agriculture
Department to give a fresh consideration to the claims for promotion of all such
Grade IV employees in the Department who may be eligible for such
consideration, and, thereafter to give a reasoned recommendation to the most
suitable employee by following the required procedure of law. However, as the
respondent No.6 has been promoted and is continuing as such from almost last
six years, we allow the respondent No.6 to continue in his post till such
Page No.# 5/5
subsequent recommendation is rendered by the District Selection Committee
and consequent thereof any order of promotion be passed.
8. The minutes of the District Selection Committee also reveals that only those
candidates who had made application seeking promotion had been considered,
whereas, under the law, all such candidates who would be eligible and are
within the zone of consideration are to be considered. The District Selection
Committee to take note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter while making the
fresh recommendation.
9. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
