Gauhati High Court
WA/414/2024 on 7 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010256292024
2025:GAU-AS:10390-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA No. 414/2024
Neelam Saikia
D/O- Pitambar Saikia,
Near LGB College, Mission Chariali,
Patiachuburi, Tezpur-784001.
....Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Information and Public Relations,
P & S Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Under Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Information and Public Relations,
P& S Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Information and
Public Relations, P & S Department (DIPR), Government of
Assam, Last Gate, Guwahati-6.
4. Registrar,
Directorate of Information &
Public Relations and P & S Department (DIPR), Government
of Assam, Last Gate, Guwahati-6.
Page No.# 2/11
5. Principal Secretary to the
Government of Assam,
Personnel Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
6. The Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission,
Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara- 781022
7. Mouchumi Bhattacharyya Baruah,
Press Research Officer (PRO), Directorate of Information &
Public Relations and P & S Department, (DIPR),
Government of Assam, Last gate, Guwahati-6
8. Himangshu Lahkar, Translator,
Directorate of Information & Public Relations and P & S
Department, (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last gate,
Guwahati-6
9. Mr. Manoj Kalita, Translator,
Directorate of Information & Public Relations and P & S
Department, (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last gate,
Guwahati-6
10.Ms. Rubina Islam, Translator,
Directorate of Information & Public Relations and P & S
Department, (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last gate,
Guwahati-6.
11.Rituparna Kakati,
Son of Late Birendra Nath Kakati,
S.S. Road, Town Abhaypuri, PS/PO-Abhaypuri, District-
Bongaigaon - 783384.
....Respondents
Page No.# 3/11
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the appellant : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A. Phukan, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam
For respondent Nos.1 to 5
Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate
Assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, S.C., APSC
For respondent No.6
Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Assisted by Mr. A. Das & Mr. R. Das,
Advocates for respondent No.7,
Mr. M.K. Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent No.8
Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate for
Respondent No.9, 10 & 11
Date of hearing & judgment : 07.08.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
We have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. A. Phukan, learned Advocate for the appellant; and Mr. K.N. Choudhury,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Das, Advocate; Mr. T.J. Mahanta,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned Advocate for the
Page No.# 4/11
respondents.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 21.11.2024,
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 4538/2023, whereby
the appellant's contention that the respondent No. 7 was wrongly promoted to
the post of Junior Information Officer and that the appellant should, instead,
have been promoted, has been rejected and the decision of promoting the
respondent No.7 to the post of Junior Information Officer has been upheld.
3. The appellant is a Librarian in the Directorate of Information and Public
Relations and Printing and Press Department, Government of Assam, on which
post she was appointed on 08.03.2019, and since then she is continuing on that
post.
4. According to Assam Information and Public Relations Service Rules, 1986,
(hereinafter referred as "1986 Rules") for promotion to the post of Junior
Information Officer, the feeder posts are Journalist, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof
Reader and Librarian. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent
No.7, who is a Translator, has been promoted to the post of Junior Information
Officer, which de hors the rules and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. The contention of the appellant is that she possesses necessary
qualification and experience for being promoted to the post of Junior
Information Officer, having continuously served without any break, for more
than five years. She has undergone the departmental training and also has
passed the departmental examination. She ought not to have been excluded
from being promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer. The respondent
No. 7, a Translator, is not in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior
Information Officer.
Page No.# 5/11
6. The State respondents, on the other hand, have contended that the
gradation list of Translators, Journalists, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers,
Librarians and Proof Readers of the Directorate of Information and Public
Relations, Assam, has been prepared on the basis of seniority and merit and
such preparation of gradation list is in practice for decades. The posts referred
to above have the same pay structure and, in fact, notwithstanding the
nomenclature of such posts, the nature of work is also the same. The
Translators are appointed along with Journalists, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers
etc. through same selection process which, in the present case, was pursuant to
the Advertisement dated 30.10.2018 and the recruitment process having been
completed in 2019. The pay scale of all the posts is also same. Thus, the post of
Translator being equivalent to the posts of Librarian etc., which constitute the
feeder cadre under the Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Information
Officer, there is no illegality in the respondent No.7, a Translator, having been
promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer.
7. On behalf of the respondent No.7, it has been urged that Rule 3(1) of the
1986 Rules, referred to above, specifies the class, cadres and status of various
officers on different posts.
Class III posts comprise the cadre of Junior Information Officer, which also
includes Assistant Editor of Publications, Assistant Publicity Officer, Press
Research Officer, Manager of Publications, Script Writer, Publication Assistant,
Sub-Divisional Information and Public Relations Officer.
This class may also include, according to rule 3(2) of the 1986 Rules, (a)
any post equivalent to a post in any one of the cadres mentioned in rule 3(1),
and (b) any cadre or post laid down by the Government to be included in a
cadre of service.
Page No.# 6/11
8. The relevant Rule regarding promotion is Rule 11 which provides that for
promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, the feeder post would be of
Journalists, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers and Librarians. The post of
Translator, however is conspicuously not listed in that provision.
9. It is the case of the respondents in general that a composite reading of
Rule 11(2)(v) with Rule 3(2)(a)(b) would demonstrate that by way of executive
instructions a decision could be taken to encadre any post as a feeder post for
promotion to any of the cadres mentioned in Sub-Rule 1 and Sub-Rule 2(b). It
has therefore been contended that the case of the respondent No.7, a
Translator, is covered under rule 3(2)(a) and (b) of 1986 Rules.
10. It has been reiterated by all the respondents that since the Librarians and
Translators have been recruited against the same advertisement and the same
selection process, they would be deemed to be in the same cadre and, thus,
notwithstanding Rule 11(2)(v) listing only the posts of Journalist, Sub-Editor-
cum-Proof Reader and Librarian as the feeder posts for promotion to the post of
Junior Information Officer, the Translators also would fall in the feeder post
category for such promotion.
11. It appears that respondent No.7, in the merit list for promotion, was
placed at Sl. No.2, whereas the appellant was placed at Sl. No.11. The
respondent No.7 therefore was selected for promotion to the higher post of
Junior Information Officer.
12. The other contention of the respondents is that the promotion to the
respondent No.7 was given on 12.04.2022 but the challenge was put up only on
05.08.2023, i.e. after approximately one year and four months.
13. It would be apposite to cull out the relevant part of the Rules of 1986 for
Page No.# 7/11
the sake of ready reference and completeness:
"Rule 3. Class, cadres, status.
(1) The service shall consist of the following classes and cadres.
(a) Class I. (Senior Grade). It shall consist of the cadre of -
(i) Director of Information and Public Relations/Chief
Information Officer.
(ii) Additional Director of Information and Public
Relations.
(b) Class I. It shall consist of the cadres of -
(i) Joint Director of Information and Public Relations.
(ii) Deputy Director, which shall include Deputy Director
of Information and Public Relations and Research
Officer.
(c) Class II. It shall consist of the cadres of Senior Information
Officer, which shall include Editor, District Information and
Public Relations Officer, Liaison Officer and Office-in-Charge,
Information Centre, Guwahati.
(d) Class III. It shall consist of the cadre of Junior Information
Officer, which shall include Assistant Editor of publications,
Assistant Publicity Officer, Press Research Officer, Manager of
Publications, Script Writer, Publication Assistant, Sub-
Divisional Information and Public Relations Officer.
(2) The service may also include -
(a) Any post equivalent to a post in any of the cadres mentioned
in sub-R.(1); and
(b) Any cadre or post laid down by Government to be included in
a cadre of the service.
11. Promotion.
(1) Vacancies in the cadres of Additional Director, Joint Director,
Deputy Director in Class I and Information Officer in Class II of
the service, to the extent as specified in sub-R. (1) and (2) (a) of
R. 5 shall be filled by promotion in the manner prescribed
herein below.
(2) Subject to suitability as may be decided by the Commission,
as set forth in R. 12 and also subject to possessing
qualification and experience as prescribed hereinafter, an
Page No.# 8/11
officer shall be eligible for promotion from one cadre to another
of the service in the manner provided below:
(i) From Joint Director to Additional Director;
(ii) From Deputy Director/Research Officer to Joint Director;
(iii) From Senior Information Officer to Deputy Director/Research
Officer;
(iv) From Joint Information Officer and Sub-Divisional Information
and Public Relations Officer to Senior Information Officer;
(v) From Journalist, Sub-Editor-Cum-Proof Reader and Librarian
to Junior Information Officer.
(3) Subject to suitability, an officer shall be eligible for promotion if he
possesses the qualifications and experience as set forth below:
(a) He has rendered continuous service on the first January of the
year of promotion, for a period of-
(i) 3 years in the cadre of Joint Director for promotion to the
cadre of Additional Director;
(ii) 3 years in the cadre of the Deputy Director for promotion
to the cadre of Joint Director;
(iii) 5 years in the cadre of Senior Information Officer for
promotion to the cadre of Deputy Director;
(iv) 5 years in the cadre of Junior Information Officer/Sub-
Divisional Information and public Relations Officer for
promotion to the cadre of Senior Information Officer.
(c) He has successfully undergone such training and passed
such departmental examination as may be prescribed by
Government for the purpose."
14. A plain reading of the above Rules demonstrate that in addition to the
listed feeder posts encadered under the 1986 Rules, any cadre or post may be
included by the State Government, thereby not making it necessary to restrict
the promotion from one cadre to another from only the listed feeder posts.
15. It appears from the records that vide a letter dated 16.08.1994, issued by
the Director of Information and Public Relations, Assam, addressed to the
Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (B) Department, it was
communicated that the post of Translator of the Directorate was created and
retained by the Government and therefore the post may be encadered. The
Page No.# 9/11
letter also reveals that the posts of Translators, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers
and Librarians are grouped into Information Assistants, which are substantive
posts. Notwithstanding the Service Rule, the letter further declares, there is a
provision for their promotion to the Junior Information Officer group from the
Information Assistant group.
16. By another letter dated 21.09.1994, again issued by the Director of
Information and Public Relations, Assam, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to
the Government of Assam, Home (B) Department, it was informed that a
proposal had been suggested to the Government to empower the Departmental
Selection Committee to select the Translators and that the posts of Journalist,
Sub-Editor and Librarian and Translator are equivalent posts and their
appointments would be guided by the same Rules.
17. It further appears that in the advertisement, against which the
appointment of the appellant and the respondent No. 7 was made, their posts
were in the same cadre (and they were subjected to the same/common
examination). The posts, it is reiterated, carry the same scale of pay.
18. A proposal also appears to have been mooted for the purpose of the
recommendations of the 7th Pay and Productivity Pay Commission, in which the
posts of Translator and Librarian and others have been clubbed together with a
note that the nature of job in the feeder cadre is almost the same with that of
the next in the hierarchy.
19. Considering this aspect of the matter and reading the Rules in a composite
manner, the learned Single Judge held that even though the post of Translator
was missing in the list of feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior
Information Officer, which list does not appear to be exhaustive but only
Page No.# 10/11
illustrative, the cadre of Translator would fall in that category and therefore
there is no illegality in the respondent No. 7, a Translator, having been
considered for the promotional post.
20. To further strengthen the reason on which the writ petition of the
appellant was dismissed, the learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment
of the Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors,
1992 (1) SCC (Supp) 584, wherein it was held that the practice followed in the
department for a long time must be counted for. Thus, it was concluded by the
learned Single Judge that the Rules of 1986 provide the power to the State to
include any post or cadre in the category of feeder posts and, even otherwise,
all class of services, according to the Rules, may also include any post
equivalent to a post in any of the cadres mentioned in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3.
21. Challenging the afore-noted judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr.
M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that
past practice ought not to be treated as precedent. Any erroneous promotion
having been given in the past, which is contrary to the Service Rules, should not
be treated as precedent and that statutory rules cannot be overridden by
executive orders or executive instructions. Merely because the government had
contemplated to amend the Rules does not mean that the Rules stood amended
or overridden. Till the rule is amended, the extant rules apply. Once the rule
specifies the posts in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior
Information Officer, no inferential logic should be adopted for justifying a
promotion to the post for which the post of Translator is not the feeder cadre.
(Refer to K. Kuppusamy and Anr. vs. State of T.N. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 469; D.
Stephen Joseph vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 753).
Page No.# 11/11
22. The upshot of the above discussion is that for all practical purposes, the
post of Translator stands bracketed with the post of Librarian and other posts
listed in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer.
23. The Translators and Librarians are all appointed under the same selection
process and they carry the same pay scale and more or less similar work
responsibilities. Apart from this, the 1986 Rules, though couched in vague
terms, clearly provides that any post equivalent to a post in any of the cadres
could be included in any of the class of the posts. This, read with the
contemplated encadrement of the posts of Translator, suggests unequivocally
that Translators also form a part of the feeder group for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer.
24. For the afore-noted reasons, we do not find any illegality in the
respondent No. 7 having been promoted to the post of Junior Information
Officer to the exclusion of the appellant.
25. The appeal is thus dismissed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
