Page No.# 1/15 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 6358 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/15 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 27 August, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                             Page No.# 1/15

GAHC010101082023




                                                        2025:GAU-
AS:11420-DB

                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/3056/2023

          GS 178624N YASHWANT SINGH JAMWAL AND 44 ORS
          WORKING AS TURNER,
          SON OF SHRI KHAZANA SINGH,
          EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP,
          C/O 99 APO

          2: GS 190219H MANOJ DEKA
          WORKING AS TURNER

          SON OF SHRI GAJEN DEKA

          1060 FIELD WORKSHOP
           C/O 99 APO

          3: GS 184694H MANOJ KUMAR MEHTA
          WORKING AS TURNER

          SON OF SHRI JAINENDRA KUMAR MEHTA

          1164 (I) WORKSHOP PLATOON

          C/O 56 APO

          4: GS 184926W VICHHATTER SINGH
          WORKING AS TURNER

          SON OF SHRI DHARAMPAL SINGH

          1086 FIELD WORKSHOP
           C/O 99 APO

          5: GS 179682K DILIP KUMAR
          WORKING AS TURNER
                                           Page No.# 2/15


AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

SON OF SHRI NAND LAL PRASAD

EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP

C/O 99 APO

6: GS 184578A KHADE DASHARATH VALU
WORKING AS TURNER

SON OF SHRI KHADE VALU KHANDU

EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP

C/O 99 APO

7: GS 190201M GARE SANDEEP NATU
WORKING AS TURNER

SON OF GARE NATU RAMCHANDRA

EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP
C/O 99 APO

8: GS 180941N SHINDE PRASHANT PANDURANG
WORKING AS TURNER

SON OF SRI PANDURANG LAXMAN SHINDE

EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP
C/O 99 APO

9: GS 184786P SURESH KUMAR
WORKING AS TURNER

SON OF SHRI YOGENDRA MAHTO
1061 FIELD WORKSHOP
C/O 99 APO

10: GS 190696K MANOJ KUMAR KANNOUJIA
WORKING AS TURNER

1061 FIELD WORKSHOP
C/O 99 APO

11: GS 182461H KAULKAR JAYANT PANDURANG
                                                   Page No.# 3/15

SON OF SHRI PANDURANG KAULKAR

WORKING AS TURNER
1061 FD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

12: GS 179747M GENJI RAMANA
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI APPALA NAIDU

1054 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

13: GS 182459L SURENDRA KUMAR
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI MANGE RAM

1084 WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

14: GS 186206N PANKAJ KUMAR PAPU
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI UMESH PRASAD SINGH

1080 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

15: GS 186247X SUBODH KUMAR
WORKING AS TURNER
HQ 1052 FD WKSP (GREF)
C/O 56 APO

16: GS 190300P DHARMENDRA KUMAR
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI RAM JAG

1066 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

17: GS 190301X MANISH KUMAR TIWARI
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR TIWARI

1078 LD WORKSHOP
 C/0 56 APO

18: GS 190077W MAHAMULKAR CHANDRAKANTA HARIBABU
WORKING AS TURNER
                                                   Page No.# 4/15

SON OF SHRI MAHAMULKAR HARIBABU MARUTI 1084 FIELD WORKSHOP
C/O 99 APO

19: GS 182458H KUWARLAL NEWARE
WORKING AS TURNER
 1084 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

20: GS 190303H MEDHE PRAMOOD PANDIT
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI MEDHE PANDIT MARI

1079 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

21: GS 190074H SAWANT SUDHIR VIJAY
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI SAWANT VIJAY M

1059 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

22: GS 190203X DHUMAL RAVINDRA VINOD
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI VINOD SITARAM DHUMAL
 1085 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

23: GS 190202P SABLE DINESH SITARAM
WORKING AS TURNER
 SON OF SITARAM TUKARAM SABLE

1059 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

24: GS 178652F ANIL KUMAR
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI RAJA RAM

1072 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

25: GS 179754H BLASTUS LUGUN
 WORKING AS TURNER
1159 (I) WKSP (GREF)

C/O- 99 APO
                                               Page No.# 5/15

26: GS 184577X KARALE KUMADAS LAXMAN
WORKING AS TURNER

SON OF KARALE LAXMAN

1080 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

27: GS 190043H DHANORE SHIVSHAANKAR GAJANAN
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI GAJANAN DHANORE

1080 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

28: GS 190041X RATNESH PAL
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SRI DINESH PAUL
 C/O 56 APO

29: GS 190204A MALI SAGAR RAMCHANDRA
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF RAMCHANDRA YESU MALI

1082 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

30: GS 182578F SANJAY RAWAT
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI SS RAWAT

1060 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

31: GS 174972X V SOMASUNDARAN
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI M VEERAPAN

1060 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

32: GS 174128P JAYANANDAN
WORKING AS TURNER
AGE- 56 YEARS
1066 FD WKSP
 C/O 99 APO

33: GS 190293K SAYYAD SHABBIR IQBAL
                                        Page No.# 6/15

WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI SAYYAD IQBAL GULAB

1056 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

34: GS 184551H AMRIT LAL SHARMA
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI RAGHUNATH PRASAD SHARMA

1052 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

35: GS 190045N VIJENDRA KUMAR YADAV
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI CHANDRABHAN YADAV

1070 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO

36: GS 190908K GODIKAR JAFRALI S
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI SAIPARSAD L GODILKAR

1066 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

37: GS 186129K ASHWINI KUMAR CHHETRI
WORKING AS TURNER

SON OF SHRI RAM SINGH

1166 (I) WORKSHOP PLATOON

C/O 56 APO

38: GS 190046W RAJESH KUMAR
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI ANAR SINGH

1079 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

39: GS 190450L DHANANJAY KUMAR
 SON OF SHRI DESH RAJ

1084 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 56 APO
                                                    Page No.# 7/15


40: GS 190205H JADHAV NILESH JALINDAR
WORKING AS TURNER
1065 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

41: GS 190298H JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI SANTOSH SHARMA

1159(I) PLATOON
 C/O 99 APO

42: GS 190394X RAKESH KUMAR
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI RAM DEV DIXIT

1068 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

43: GS 175994H BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
WORKING AS TURNER
SON OF SHRI RP SHARMA

EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP. C/O 99 APO

44: GS 187998L JAGDHANE SAHEBRAO AHILAJI
WORKING AS TURNER
1065 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 APO

45: GS 190076N DAINGADE PAR MADHUKAR
WORKING AS TURNER

SON OF SHRI DAINGADE MADHUKAR

1065 FIELD WORKSHOP
 C/O 99 AP

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
 BORDER ROADS ORGANISATION
                                                                 Page No.# 8/15

           SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN

          RING ROAD
          DELHI CANTT.

          NEW DELHI - 110010

          3:THE JOINT SECRETARY (BORDER ROADS) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
           BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BRDB)
           ROOM NO. 198-A
           SOUTH BLOCK

          NEW DELHI - 110011

          4:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDERS ROADS (EAST)
           HQ ADGBR (EAST)
           LANKESHWAR
           GUWAHATI. PIN 900885
           C/O 99 APO

          5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP (EBW)
          TEZPUR
           SONITPUR
          ASSA

For the Petitioners :     Mr. M. Chanda, Adv.

For the Respondents :   Mr. U.K. Goswami, CGC

                                 -BEFORE-
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

Date of hearing          : 27/08/2025.

Date of Judgment : 27/08/2025


                        JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

(Michael Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. M.Chanda, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also Page No.# 9/15

heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned notification dated 02/10/2012, by which the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Border Roads Development Board, General Reserve Engineering Force (Border Roads Organisation) Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Group 'B' post, Recruitment Rules, 2012 ( herein after referred to as the 2012 Rules) has been enacted, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The further prayer of the petitioners is to frame Service Rules in consonance with General Reserve Engineering Force (Group - C & D) Recruitment Rules, 1982 (herein after referred to as the 1982 Rules) and the amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996 ( herein after referred to as the 1996 Rules), for providing promotional avenues to the petitioners, including promotion to the posts of Charge Mechanic.

3. The petitioners' further case is that the 2012 Rules should be set aside, in so far as the promotional avenue of the petitioners, who are employed as Turners, have been extinguished, for being promoted to their earlier promotional post of Charge Mechanic, which has now been re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M).

4. The petitioners' case is that in terms of the 1982 and 1996 Rules, the Turners employed under the Border Road Organisation (BRO) were having 10% promotional quota to the post of Charge Mechanic. The petitioners, who are Turners, have the educational qualification of 2 years Diploma in Turner trade. The Vehicle Mechanics, who have the educational qualification of 2 years Diploma in Vehicle Mechanic are also in the feeder for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic. However, with the coming into force of the 2012 Rules, the 10% promotional quota for Turners, for promotion to the post of Charge Page No.# 10/15

Mechanic was done away with. However, the Vehicle Mechanics continued to be in feeder posts for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic even under the 2012 Rules.

5. The petitioners' counsel submits that promotion being a condition of service, the respondents could not have taken away the promotional avenue of the petitioners, without giving any justifiable reasons for the same. He also submits that though the 1982 Rules was superseded by the 2012 Rules, the 2012 Rules was arbitrary and liable to be struck down, as it was in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

6. Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that there was no infirmity with doing away with the promotional avenue of the petitioners to the post of Charge Mechanic by way of 2012 Rules, in view of the fact that the post of Charge Mechanic (Diploma holders) was re-designated as Junior Engineer (E & M), as the Charge Mechanic (Diploma holders) post was merged with various other posts, such as Superintendent (E&M-I), Superintendent (E&M-II) (Diploma holder) and Charge Electrician (Diploma holder), vide letter No. F. No. BRDB/06/166/2010/GE-I dated 13/05/2010, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Border Road Development Board. Mr. Goswami submits that in view of the incumbents in the post of Charge Mechanic, (diploma holders) being re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M), non-diploma personnel were to keep their status until they were wasted out or till they acquired higher qualification for getting further promotion. Based on the needs and the situation in hand, the 2012 Rules was promulgated and the BRO being a work oriented organisation, maintenance of plants and machinery was of utmost importance. Thus, the re-designated posts of J.E. (E &M), which was created, was to be filled up through 100% promotion Page No.# 11/15

from the feeder category of Vehicle Mechanic. As the post of Charge Mechanic (diploma holder) no longer existed in the BRO, in view of the above reasons, other than the Charge Mechanic (Non-diploma), who were to be wasted out, there was no promotional avenue for the petitioners to the post of Charge Mechanic (Diploma holder). He submits that the post of Charge Mechanic has been redesignated as Equipment Mechanic (Mechanical), vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence, BRDB, letter No. F. No. BRDB/02/21/2010/GE.I (Vol.II) dated 15/11/2016.

7. Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned CGC, submits that even though no promotional avenue exists for the petitioners in view of the 2012 Rules, the petitioners are not deprived of any financial benefit due to not having any promotional avenue, inasmuch as, they are covered under the Assured Career Progression (ACP)/Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme, which is granted to each and every Turner, on completion of 10/20/30 years of regular service, as per the policy in vogue in the BRO.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. As can be seen from the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and the pleadings, the petitioners, who are Turners have 2 years diploma as Turners. They had a 10% quota for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic in terms of the 1982 Rules. For promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic, a Turner had to have 3 years of regular service as Turner. For those Turners, who could not be promoted within their quota of 10% to the post of Charge Mechanic, the Turners were given the benefit of the ACP/MACP Scheme applied by the BRO. However, with the coming into force of the 2012 Rules, the 10% promotional avenue of the petitioners has been done away, without any justification being provided by the respondents.

Page No.# 12/15

10. Though it is the case of the respondents that the post of Charge Mechanic had been amalgamated/merged with 3 (three) other posts, such as, Superintendent (E & M-I), Superintendent (E &M-II) (Diploma Holder) and Charge Electrician (Diploma holder), which were re-designated as Junior Engineer (E &M) and non-diploma Charge Mechanic were to be wasted out, the fact remains that the petitioners herein are having 2 years diploma as Turners. There is nothing to indicate that a decision has been taken by the respondent authorities that Turners having 2 years Diploma, are not competent to do the job of Charge Mechanic, which has been redesignated as Junior Engineer (E & M).

11. In the case of Food Corporation of India & ors. Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors [(2008) 5 SCC 100] , the Supreme Court has held that an employee of a State has a right to be considered for promotion although he has no fundamental right of promotion. It further held that promotion being a normal incident of service, it was necessary for the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, to provide an opportunity for advancement. It further held that if there was no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of Officers, resulting in stagnation over the years, the Court could issue a direction to the Government to make a scheme for promotion of those Officers.

12. In the case of A. Satyanarayana & Ors. Vs. S. Purushotham & Ors [(2008) 5 SCC 416], the Supreme Court relied upon another of it's decision, in the case of Dwarka Prasad and others Vs. Union of India and others [AIR 2003 SC 2971], wherein it held that a policy cannot nullify all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all the time, as the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

13. In the case of O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India and others [1990 Page No.# 13/15

Supp(1) SCC 688], the Supreme Court held that the provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service, while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. It thus held that the promotion was a normal incident of service. Para 7 of the said judgement is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

"7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service.

There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical A Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage, In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional

avenue for the A category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate ."

14. In the case of State of Tripura and others Vs. K.K. Roy [(2004) 9 SCC 65], the Supreme Court had directed the State of Tripura to pay to the respondent therein, the next 2 (two) higher scales of pay on completion of 24 years of service, even though the State of Tripura did not have the ACP/MACP scheme, in view of the fact that the respondents had not been promoted despite the existence of promotion avenues. The above thus shows that the existence of an ACP/MACP Scheme cannot be a bar for making promotional Page No.# 14/15

avenues.

15. On a reading of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, it is quite apparent that the State is required to provide promotional avenues to its employees, so that the denial of the same does not run foul of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

16. We have noticed that the petitioners had earlier approached the Delhi High Court vide WP(C) No. 9025/2014, which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 19/12/2014, to enable the petitioners to file a representation to the respondents, for providing promotional avenues to the petitioners. In pursuance to the said order dated 19/12/2014 passed in WP(C) No. 9025/2014, the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 16/09/2015 to the respondents, seeking promotional avenues to the next higher post. The Chief Engineer (P), BECON, made a recommendation dated 06.10.2025 to the higher authorities for considering the representation of the petitioners in the ensuing Chief Engineers Conference for deliberation. Thereafter, the prayer of the petitioners was apparently also considered by Col. ADM Manager, BRO on 11/08/2019, wherein, it was recommended that promotional avenue should be provided not only to the Turners, but also to the Machinists, Painters, Welders, Carpenters, etc. However, no decision has been made by the competent respondent authorities till date.

17. Due to the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the respondents should take a decision with regard to the petitioners' prayer for giving promotional avenues to the Turners (Diploma holders), including in the newly re-designated posts of Junior Engineer (E &M). This is due to the fact that the Turners (Diploma Holders) had a promotional avenue in terms of the 1982 Rules and no reason has been provided as to why the Turners (Diploma Page No.# 15/15

Holders) could not be promoted to the newly re-designated post of Junior Engineer (E&M), wherein the earlier promotional post of petitioners i.e. Charge Mechanic is included.

18. The respondents are accordingly directed to take a decision on the question of providing promotional avenues to the petitioners within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

19. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

                      JUDGE                              JUDGE



Comparing Assistant