Gauhati High Court

Chitralekha Devi vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 19 June, 2025

Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010272062018

undefined

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

Case No. : WP(C)/8602/2018

CHITRALEKHA DEVI
W/O LATE ARUP KR. MAZUMDAR, RESIDENT OF MANGALDOI TOWN,
WARD NO-6, P.O.- MANGALDOI, PS- MANGALDOI, DIST.- DARRANG,
ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
CO-OPERATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

2:THE REGISRAR OF CO-OPERATION SOCIETIES
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
ASSAM.

3:THE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATION SOCIETIES
DARRANG
MANGALDOI

4:PRANAB JYOTI DEKA
S/O LATE UPEN DEKA
R/O KONWARPARA (NEAR KERIMERI CHOWK)
PO- MANGALDOI
PS- MANGALDOI
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MS. R GOGOI,MS D DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CO OP, MR. A K AZAD (R-4),MR D J HALOI (R-4),MR. N
Page No.# 2/13

HAQUE (R-4),DR. B AHMED (R-4)

Linked Case : WP(C)/2297/2024

JURI RANI SAHARIA
D/O- SRI BHABENDRA NATH SAHARIA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SATGHARIA
P.O. SIPAJHAR
P.S. SIPAJHAR
DIST.- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784145

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF ASSAM
COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06

2:THE REGISTRAR
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ASSAM KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
ASSAM

3:THE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DARRANG
MANGALDOI
ASSAM

4:SMTI. CHITRALEKHA DEVI
W/O- LATE ARUP KR. MAJUMDAR
RESIDENT OF MANGALDOI TOWN
WARD NO-6 P.O. MANGALDOI
P.S. MANGALDOI
DIST.- DARRANG
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MD. M U AHMED
Page No.# 3/13

Advocate for : SC
CO OP appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

Date : 19.06.2025

Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 and Mr. M. U. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2297/2024. Also heard Ms. M. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Co-operative Societies, Assam in the above two writ petitions and Mr. A. K. Azad, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 4 in WP(C) No. 8602/2018.

2. As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present writ petitions are taken up for final consideration and disposal.

3. The claims made by the writ petitioners in the above two writ petitions, pertains to the promotions to the cadre of Junior Assistant in the establishment of the District Deputy Registrar i.e. the respondent no. 3, Co-operative Societies, Darrang, Mangaldoi, Assam.

4. The petitioner in the present proceeding was initially engaged as a regular Grade-IV staff on 03.03.1987 in the establishment of the respondent no. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, has been rendering her services in the said capacity till date. The petitioner, at the time of her recruitment, had the qualification of Matriculation. Although, vacancies had arisen in the next higher post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) [(now Junior Division Assistant (JDA)], as far back as the Page No.# 4/13

year 2002, no recruitment process was initiated for filling up the post in question. The petitioner having acquired the requisite eligibility criteria for being recruited to the post of Junior Assistant submitted a representation in the matter on 20.10.2010. Thereafter, it is contended that the matter was processed and a proposal was submitted for filling up of the vacant post of LDA available in the office of the respondent no. 3.

5. The petitioner projects that after her appointment as Grade-IV staff, she was accommodated as a Process Server Peon (PSP) w.e.f. 31.03.2006. The respondent authorities had published a gradation list of PSPs and Peons, serving in the establishment of the respondent no. 3 as on 30.11.2010; and circulated the same vide a communication dated 06.12.2010. In the said gradation list of PSPs, the name of the petitioner herein, figures. The petitioner contends that the recruitment to the cadre of LDA existing in the establishment of the respondent no. 3 is governed by the provisions of Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1967).

6. Sub-Rule 6(b) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1967 deals with the promotion of Grade-IV employees to the post of LDA. The petitioner submits that she had acquired the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the cadre of LDA and also had the prescribed educational qualification in terms of the provision of the Rules of 1967 that was in force during the period, the vacancy in question, had so arisen. The petitioner has further submitted that during the processing of the matter for consideration of the cases of the eligible Grade-IV staff for promotion to the post of LDA, the provisions of sub-Rule 6 (b) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1967 came to be amended in the year 2015; and the educational qualification thereof was enhanced to that of Graduation. The petitioner further projects that by reckoning the amended qualifications, the respondent authorities proceeded to hold a selection and the respondent no. 4 herein, having the degree qualification came to be Page No.# 5/13

promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide issuance of the order dated 18.06.2018.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

7. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Process Server Peon (PSP) vide order dated 14.02.2011, and was posted in the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Assam. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted to the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Darrang, Assam, i.e. the respondent no. 3 herein; and she has been discharging her duties in such capacity. The petitioner projects that at the time of her recruitment as a PSP, the petitioner had already acquired her graduation qualification. The petitioner having served for a period of 7 years and having acquired the eligibility for being considered for promotion to the next higher grade of Junior Assistant, she also being a degree holder approached the respondent authorities for consideration of her case for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant. The application submitted by the petitioner was processed and the respondent authorities vide order dated 09.02.2021 constituted a selection committee for filling up of one post of Junior Assistant by way of promotion from Grade-IV staff. The petitioner contends that amongst the eligible incumbents in the zone of consideration for promotion to the vacant post of Junior Assistant in the establishment of the respondent no. 3, it is only the petitioner herein who has the degree qualification and had completed the requisite numbers of years of service in Grade-IV cadre. However, in view of the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by this Court in IA(C) No. 1823/2021 (in WP(C) No. 8602/2018), instituted by the respondent no. 4 herein, and the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 wherein, this Court had observed that any promotion made to the post of Junior Assistant by the selection committee constituted, vide the order dated 09.09.2021 would be subject Page No.# 6/13

to the outcome of the said writ petition, the respondent authorities have kept the selection process in abeyance, thereby, prejudicially effecting the service interest of the petitioner.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

8. Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 by reiterating the facts noticed herein above, has submitted that the vacancies against which the petitioner is praying for having her case considered for promotion, had arisen in the year 2010, if not before. Accordingly, the petitioner as on the date when the vacancy had so arisen having fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion to cadre of LDA, the case of the petitioner was required to be so considered in terms of the un-amended provisions of the said Rules of 1967. Mr. Saikia submits that the amendment effected with regard to the educational qualification criteria, requisite for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of LDA, as brought into force in the year 2015, would have no bearing on the claim made by the petitioner in the present proceeding, inasmuch as, the vacancy in question had admittedly arisen before the amendment of the Rules of 1967 in the year 2015.

9. In the above premises, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be denied her due consideration for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant by reckoning her service seniority and by applying the eligibility criterias as was existing on the date when the vacancies involved had arisen.

10. Mr. M. U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2297/2024 submits that the petitioner fulfills all the required eligibility criteria for being considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant in terms of the provisions of the said Rules of 1967. The petitioner submits that in the zone of consideration as determined in the feeder cadre for promotion of Junior Assistant, it is only the petitioner herein, who is eligible for such consideration. Mr. Ahmed submits that there is no order passed by this Court in the proceedings of WP(C) No. 8602/2018, Page No.# 7/13

restraining the respondent authorities from effecting promotions to the cadre of Junior Assistant from Grade-IV service of the establishment of the respondent no. 3, in view of the observation made by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2021 in IA(C) No. 1823/2021 (in WP(C) 8602/2018) to the effect that any appointment made to the post of Junior Assistant would be subjected to the outcome of the writ petition, the respondent authorities have not taken the process initiating for recruitment by promotion against the post of Junior Assistant identified for being so filled up from amongst the Grade-IV staff in the establishment of the respondent no. 3. Accordingly, Mr. Ahmed has submitted that the claim made by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 not being permissible to be accepted in view of the law laid down in this connection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court would be pleased to dismiss the said writ petition and direct the consideration of the petitioner herein for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant with retrospective effect.

11. Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Co-operative Societies, Assam, by referring to the educational qualification of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 has submitted that she is only a Matriculate. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that on the date when the consideration of the cases of the incumbents in the cadre of the establishment of the respondent no. 3 was so contemplated to be made for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant in the same establishment, the provisions of the Rules of 1967 was already amended and the requirement of possessing by the candidate in the feeder cadre of degree qualification was so introduced in the provisions of sub-Rule 6(b) of Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1967. Accordingly, she, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs Raj Kumar & Ors., reported in 2023 (3) SCC 773, submits that it is the provisions of the Rules holding the field on the date of consideration for promotion that would be applicable and not the Rules that were holding the field when the vacancies had so Page No.# 8/13

arisen. In the above premises, she submits that the claim of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 would not mandate an acceptance by this Court.

12. Mr. A. K. Azad, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 in WP(C) No. 8602/2018, submits that he adopts the arguments of Ms. M. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel Co-operation Department.

13. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

14. The service particulars of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 as well as her educational qualification are not disputed. The issue arising in the present proceeding is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to have her case considered for promotion to the post identified in the cadre of Junior Assistant in the establishment of the respondent no. 3, for promotion amongst the incumbents in the Grade-IV cadre of the same establishment, on the date such consideration was so made.

15. As noticed herein above, it is the categorical contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 that the promotion against the said identified vacancy in the cadre of Junior Assistant is to be so filled up by reckoning the position of the Rules, as it stood when the vacancy in question had arisen in the said cadre. The said position is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2297/2024. The issue having been noticed, the provisions of the Rules of 1967, governing the recruitment process by promotion from the Grade-IV staff to the cadre of Junior Assistant is required to be noticed. The provisions of Rule 6 (6) (b) as existing w.e.f. 2015 being relevant is extracted herein below: -

"(6) Junior Assistants:- (a).....................................................................................

.............................................................................................

Page No.# 9/13

(b) By selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst Grade-IV staffs of the district establishment concerned who have passed the [Degree Examination in any discipline from a recognized University or any examination declared equivalent thereto] and have rendered at least 7 years of continuous service in the district establishment on the first day of the year in which selection is made."

16. A perusal of the provisions of Rule 6 (6) (b) of the said Rules of 1967 would go to reveal that the promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant is permissible to be so made from amongst the incumbents in the cadre of Grade-IV staff of the establishment concerned, who had passed the Degree examination in any discipline from a recognized University or any examination equivalent thereto; and have rendered at least 7 years of continuous service in the district establishment concerned.

17. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 has the qualification with regard to residency in service mandated under the provisions of the said Rules; however, she has not acquired her degree qualification. The provisions of the Rules of 1967 were amended in the year 2015; and the prescription with regard to degree qualification was introduced therein and prior to the amendment of the said Rules in the year 2015, the educational qualification mandated was that of possessing a High School Leaving Certificate or equivalent examination.

18. The petitioner having claimed that the post identified in the cadre of Junior Assistant is required to be so filled up by promotion from amongst the eligible incumbents in the Grade-IV cadre of the establishment by applying the provisions of the Rules, as it stood at the time when the vacancies had arisen i.e. prior to the year 2015; the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj kumar (supra), is to be noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the earlier cases on the issue, more particularly, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. V. Rangaiah and Ors., Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284, concluded as follows:-

Page No.# 10/13

"82. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would a demonstration that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:

82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.

82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.

82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit.

The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.

82.4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately.

82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases.

83. The above-referred observations made in the fifteen decisions that f have distinguished Rangaiah case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date Page No.# 11/13

when they arose. This only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case.

84. The decision in Deepak Agarwal is a complete departure from the principle in Rangaiah inasmuch as the Court has held that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rule. That is the rule in force on the date the consideration takes place. This enunciation is followed in many subsequent decisions including that of Union of India v. Krishna Kumar. In fact, in Krishna Kumar Court held that there is only a "right to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place".

85. The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date on which they arose, compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah² is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we have indicated hereinabove. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold:

85.1. The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, "the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules", does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled.

85.2. The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services."

19. By applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj kumar (supra), to the facts of the present proceeding, it is seen that the petitioner has a right to be considered for promotion, only, in accordance with the Rules governing his service, on the date of such consideration made in his case.

Page No.# 12/13

The service rules of 1967 having been amended in the year 2015 and a degree qualification now being mandated for promotion from Grade-IV to the cadre of Junior Assistant, consideration for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant being so made after 2015, it would be the amended provisions of the Rules of 1967 that would be applicable.

20. The contention of the petitioner that the post in question identified in the cadre of Junior Assistant for being filled up for promotion from the Grade-IV cadre of the service, is to be so filled up by applying the Rules holding the field at the time when the said vacancies in the post had so arisen, would not mandate an acceptance in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj kumar (supra), inasmuch as, on the date the consideration was so made and the respondent no. 4 was so promoted, it was the provisions of the amended Rules that was holding the field.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) had overruled it's decision in the case of Y. V. Rangaiah (supra), by concluding that vacancies so occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules to have not reflected the correct proposition of law, governing services under Union and States under Part-XIV of the Constitution of India.

22. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the consideration made in respect of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant having been so made by application of the amended provisions of the Rules of 1967, no error can be said to have been committed by the respondents, inasmuch as, such consideration admittedly was so made after 2015, when the amended provisions of the Rules of 1967 was holding the field.

23. On application of the amended provisions of the Rules, the petitioner not Page No.# 13/13

being eligible for consideration for such promotion, no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant. The vacancy identified in the cadre of Junior Assistant was rightly filled up by promoting the respondent no. 4 by application of the provisions of the Rules of 1967 as it stood on the date of such consideration.

24. In view of the above position, the claim made by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8602/2018 would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the said writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit.

25. Insofar as the claim made by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2297/2024 is concerned, the petitioner having fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of Rule 6 (6) (b) of the said Rules of 1967, her case would mandate a consideration for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2297/2024 along with other eligible incumbents in the Grade-IV cadre in the establishment of the respondent no. 3 and to promote the person found suitable for such promotion.

26. The said exercise now directed to be carried out by the respondent authorities shall be so initiated and concluded within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

27. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the writ petition being WP(C) No. 8602/2018 stands dismissed while the writ petition being WP(C) No. 2297/2024 stands allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant