Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 27 March, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010012582023
2025:GAU-AS:3727
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/382/2023
SIMA DAS
D/O- JAGADISH CH DAS, C/O- P K DAS, R/O- VILL- H NO.5, NATHPARA,
TARAPUR, SILCHAR, P.O- TARAPUR PART-III, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-
788003
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPTT,
DISPUR, GHY- 06
2:THE REGISTRAR (ADMN)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI- 781001
3:THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SILCHAR
P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
SILCHAR- 78800
Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. LR Mazumder
Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. N Kalita, Govt. Advocate
Mr. HK Das
Standing Counsel
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 2/6
Date of hearing & judgment : 27.03.2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. LR Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Mr. N Kalita, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appears on
behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. HK Das, the learned counsel appears on
behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that she was appointed as a Copyist in
the Establishment of the respondent No.3 by an order dated 27.01.1990 and
she was allowed to continue in her service by an order dated 21.04.1990. In
view of an order passed by the Gauhati High Court in the administrative side
dated 04.10.2019, whereby the post of the Copyist/Typist has been treated
equivalent to Lower Division Assistant till finalization of the draft Rules, the
petitioner came within the combined gradation list of Lower Division
Assistant/Copyist/Typist/Computer Typist based on the seniority criteria.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that whenever posts were vacant in the
cadre of Upper Division Assistant, the candidates junior to her had been
promoted thereby depriving the petitioner inspite of the fact that the petitioner
was senior in the gradation list. The petitioner had submitted various
representations, which did not find any favour and as such, as the petitioner
had already completed 30 (thirty) years of service, she has filed the instant writ
petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for consideration of
promotion of the petitioner strictly on seniority. It is seen that pursuant to the
Page No.# 3/6
filing of the instant writ petition, this Court had issued notice dated 27.01.2023
with a further observation that pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar
for the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law,
if so advised.
4. The respondents i.e., the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed an affidavit-in-
opposition, wherein the reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioner
had not been promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant. It was
categorically mentioned that in the year 2020 against 6(six) posts of Upper
Division Assistant, notice was invited on 12.06.2020. The petitioner duly
participated in the selection process, but as the petitioner did not have the
minimum qualifying marks, the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of
Upper Division Assistant as the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. It is
further seen that in the year 2022, 2(two) posts again fell vacant in the cadre of
Upper Division Assistant and the petitioner thereupon also having not qualified
by securing the minimum marks, could not be promoted to the post of Upper
Division Assistant. It is further stated that another interview process was
initiated on 03.04.2022 for filing up of another two posts of Upper Division
Assistant wherein the petitioner did not participate. It was also mentioned that
the petitioner had received the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme
(ACPS) as well as the modified Assured Career Progression Scheme vide the
orders dated 18.04.2013, 29.05.2019 and 20.12.2021.
5. This Court heard this matter at length on 06.03.2025 and taking into
account the criteria for promotion being seniority-cum-merit directions were
issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to produce the records of the selection
Page No.# 4/6
proceedings as to how the minimum qualifying marks was fixed and in what
manner the said selection proceedings were conducted.
6. Mr. HK Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 had produced the records. This Court had perused the records and
from a perusal thereof, it is seen that in respect to the selection done for the
year 2020, prior to the issuance of the interview notice, the selection committee
had formulated the procedure to be followed on 11.06.2020. In the said
minutes, the petitioner's name was duly mentioned. It was decided in the said
minutes of the selection committee that the total marks on the basis of which,
the assessment as regards minimum qualification would be carried out would be
50 marks and out of which 25 marks a candidate has to secure. It was also
mentioned that there will be 3(three) evaluators and the average marks
obtained by each candidate shall be taken. Be that as it may, the minutes are
silent as to what components would be taken in respect to the evaluation of the
50 marks.
7. It is also relevant to observe that upon a further perusal of the records, it
transpires that the evaluation was done on three aspects, first: on the
ACR/service, second, on the personality of the candidate, and third: on the
aspect of general awareness. It is not known from the minutes of the selection
proceedings as to how much each components would carry marks and what is
the basis of having more marks on the subjective satisfaction. This Court is
further surprised that the minutes of the selection committee also did not
mention how the ACR/service is to be evaluated. The reason for observing so is
that each of the three evaluators had given deferred marks in the evaluation of
Page No.# 5/6
the ACR. In the opinion of this Court when the criterion is seniority-cum-merit,
the settled position of law mandates that there would be an assessment of the
minimum qualification which is necessary for manning the higher post and once
the minimum qualification is achieved, the seniority plays a pivotal role. It is also
well settled that in the name of setting up the minimum qualification criteria,
the criteria cannot be changed from seniority-cum-merit to merit-cum-seniority.
It is also the opinion of this Court that the selection committee while fixing the
procedure for selection proceedings is required, therefore, to be more specific
as to under what heads, how much marks would be awarded, else, it would
come within the domain of whims of the evaluator.
8. However, coming back to the facts involved in the instant case, it is seen
that the petitioner has not challenged the selection proceedings of the year
2020 as well as 2022. In addition to that, the relief which has been sought for
by the petitioner is that a direction be issued that the petitioner be considered
on the basis of seniority. Taking into account that the selection proceedings of
the year 2020 and 2022 have not been put to challenge in the instant
proceedings and the relief so sought for is contrary to the provisions of the
Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules,
1987 and more particularly, Rule 6(4) which mandates the promotional criteria
to be seniority-cum-merit, the relief so sought for cannot be granted.
9. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Page No.# 6/6
Comparing Assistant
