Gauhati High Court
WA/281/2025 on 22 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010198242025
2025:GAU-AS:13062-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(1) WRIT APPEAL NO.281 OF 2025
1. The Gauhati High Court, represented by the Registrar
General, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, M.G. Road, PIN-
781001, Assam.
2. The Registrar General, Gauhati High Court, M.G. Road,
Uzan Bazar, Guwahati -781001.
3. The Registrar (Administration)-cum-In-charge,
Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court, M.G. Road,
Uzan Bazar, Guwahati - 781001.
.....Appellants
-Versus-
1. Nozrul Islam Laskar,
Son of Late Basir Uddin Laskar,
Resident of Village & PO: Chiporsangon,
District: Hailakandi, Assam, PIN - 788801.
2. Gulzar Hussain Barbhuiya,
Son of Late Khoyer Uddin Barbhuiya, Resident of Village:
Niz-Phulbari Part-III, PO: Fulbari, PS: Katigorah, District:
Cachar, Assam, PIN - 788802.
3. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner
& Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial
Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 781001.
.....Respondents
4. Surajit Kar, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of the
District & Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, PO: Tezpur, District:
Sontipur, Assam, PIN - 784001.
Page No.# 2/18
5. Jayanta Buragohain, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of
the District & Sessions Judge, Charaideo, PO & District:
Charaideo, Assam, PIN - 785640.
6. Kaushik Nath Mazumder, Stenographer Grade-III,
Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, PO:
Silchar, District: Cachar, Assam, PIN - 788001.
7. Manas Pratim Mahanta, Stenographer Grade-III, Office
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar, PO & District:
Sivasagar, Assam, PIN - 785640.
8. Arabinda Ghosh, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, PO: Mangaldoi,
District: Darrang, Assam, PIN - 784125.
9. Atanu Biswas, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biswanath, PO: Biswanath
Chariali, District: Biswanath, Assam, PIN - 784176.
10. Mohibul Islam, Stenographer-III, Office of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, PO & District: Lakhimpur,
Assam, PIN - 787001.
11. Himakshi Dutta, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of the
Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), PO: Guwahati GPO,
District: Kamrup (M), PIN - 781001.
12. Parash Jyoti Chutia, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, PO & District:
Jorhat, Assam, PIN - 785001.
13. Maikel Roy, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of the
District & Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, PO: Haflong,
District: Dima Hasao, Assam, PIN - 788819.
14. Mrinal Kanti Sarkar, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, PO & District:
Tinsukia, Assam, PIN - 786125.
15. Manabi Mazumder, Stenographer Grade-III, Office of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), PO: Guwahati
GPO, District: Kamrup (M), Assam, PIN - 781001.
16. Pallab Kumar Nath, Stenographer-II, Office of the
District & Sessions Judge, Udalguri, PO & District:
Udalguri, Assam, PIN - 784509.
Page No.# 3/18
17. Somen Chandra Paul, Stenographer Grade-II, Office
of the District & Sessions Judge, Biswanath, PO:
Biswanath Chariali, District: Biswanath, Assam, PIN -
784176.
18. Bhaskar Brahma, Stenographer Grade-II, Office of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, PO & District: Baska,
Assam, PIN - 781313.
19. Sarada Chakraborty, Stenographer Grade-II, Office of
the District & Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, PO & District:
Kokrajhar, Assam, PIN - 783370.
20. Rashmi Ranjan Bora, Stenographer Grade-II, Office of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, PO & District:
Nagaon, Assam, PIN - 782001.
.....Proforma Respondents
(2) WRIT APPEAL NO.291 OF 2025
1. Himakshi Dutta,
Wife of Rupjit Dutta, Resident of House No.83, KRC Road,
Kumarpara, Bharalumukh, PO: Bharalamukh, PS:
Bharalumukh, District: Kamrup (M), Assam, PIN -
781009.
2. Parash Jyoti Chutia,
Son of Sri Ajit Chutia, Resident of Lahing Noisiporia Gaon,
PO: Lahing via Nakachari, PS: Teok, District: Jorhat,
Assam, PIN - 785635.
3. Kaushik Nath Mazumder,
Son of Kushal Kanti Nath Mazumder, Address: Tarapur
Manipur Basti, Part-VII, PO: Tarapur, PIN - 788003, PS:
Silchar, District: Cachar.
4. Mohibul Islam,
Son of Md. Abdul Mazid, Resident of Ward No.14,
Chandmari (W), PO: Khelmati, PS: North Lakhimpur,
District: Lakhimpur, PIN - 787001.
5. Maikel Roy,
Son of Sri Narmohan, Ray, Resident of Rangjuli, PO:
Rangjuli, PS: Rangjuli, District: Goalpara, Assam, PIN -
783130.
Page No.# 4/18
6. Manabi Mazumder,
Daughter of Sri Ganesh Ch. Mazumder, Resident of
Bhakarivita, PO: Bongaigaon, PS: Bongaigaon, District:
Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN - 783380.
7. Atanu Biswas,
Son of Churamani Biswas, Resident of Dolaigaon, Ward
No.15, PO: Bongaigaon, PS: Bongaigaon, District:
Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN - 783380.
8. Manas Pratim Mahanta,
Son of Sri Sarat Ch. Mahanta, Resident of Zoo Road
Tiniali, Narikal Basti, Bye Lane 1, House No.8, PO: Zoo
Road, PS: Geetanagar, District: Kamrup (M), Assam, PIN
- 781024.
9. Mrinal Kanti Sarkar,
Son of Late Monotosh Sarkar, Resident of Alipurduar New
Town, Ward No.VI, Opposite of Amar Talkies, PO & PS:
Alipurduar, District: Alipurduar, PIN - 736121, West
Bengal.
10. Surajit Kar,
Son of Late Sankar Kar, Resident of Ward No.19,
Bhakarivita, PO, PS & District: Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN -
783380.
11. Jayanta Buragohain,
Son of Ramesh Buragohain, Resident of Mothiachiga
Achala Pathar, PO: Rajmow, PS: Nazira, District:
Sivasagar, PIN - 785685.
.....Appellants
-Versus-
1. The Gauhati High Court, represented by the Registrar
General, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, M.G. Road, PIN -
781001, Assam.
2. The Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court,
Guwahati, represented by Registrar (Administration)-cum-
In-Charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court,
Guwahati - 781001.
3. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner
& Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial
Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 781001.
Page No.# 5/18
4. Nozrul Islam Laskar,
Son of late Basir Uddin Laskar, Resident of Village & PO:
Chiporsangon, District: Hailakandi, Assam, PIN - 788801.
5. Gulzar Hussain Barbhuiya,
Son of Late Khoyer Uddin Barbhuiya, Resident of Village:
Niz Phulbari Part-III, PO: Fulbari, PS: Katigorah, District:
Cachar, Assam, PIN - 788802.
.....Respondents
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H.K. Das, Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, assisted by
Mr. N.K. Sarma, Advocate in Writ Appeal No.281/2025.
: Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate in Writ Appeal No.291/2025.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in
Writ Appeal No.281/2025 and for respondent Nos.4 & 5 in Writ
Appeal No.291/2025.
: Mr. S. Baruah, Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3
in both the appeals.
: Mr. H.K. Das, Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court assisted by
Mr. N.K. Sarma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in Writ Appeal
No.291/2025.
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025.
Date of Judgment : 22.09.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High
Court for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.281/2025 and for respondent Nos.1 &
2 in Writ Appeal No.291/2025; Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned Advocate for the
Page No.# 6/18
appellants in Writ Appeal No.291/2025; Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned
Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in Writ Appeal No.281/2025 and for
respondent Nos.4 & 5 in Writ Appeal No.291/2025 and Mr. S. Baruah, learned
Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal No.281/2025
& Writ Appeal No.291/2025.
2. Both these writ appeals have been taken up together and are being
disposed off by this common judgment.
3. The judgment dated 31.07.2025 impugned in both the writ appeals has
been passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.2325/2025,
which was preferred by 2(two) of the Stenographers Grade-II, namely, Nozrul
Islam Laskar and Gulzar Hussain Barbhuiya, seeking quashing of the minutes of
the meeting of the Committee for Centralized Recruitment of Officers and Staff
of Subordinate Judiciary and all Benches of the High Court regarding relaxation
of eligibility criteria for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I for the Subordinate
Courts of Assam, based on which the Notification dated 09.12.2024 was issued
for filling up 17 posts of Stenographer Grade-I in the District Courts of Assam,
as also the Notification dated 09.12.2024 by which an advertisement was issued
inviting applications from the serving Stenographers of the District Courts of
Assam for participating in the promotional process for promotion to 17 posts of
Stenographer Grade-I, relaxing the eligibility criteria as 5(five) years service in
Stenographer Grade-II or Stenographer Grade-III in the District Judiciary in
Assam and the Notification dated 22.04.2025 declaring the select list.
4. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, has quashed
the Notification dated 22.04.2025 issued under the signature of Registrar
(Administration)-cum-In-Charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court,
Page No.# 7/18
listing the names of all the applicants, who were found to be qualified for
promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I, as also the order(s) of
appointment issued on the basis of the afore-noted Notification dated
22.04.2025.
5. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant/Gauhati High Court has been
directed to prepare a fresh select list on the basis of rank-wise mark sheet
amongst the Stenographer Grade-II who appeared in the Speed Test held on
02.03.2025 in connection with promotion to Stenographer Grade-I, strictly on
the basis of merit and such select list not containing the names of those who
are Stenographer Grade-III and grant consequential promotion orders to the
Stenographer Grade-II, who would fall in the merit.
6. The Stenographer Grade-III, the learned Single Judge has opined, had
no right to be considered for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I as
there were eligible candidates from Stenographer Grade-II, who only had to be
considered for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I.
7. The promotion/selection process began as described hereunder.
8. The Registrar (Administration)-cum-In-Charge, Centralized Recruitment
Cell, Gauhati High Court had issued the Notification dated 09.12.2024, inviting
applications from the serving Stenographers of the District Courts of Assam,
who were eligible for participation in the promotional process for filling up 17
posts of Stenographer Grade-I in the Subordinate Courts of Assam.
9. The eligibility criteria in the afore-noted Notification was completion of
5(five) years of service as Stenographer Grade-II or Grade-III in the District
Judiciary of Assam. The Notification further specified that eligible Stenographers
Page No.# 8/18
shall have to appear in a Speed Test.
10. In the Speed Test, a total of 135 Stenographers had participated, out
of whom, 32 belonged to Stenographer Grade-II and 103 were from
Stenographer Grade-III.
11. On 22.04.2025, the select list of the candidates was published, out of
whom only 5 were Grade-II Stenographers; whereas the rest 102 were Grade-
III serving Stenographers.
12. After the publication of the select list vide Notification dated
22.04.2025, referred to above, 2(two) of the Grade-II Stenographers challenged
the entire process, namely, the advertisement dated 09.12.2024; the minutes of
the Committee of the High Court, based on which the advertisement was issued
and the select list dated 22.04.2025 on the ground that the advertisement was
in violation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which was
binding upon the High Court, as it was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in All India Judges Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India and Ors . [I.A.
Nos.71A, 135-136, 137-138 & 142 in WP(C) No.1022/1989, dated 07.10.2009] .
It is apposite to state that the first National Judicial Pay Commission
(Shetty Commission) had given recommendation for maintaining 3(three)
grades of Stenographers for the 3(three) levels of Courts, suggesting that there
should be direct recruitment of Stenographer Grade-III; Stenographer Grade-II
would be inducted by 50% from promotion from Stenographer Grade-III and
50% by direct recruitment and Stenographer Grade-I would be by virtue of
promotion from Stenographer Grade-II.
13. For the purposes of implementation of the recommendations of the
Shetty Commission, a Special Committee was constituted by the High Court,
Page No.# 9/18
Guwahati which, vide Resolution dated 06.03.2013, had resolved that as a one
time measure, pending framing of Subordinate Courts Establishment Rules of
Assam, irrespective of any grade or qualification that the Stenographers may
have possessed, existing Stenographers having completed 15(fifteen) years of
service be promoted as Grade-I Stenographers, subject to such criteria as
regards Speed Test, etc., which the High Court would fix on the availability of
vacancies, and irrespective of the educational qualification, the existing Grade-
III Stenographers, who have completed 5(five) years of service, be promoted as
Grade-II Stenographer, subject to Speed Test, etc.
14. This definitely was a one time measure, pending framing of the
Subordinate Courts Establishment Rules of Assam.
15. It appears that till date no Rules have been framed by the Government
of Assam.
16. An attempt was made to fill up the posts by promotion, but despite the
relaxed criteria provided in the Resolution, many posts of Stenographer Grade-I
and II in the District Courts could not be filled up because of non-availability of
eligible candidates.
17. The issue was again placed before the Committee of the High Court,
which after a detailed deliberation, vide Resolution dated 10.11.2016, resolved
to scale down the required qualifying period of service of 15(fifteen) years to
10(ten) years with respect of promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I,
keeping the other eligibility criteria in its place.
Even then, the problem of non-availability of eligible candidates could
not be resolved.
Another Resolution, therefore, was taken by the Committee on
Page No.# 10/18
22.02.2018 to further relax the eligibility criteria to be eligible to participate in
the promotional process, by making it 5(five) years experience as a
Stenographer in any grade as a one time measure to tide over the situation.
18. It was thus resolved that in view of non-availability of adequate
numbers of Stenographers having 10(ten) years of service experience and
considering the fact that there was a huge number of vacancies in the posts of
Stenographer Grade-I, all being promotional posts, the eligibility criteria for
taking part in the promotional process for Stenographer Grade-I would be
5(five) years of service experience as Stenographer, in any Grade, as a one time
measure so as to tide over the current situation.
19. Since 2018, 5(five) recruitment processes were conducted in the years
2018 to 2024. Even after inclusion of both Grades (Grade-II and III) for taking
part in the promotional process for the purposes of Stenographer Grade-I,
substantial numbers of posts remained unfilled on account of non-availability of
eligible candidates and also on account of failure of the candidates to clear the
minimum cut-off marks in the Speed Test.
20. It further appears from the records that in 2018, out of 38 vacant
posts, 33 posts remained unfilled; in 2019, out of 34 vacant pots, 31 posts
remained unfilled; and likewise, 31 and 9 posts remained unfilled out of 34 and
52 vacant posts in 2020 and 2023, respectively.
21. Considering this background, the Appellant/ Gauhati High Court states
that a decision was taken to adhere to the criteria laid down in the Resolution
dated 22.02.2018 and only thereafter, the Notification dated 09.12.2024 was
issued for filling up 17 posts of Stenographer Grade-I from existing
Stenographers, irrespective of any grade and educational qualification, having
Page No.# 11/18
completed 5(five) years of qualifying service.
22. It is the case of the Appellant/Gauhati High Court that the statistics
revealed that there were only 32 Stenographers of Grade-II, which would not
have constituted sufficiently a big pool for selection/promotion for 17 posts of
Stenographer Grade-I, because the final selection would be dependent on the
marks secured in the Speed Test.
Thus, the Recruitment Cell of the Gauhati High Court proceeded with
the recruitment process.
No objections were raised on the Notification dated 09.12.2024, which
invited along with Grade-II Stenographers, Grade-III Stenographers as well, for
participating in the process of selection/promotion.
23. When the select list was being prepared, it was found that for 17
vacancies of Stenographer Grade-I, only 5 Stenographers of Grade-II were
successful, securing more than cut-off mark of 46.78, which was fixed strictly in
order of merit, though the eligibility for a candidate to be recruited was fixed at
30 marks.
24. The writ petition preferred by 2(two) of the unsuccessful
Stenographers Grade-II was sought to be contested by the Appellant/High Court
on the ground that after participating in the selection process and on becoming
unsuccessful, they were estopped from challenging the advertisement dated
09.12.2024 and the select list dated 22.04.2025.
25. It is also now urged on behalf of the High Court that there was no
challenge in the writ petition to the Resolution dated 22.02.2018, based on
which the advertisement dated 09.12.2024 was issued.
The further grounds raised on behalf of the High Court before the
Page No.# 12/18
learned Single Judge was that promotion could not have been claimed as a
matter of right and the right of the writ petitioners/respondents would be
limited only to their right of being considered on the basis of merit displayed in
the Speed Test. The recommendation of the Shetty Commission was only in the
nature of Guidelines, subject to the prescription in the Rules of the High Court.
26. The learned Single Judge, relying on the Shetty Commission's
recommendation and the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges
Association (1) -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (1992) 1 SCC 119 and All
India Judges Association (2) -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (1993) 4 SCC
288, in which it was observed that the recommendations made by the Shetty
Commission be implemented, found that the Notification dated 09.12.2024 and
the select list dated 22.04.2025 were bad in law as the Resolution of the High
Court of 2018 was only a one time measure and that there were sufficient
numbers of Grade-II Stenographers who could have formed a reasonably big
pool for the selection to Grade-I.
27. It was thus held that Grade-III Stenographers were wrongly allowed to
participate in the selection process.
28. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that if no statutory Rules
have been framed by the Government of Assam, the High Court should follow
the directions of the Supreme Court regarding effective implementation of the
Shetty Commission's Report. While saying so, the learned Single Judge relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. -Vs-
High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. :: (2024) 7 SCC 262 , wherein it
was held that in case of inconsistency between the recommendations and the
Rules framed, if any, primacy should be given to existing statutory Rules but in
Page No.# 13/18
the absence of existing Rules, the High Court should follow the directions in the
All India Judges Case (supra) for implementation of the Shetty Commission's
Report.
29. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the Resolution of
the High Court dated 22.02.2018 talked of only a one time measure for
relaxation, it ought not to have been followed in the year 2024 for promotion to
the posts of Stenographer Grade-I.
30. On the question of locus of the respondents/writ petitioners to
challenge the selection process after having participated in the same without
any objection, the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai -Vs- State of Bihar & Ors. ::
(2019) 20 SCC 17, wherein it was observed as follows:-
"17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the
candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the
prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a
candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating
consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely
because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is
sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a
candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation
of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the
selection process."
31. The reliance of the learned Single Judge, in our estimation, on Dr.
(Major) Meeta Sahai (supra) does not appear to be justified.
In Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), the advertisement provided that
25 marks would be given on work experience in a Government Hospital run by
the Government of Bihar for appointment to the post of General Medical Officer.
The petitioner there had participated in the selection process and was called for
Page No.# 14/18
interview but was not awarded any marks for her work experience as she had
the experience of working in Army Medical Corps Hospital and not in a Hospital
run by the Government of Bihar.
In this background, the Supreme Court had held that the petitioner
would not have had the locus standi to assail the legality, if she would not have
participated in the selection process. Even otherwise, she would not have known
the reasons for her non-selection.
32. No Parallel could be drawn in the case at hand as the respondents/writ
petitioners knew in advance that Grade-III Stenographers were also eligible to
participate. In fact, the records reveal that one of the writ petitioners/
respondents (Nozrul Islam Laskar) had earlier filed a writ petition bearing WP(C)
No.3123/2023, questioning the advertisement regarding recruitment process of
2023, on similar grounds, which was dismissed as the Resolution of the
Committee of the High Court by which the norms were relaxed, had not been
challenged.
33. The facts of the each case are different and the ratio of one judgment
cannot be applied without appreciating the facts in another case. A little
difference in the facts would lead to diametrically opposite conclusion.
34. The consistent line of decision of the Supreme Court in this regard has
been that a candidate would be estopped to challenge the policy after
participating in the selection process on the basis of such policy. [Refer to -
Madan Lal & Ors. -Vs- State of J&K & Ors. :: (1995) 3 SCC 486; Ramesh
Chandra Shah & Ors. -Vs- Anil Joshi & Ors. :: (2013) 11 SCC 309;
Chandigarh Administration & Anr. -Vs- Jasmine Kaur & Ors. :: (2014)
10 SCC 521; Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. -Vs- Dinesh Kumar Pandey &
Page No.# 15/18
Ors. :: (2015) 11 SCC 493].
35. This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras
Institute of Development Studies & Anr. -Vs- K. Sivasubramaniyan &
Ors. :: (2016) 1 SCC 454 and Air Commodore Naveen Jain -Vs- Union of
India & Ors. :: (2019) 10 SCC 34.
36. The writ petitioners/respondents were aware at the time of issuance of
the advertisement dated 09.12.2024 and even when the select list dated
22.04.2025 was published that Grade-III Stenographers were made eligible. The
writ petitioners had taken a chance to get selected on the basis of relaxed
norms by participating in the selection process and presented the challenge as
an after-thought on being unsuccessful.
37. In fact, it was argued by the Appellant/High Court that both the writ
petitioners were the beneficiaries of the Resolution dated 22.02.2018 of a
Committee of the High Court, on the basis of which the advertisement in
question was issued.
38. The writ petitioners had been promoted to Stenographer Grade-II in
2016 and 2019 only because of scaling down of the qualifying service to 5(five)
years in the Resolution dated 22.02.2018.
39. The rationale employed by the learned Single Judge that even when
Grade-III Stenographers were granted the eligibility to participate in the
selection process, they could not have been permitted to steal a march over
Stenographer Grade-II who had attained the eligibility in the Speed Test i.e. if
they had secured 30 marks and above, is also misconceived.
40. The criteria for selection in the case at hand, appears to be pure merit,
Page No.# 16/18
judged in the Speed Test. By no standard of judgment could it be said that the
selection process would be determinable on merely crossing 30 marks, as 30
marks in the Speed Test was the threshold eligibility only. Cut-off marks in the
merit list is decided on the basis of number of seats available and the merit list
is prepared of all the candidates having obtained equal to or above the
qualifying marks. The marks secured by the last of the candidates in the merit
list qua the number of vacancies, thus, becomes the cut-off marks.
41. There is difference between the qualifying marks and the cut-off
marks. Qualifying marks is decided in advance, whereas the cut-off marks would
depend on the merits inter se and the marks obtained by the last candidate to
be accommodated; which marks is variable and cannot be decided beforehand.
42. In this case, the cut-off marks was 46.78, which was the marks
obtained by the 17th candidate in the merit list. The writ petitioners/respondents
had not procured marks equal to or above the cut-off marks.
43. Even at the risk of repetition, it is observed that the cut-off marks in
academic and judicial vocabulary could have different meanings with reference
to the context in which the expression is used.
44. The learned Single Judge wrongly assessed 30 marks as the cut-off
marks whereas it was only the eligibility threshold for being considered [Refer to
- P.V. Indiresan (2) -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (2011) 8 SCC 441].
45. It is lamentable that till date, the Government of Assam has not framed
the Rules, but in the present case, tinkering with the process of selection
without questioning the correctness of the Resolution of the High Court
Committee of the year 2018 and without taking into account that for several
Page No.# 17/18
recruitment drives in yesteryears, vacancies remained unfilled, either because of
lesser numbers of eligible Grade-II Stenographers or they not having performed
in the Speed Test, was, in our considered opinion, absolutely unjustified and
unpragmatic.
46. The decision to continue with the relaxed norms in terms of the
Resolution of the Committee of the High Court of the year 2018 was based on
the statistics available with the Appellant/High Court, which justified increasing
the pool of the feeder grade for promotion to Stenographer Grade I.
47. The appeal, preferred by the Stenographers Grade-III, namely, Writ
Appeal No.291/2025, is also premised on the same grounds which have been
noted above.
48. To tie the strings together, the analysis and the conclusions arrived at
by the learned Single Judge, thus, are flawed for the reasons that - (i) it did
not take into account that the past experience had been that in all the
recruitment processes since 2018, vacancies were left unfilled; (ii) the
Resolution of the Committee of the High Court of the year 2018 has though
been commented upon but not quashed; (iii) the learned Single Judge was not
right in holding that there were sufficient numbers of eligible Grade-II
Stenographers to go for continued relaxation of the eligibility criteria; (iv) in
Abhimeet Sinha (supra), it was not held by the Supreme Court that
recommendations of the Shetty Commission be considered/construed as
statutory, completely inhibiting the High Court to fix criteria for selecting the
best possible candidates, in the absence of any Rules framed in that regard, and
(v) the reliance on Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra) was not based on the
correct perspective and analysis of the facts available in the case.
Page No.# 18/18
49. For the afore-noted reasons, we do not find ourselves persuaded to
affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence, we set aside the
same, thereby allowing both the appeals and direct the Centralized Recruitment
Cell of the Gauhati High Court to give effect to the Notification dated 22.04.2025
and complete the process of promotion to Stenographer Grade-I accordingly.
50. Before parting, however, we deem it our duty to issue necessary
direction to the Registry of the High Court to initiate and complete the process
of formulating the Rules in consultation with the State Government.
51. This judgment be placed before the Rule Committee of the High Court
for the needful.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Mukut
Comparing Assistant
