Page No.# 1/57

GAHC010106002024

2025:GAU-AS:9861

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2755/2024

JAHIRUL ISLAM

SON OF LATE MAHABBAT ALI, HOUSE NO. 14, BAGHORBORI ROAD,

PANJABARI, GUWAHATI- 781037, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781037

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE L.R. AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

2:HONBLE THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI- 781001

3:THE REGISTRAR ESTABLISHMENT

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI- 781001

4:BIDYUT BIKASH GOSWAMI

SON OF SRI GIRISH CH. GOSWAMIR/O VILLAGE CHAMARKUCHI

P.O.-SANEKUCHI

PS AND DIST.- NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN-781350.

5:HITESH CHANDRA DAS

S/O- SRI J. C. DAS R/O- NABAGRAHA ROAD

SILPUKHURI

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM Page No.# 1/57

GAHC010106002024

2025:GAU-AS:9861

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2755/2024

JAHIRUL ISLAM

SON OF LATE MAHABBAT ALI, HOUSE NO. 14, BAGHORBORI ROAD,

PANJABARI, GUWAHATI- 781037, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781037

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE L.R. AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

2:HONBLE THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI- 781001

3:THE REGISTRAR ESTABLISHMENT

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI- 781001

4:BIDYUT BIKASH GOSWAMI

SON OF SRI GIRISH CH. GOSWAMIR/O VILLAGE CHAMARKUCHI

P.O.-SANEKUCHI

PS AND DIST.- NALBARI

ASSAM

PIN-781350.

5:HITESH CHANDRA DAS

S/O- SRI J. C. DAS R/O- NABAGRAHA ROAD

SILPUKHURI

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

Page No.# 2/57

PIN-781003

6:SRI ROBERT LALPIANGA NAMPUI

S/O- DAVID SINGA NAMPUI

R/O- GOLDLAND VILLA

NEAR POWER HOUSE

HALFLONG

DIST-DIMA HASAO

ASSAM PIN-788819

7:GAUTAM KUMAR DAS

S/O- SRI TILAK DAS R/O- VILL- BORKHOPA

P.O.

P.S AND DIST.- TAMULPUR

ASSAM PIN-781367

8:GEETANJALI MAYOUR

R/O-PUB SARANIA

BYE LANE 1 (WEST)

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781003

9:KRISHNA SAIKIA

S/O-LT. DIMBESWAR SAIKIA R/O- PUBERUN APARTMENT

NIRIBILI PATH

GHORAMARA

P.O.- BELTOLA

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP(M)

ASSAM pin-781028

10:ANJUM BORAH

S/O-LATE GUNA KANTA BORAH

R/O- HOUSE NO. 11

ASHOK PATH

JATIA

KHAHILIPARA ROAD

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

ASSAM PIN-781006

11:MAITRYE DEVI

WIFE OF DR. P.P. TALUKDAR R/O- HOUSE NO. 115

NIZARAPAR

Page No.# 3/57

BIRUBARI

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781016

12:RAKESH DAS

S/O- LATE JOYDEV DAS

R/O- HOUSE NO. 21

AJOYDHYA PATH

JANAKPUR

JATIA

GUWAHATI

ASSAM

PIN-781019

13:JAMES LALSANDAM NEINGAITE

S/O- LATE NAGAIKHUMSIEK NEINGAITE

R/O- C/O K.K. DAS

HOUSE NO. 20

MANIMMUGHDHA NAGAR

CHACHAL

VIP ROAD

SIX MILE

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781011.

14:PARTHA SAIKIA

S/O- SONTI RAM SAIKIA

R/O- MILAN NAGAR

BYE LANE NO.4

MALIGAON

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781011

15:AHMADUL ALA

S/O- LATE ABDUL KADER

R/O- HOUSE NO. 31

ANUPAM NAGAR

HATIGAON

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN-781038

Page No.# 4/57

16:UTPAL BURAGOHAION

S/O-LATE PUNARAM BURAGOHAIN

R/O- HAPPY VILLA

UZANBAZAR

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP(M)

ASSAM

PIN-781003.

17:MOUSHUMI CHOUDHURY

WIFE OF LATE DEBOJIT DAS

R/O-S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD

PANBAJAR

GUWAHATI

KAMRUP(M)

ASSAM-781001.

18:RITUPARNA DAS

S/O- LATE MOHAN CHANDRA DAS R/O- VILL- GOPALPUR

P.O.-MIRZA

DIST.-KAMRUP(M)

ASSAM

ASSAM

PIN-78112

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Chamuah, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Baishya, Standing Counsel

Mr. R. Mazumdar, Advocate

Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025

Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025

Page No.# 5/57

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Standing

Counsel, Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appears on

behalf of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 18.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court by invoking the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

for quashing and/or expunging the last paragraph of his Appointment

order dated 18.04.2016 whereby a condition was incorporated that

the petitioner would maintain his inter se seniority in his original

cadre, i.e., Senior Judicial Assistant (hereinafter referred to as, “SJA”).

The petitioner has also sought for consequential reliefs to the effect

that the petitioner be considered to the post of Assistant Registrar in

the Ministerial Stream.

CASE OF THE WRIT PETITIONER

3. The facts of the present case, as would be discerned from the

perusal of the pleadings before this Court, are that the petitioner was

appointed as a Computer Operator on 14.08.1996. Subsequent

thereto, he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant (for

Page No.# 6/57

short, “LDA”) on 20.06.2007. The petitioner was further promoted to

the post of Senior Administrative Assistant later on re-designated as

SJA on 30.10.2013.

4. On 04.01.2016, a notice was issued by the Registrar

(Administration) of the Gauhati High Court, inviting options from

intending Administrative Officer (Judicial) (hereinafter referred to as,

“A.O.(J)”) and SJA for filling up of 1 clear vacancy of Court Officer in

the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. It was mentioned in the

said notice that the selected candidate for the post of Court Officer

would maintain his or her seniority in the original cadre and his or her

further promotion would be considered on the basis thereof.

Candidates who were willing to submit their options were directed to

submit their service profile to the A.O.(J) (Establishment) on or before

25.01.2016. Subsequent thereto, the Registrar (Establishment) also

issued another communication on 04.02.2016 calling for options.

5. The record reveals that 3 candidates submitted their options

including the petitioner and they were directed to appear in an

interview to be held on 28.03.2016. The petitioner was selected in the

said selection process and was appointed temporarily and until further

orders as a Court Officer in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High

Court vide an Appointment Notification dated 18.04.2016. It was

further mentioned in the said Notification that the petitioner would

Page No.# 7/57

maintain his seniority in his original cadre, i.e., SJA and his further

promotion would be considered on that basis. The relevant part of the

said Notification being pertinent to the adjudication of the present

dispute is reproduced herein under:

“N O T I F I C A T I O N

Dated Guwahati the 18

th

April, 2016

No. HC.V-11/94(pt-I)/288/Estt.## In exercise of the powers conferred

under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, read with the Rule 7 of the

Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of service and Conduct)

Rules, 1967 amended vide notification No. HC.XI-05/2015/167/RC dtd.

24.7.2015, Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to appoint Sri Jahirul

Islam, Senior Judicial Assistant, temporarily and until further orders as

Court Officer in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in

the Pay Band of Rs. 800035000/- (PB-3) with Grade Pay of Rs. 4900/- per

month plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules with effect from the

date of his joining vice Sri Dilip Kr. Baruah, Court Officer, reverted back to his

original post of Senior Judicial Assistant.

Sri Jahirul Islam will maintain his seniority in his original cadre i.e. senior

Judicial Assistant and his further promotion will be considered on that basis.

By order,

REGISTRAR GENERAL

Memo No. HC.V-11/94(Pt-I)/288A/Estt. Dated 18.4.2016”

6. The record further reveals that the petitioner had submitted a

representation for regularizing his services as Court Officer-I by fixing

Page No.# 8/57

his seniority w.e.f. the date of his joining i.e. on 18.04.2016. The said

representation was placed before the Committee for dealing with all

matters relating to Officers and Staff in the High Court (Principal Seat

and Outlying Benches including the Subordinate Courts of all States)

under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court (hereinafter referred

to as, “the Hon’ble Committee”). The said Hon’ble Committee in its

meeting held on 16.08.2022 considered the representation of the

petitioner and requested two (2) Hon’ble Judges, i.e., Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Suman Shyam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury to

examine the matter along with other collateral issues involved.

7. The Hon’ble Sub-Committee so constituted of Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Suman Shyam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury submitted a

report on 15.11.2022. The relevant part of the said report being

essential for the adjudication of the present dispute is reproduced

herein under:

“In order to examine the validity of the prayer made by the applicant, this

Committee has gone through the relevant rules, circulars, notifications as well

as the resolutions adopted by the various Committees from time to time

pertaining to appointment of Court Officer and finds that Conditions of Services

of the employees of the Gauhati High Court (Registry) is governed by the

Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967 framed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice in

exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The

post of Court Officer was originally an ex-cadre post and the same used to be

filled up by adopting various temporary measures including calling options from

ex-army/ para-military officers. Subsequently, the post of Court Officer No. 1

Page No.# 9/57

was made a cadre post by amending the Schedule-I of the Rules of 1967 and

01 (one) post of Court Officer was incorporated as a Class-II(C) in Schedule-I of

the Rules. Although originally, only one post of Court Officer was en-cadered,

yet, subsequently, by issuing notification dated 24-07-2015, the second post of

Court Officer was also en-cadered.

Schedule-I of the Rules of 1967 lays down the grade pay and cadre of the posts

coming under the High Court Services. As per the amended Schedule-I of the

Rules, 02 (two) posts of Court Officers are included in the Class-II(C) cadre. The

other posts forming part of Class-II(C) service of Schedule-I along with their

revised pay bands and number of posts, as on date, are indicated here-in-below

for ready reference:-

Class-II(C)

Sl.Name of the postNo. of

post

Pay

Band

Scale Grade PayPSP

1.Administrative

Officer (Judicial)

27 PB-322000-97000115001000

2.Court Officer2 PB-322000-97000115001000

3.Protocol Officer2 PB-322000-97000115001000

From a careful examination of the Rules of 1967, more particularly, the

posts included in Class-II(C), we find that the post of Administrative Officer

(Judicial), Court Officer and Protocol Officer belong to the same cadre, i.e.

Class-II-(C). It also prima-facie appears that all the three posts incorporated in

Class-II(C) carry identical pay scale, are inter-changeable in nature and the

materials placed before the Committee suggests that the Registry has also,

from time to time, understood the Rules in such a manner. Therefore, going by

Page No.# 10/57

the edict of the Rules, it is apparent that all the posts included in Class-II(C)

constitute a composite cadre. However, the same cannot be said for the post of

Sr. Judicial Assistant (SJA), which post apparently is not a part of Class-II(C)

cadre. The post of SJA apparently belongs to a different cadre under the Rules

of 1967.

It is settled principle in service jurisprudence that inter-se seniority of

employees ought to be determined in respect of those candidates who belong

to the same cadre. Therefore, the seniority of the employees occupying any of

the aforementioned posts of Class-II(C) including the applicant will have to be

determined inter-se the incumbents holding the various post in Class-II(C)

cadre and not in the cadre of SJA which is not a Class-II(C) post. However, such

a recourse would not be permissible in this case in view of Rule 7(4) of the

Rules of 1967, which provides as follows:

"(4) The posts of Court Officer in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High

Court and the Kohima Bench shall be filled up by calling options from the

Administrative Officer (Judicial) and the Senior Judicial Assistants. The

persons so appointed in the posts of Court Officer(s) shall maintain their

respective seniority in their original cadres i.e. in the cadre of

Administrative Officer (Judicial)/ Senior Judicial Assistant and their

further promotion will be considered on that basis."

We have also noticed that the appointment of the applicant in the post of

Court Officer was made against a substantive vacancy in respect of a post

belonging to Class-II(C), based on a proper selection process. As such, we are

of the view that there is no scope for reversion of the applicant to the

previously held post of Sr. Judicial Assistant. If that be so, no meaningful

purpose would be served by maintaining the seniority of the applicant in the

original cadre of Sr. Judicial Assistant, more so, since the Rules of 1967 do not

envisage any provision for reversion of an incumbent holding a Class-II(C)

category post to another cadre. However, in view of Rule 7(4), the seniority of

Page No.# 11/57

the applicant will have to be maintained in the cadre of Sr. Judicial Assistant

only i.e. in the cadre he originally belonged to. This, in the considered opinion

of the Committee, has given rise to an anomalous situation, which cannot be

resolved until such time, Rule 7(4) is suitably amended.”

8. From the above quoted report, it would be seen that the Hon’ble

Sub-committee so constituted categorically observed that the

petitioner was appointed against the substantive vacancy in respect to

a post belonging to Class-II(C) based on a proper selection process. It

was further observed that there was no scope for reversion of the

petitioner to the previously held post of SJA. On the basis thereof, it

was opined that no meaningful purpose would be served by

maintaining the seniority of the petitioner in the original grade of SJA,

more so, when the Gauhati High Court (Appointment, Conditions of

Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (for short, “the Rules of 1967”) do

not envisage any provision for reversion of an incumbent holding a

Class-II(C) category post to another cadre. Be that as it may, the

Hon’ble Sub-committee was of the view that on account of Rule 7(4)

of the Rules of 1967, the seniority of the petitioner will have to be

maintained in the cadre of SJA and as such opined that Rule 7(4) of

the Rules of 1967 be suitably amended.

9. This report, so submitted by the Hon’ble Sub-Committee was

placed before the Hon’ble Committee on 19.09.2023. The Hon’ble

Committee accepted the recommendation of the Honb’le Sub-

Page No.# 12/57

Committee and directed the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief

Justice for final decision. The relevant portion of the said resolution

taken on 19.09.2023 being pertinent is reproduced herein under:

“ Item No. 5: Consideration of the note dated 18/08/2021 in

connection with the prayer submitted by Shri Jahirul Islam, Court

Officer-I, for regularizing him in his post by fixing his seniority from

his date of joining as Court Officer-I. (deferred item)

Resolution: The Committee on 16.08.2022 constituted a Sub-Committee

consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam and Hon’‘ble Mr. Justice Manish

Choudhury to examine the matter along with other collateral issues. The said

Sub-Committee after deliberation on 15.11.2022, submitted the report with the

finding that the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial), Court Officer and

Protocol Officer belong to the same cadre of Class-II (C) carrying identical pay

scale and are interchangeable in nature and that the posts included in Class-II

(C) constitute composite cadre whereas, the post of Senior Judicial Assistant

(SJA) is not a part of Class-II (C) cadre as provided under the Gauhati High

Court Service Rules, 1967. The said Sub-Committee also observed that the

concerned incumbent was selected to the post of Court Officer and was

appointed against this substantive vacancy belonging to Class-II (C) based on

proper selection process and they are of the view that there is no scope for

reversion of the applicant to the previously held post of Senior Judicial Assistant

as such there is no meaningful purpose by maintaining the seniority of the

applicant in the original cadre of Senior Judicial Assistant since the said 1967

Rules do not envisage any provision for reversion of the incumbent holding

Class-II (C) category post to another cadre. After detailed consideration, the

said Sub-Committee in Its decision dated 15.11.2022, observed that the said

Rule 7(4) of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 needs to be amended

providing more clarity as regards the promotional avenues for the incumbents

Page No.# 13/57

within the Class-II (C) category post by laying down the feeder cadre and the

mode of selection in respect thereof. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma,

a member of this Committee considered not to give any views as the matter

relating to the post of Secretary to the Chief Justice is pending before Division

Bench of which Lordship is a member. Excluding Hon’ble Mr. Justice Michael

Zothankhuma, we have accepted the recommendation of the Sub-Committee

consisting of Hon’‘ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manish

Choudhury for necessary amendment of Rule 7(4) of said 1967 Rules.

Accordingly, the matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Gauhati

High Court for final decision.”

10. It is seen from the very resolution that the Hon'ble Chief Justice

had also accepted the said recommendation as would be apparent

from the signature appearing of the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the said

resolution itself.

11. The record further reveals, more particularly, from the affidavit-

in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the present writ

petition that the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the basis of the said

recommendation was pleased to direct the matter be placed before

the Rule Committee on 03.06.2024. More than a year had passed,

nothing concrete in that regard had materialized insofar as amending

the Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967.

12. The record further reveals that the petitioner had submitted an

application seeking information on 10.05.2024 as regards the list of

names and date of promotion to the Assistant Registrar w.e.f.

Page No.# 14/57

18.04.2016 till the date of the application. The Registrar (Judicial) &

PIO, Gauhati High Court had provided information to the petitioner on

21.05.2024 providing the list of names and the date of promotion to

Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 18.04.2016 till 21.05.2024. From a perusal of

the said list, it would be seen that 35 persons have been promoted to

the post of Assistant Registrar (Ministerial Stream) w.e.f. 09.06.2016

and 8 persons were promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar

(Stenographer Stream) w.e.f. 09.06.2016.

13. The petitioner’s grievance in the present proceedings is that the

petitioner having been appointed to the post of Court Officer, which

falls in the category of Class-II(C) was not considered for promotion

to the post of Assistant Registrar although the post of the Court

Officer is a feeder category post to the post of Assistant Registrar. It is

the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was appointed,

post a proper selection process to the post of Court Officer which is a

cadre post and since the last 8 years, he was never considered on the

ground that his seniority is still maintained in the SJA cadre. It is the

case of the petitioner that his seniority should have been maintained,

in the Court Officer's cadre, but on account of the extraordinary

condition stipulated in his Appointment order, the petitioner is

deprived of due consideration. It is under such circumstances, the

petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

Page No.# 15/57

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS AND INTERIM DIRECTIONS

14. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated

30.05.2024 had issued notice making it returnable on 26.06.2024.

Subsequent thereto, on 07.06.2024, an interview process was initiated

for filling up of 1 post of Deputy Registrar and 1 anticipated vacancy

of Assistant Registrar and the interview was scheduled to be held on

12.06.2024 insofar as the post of Assistant Registrar was concerned.

The petitioner filed an application before this Court in the present

proceedings which was registered and numbered as I.A.(Civil) No.

1769/2024 seeking appropriate directions upon the respondent Nos. 2

and 3 to call the petitioner for the ensuing interview to be held on

12.06.2024 for the post of Assistant Registrar.

15. This Court vide an order dated 11.06.2024 taking into

consideration that as per Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967, the post of

the Assistant Registrar can be filled up from amongst the State

Judicial Service Grade-III Officers or by promotion from Gazetted

Officers of the High Court Services belonging to Classes- II(B), II(C)

or II(D) or from amongst Advocates having not less than 5 years of

continuous service in the bar, permitted the petitioner to participate in

the Selection process for the post of Assistant Registrar as notified

vide Notification No. HC.V-25/2014/488/Estt. dated 07.06.2024

subject to the petitioner fulfilling other prescriptions under the Rules

Page No.# 16/57

of 1967. It was observed in the said order that the participation of the

petitioner for selection and promotion to the post of Assistant

Registrar would not confer any right on the petitioner and further if

any right accrues the same shall be, subject to the outcome of the

writ petition, including the parameters laid down in Notification No.

HC.V-105/2013/142/Estt. dated 02.03.2021. It was also observed that

if the petitioner was selected for promotion to the post of Assistant

Registrar then such promotion and Appointment order shall not be

issued without the leave of the Court. It is pertinent herein to take

note of that the petitioner failed to succeed in the said selection as is

apparent from the records.

16. Subsequent thereto, while the present writ proceedings were

pending, the Registry of the Gauhati High Court had issued another

notice on 24.10.2024 to fill up 3 anticipated vacancies of Assistant

Registrar, for which, interview was scheduled on 05.11.2024. In the

said notice which was issued on 24.10.2024 only 10 persons were

called to be interviewed for the 3 anticipated vacancies of Assistant

Registrar to be held on 05.11.2024 and the petitioner's name did not

feature in the said list. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner

filed another application on 25.10.2024 seeking appropriate

direction(s) so that the petitioner can be permitted to participate in

the said ensuing selection process to the post of the Assistant

Registrar to be held on 05.11.2024. The said application was

Page No.# 17/57

registered and numbered as I.A.(Civil) No. 3290/2024. This Court vide

an order dated 30.10.2024 passed an order that the petitioner be

allowed to participate in the ensuing selection process for the post of

Assistant Registrar, which was scheduled to be held on 05.11.2024 as

per the notice dated 24.10.2024. It was further made clear by this

Court that in the event the petitioner is selected for Appointment to

the post of Assistant Registrar, his appointment/promotion shall not be

given effect to without the leave of the Court. The petitioner’s

participation in the selection process to the post of Assistant Registrar

by virtue of the order so passed would not accrue any right to the

petitioner unless, otherwise, as may be directed by this Court

subsequently. The petitioner thereupon participated in the said

selection process pursuant to the order dated 30.10.2024. Nothing

has been placed before this Court as regards what was the outcome

of the said selection proceedings.

STAND OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3

17. The record further reveals that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3

have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition,

the stand so taken was that there were 2 numbers of posts of Court

Officer in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. Out of the two

(2) posts, one (1) was ex-cadre post which was later on en-cadred as

would be apparent from the Notification dated 24.07.2015. Pursuant

Page No.# 18/57

thereto, a proposal was initiated by the Registry of the Gauhati High

Court for insertion of a provision in the Rules of 1967 for filling up of

the posts of Court Officer in the Principal Seat, the Kohima Bench, the

Aizawl Bench and the Itanagar Bench. Insofar as the Principal Seat

and the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the proposal was

that the post of the Court Officer should be filled up by calling options

from A.O.(J) and SJA and the person(s) so appointed in the post of

the Court Officer(s) shall maintain their respective seniority in their

original cadres, i.e., in the cadre of A.O.(J)/SJA and the further

promotion would be considered on that basis. Insofar as the filling up

of the post of Court Officer in the Registry of the Aizawl and Itanagar

Benches of the Gauhati High Court, the proposal was that the post of

the Court Officer should be filled up by calling options from the A.O.

(J), Assistant and SJA. The person(s) so appointed in the post of

Court Officer(s) shall maintain their respective seniority in their

original cadres, i.e. in the cadre of AOJ/Assistant/SJA and their further

promotion would be considered on that basis.

18. On the basis of such proposal, two (2) Sub-Rules were inserted to

Rule 7 of the Rules of 1967. For the Principal Seat as well as for the

Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967 was inserted. Insofar as Aizawl Bench and the Itanagar Bench of

the Gauhati High Court, Rule 7(4)(A) of the Rules of 1967 was

inserted. These amendment to the Rules of 1967 were made by

Page No.# 19/57

notifying the same vide a Notification dated 24.07.2015. Rule 7(4)

being relevant for the purpose of the present dispute is reproduced

herein under:

“(4) The posts of Court Officer in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati

High Court and the Kohima bench shall be filled up by calling options

from the Administrative Officer (Judicial) and the Senior Judicial

Assistants. The persons so appointed in the posts of Court Officer(s)

shall maintain their respective seniority in their original cadres i.e. in

the cadre of Administrative Officer )Judicial)/Senior Judicial Assistant

and their further promotion will be considered on that basis.”

19. It would also be seen that vide the same Notification dated

24.07.2015, the Schedule-I to the Rules of 1967 was also amended

wherein at serial No. III of Class-II(C) appearing in Schedule-I was

inserted as follows:

“III. Court Officer 2 PB-3, Rs. 8000-Rs. 35000,

(En-Cadre) G.P. Rs. 4900.”

20. Class II(CC) which appeared in Schedule-I which was pertaining

to Court Officer ex-cadre was deleted.

21. It is the specific case of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the

affidavit-in-opposition that based upon Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967,

the Notices were issued on 04.01.2016 and 04.02.2016 wherein a

condition was duly mentioned that the selected candidate for the post

Page No.# 20/57

of Court Officer shall maintain his or her seniority in the original cadre.

It was also mentioned in the Appointment Notification dated

18.04.2016 that the petitioner would maintain his seniority in the

cadre of SJA in terms with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967. It was also

stated that the petitioner joined in the said post of Court Officer on

the very same day. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it was stated that

prior to the representation submitted by the petitioner on 18.08.2021,

the petitioner had submitted another representation on 09.02.2018.

The said representation upon being submitted, the Hon’ble Committee

in its Minutes of the meeting held on 30.07.2018, observed that the

petitioner would maintain his seniority in his original cadre of SJA and

his further promotion would be considered on that basis.

22. It was further averred in the affidavit-in-opposition that as the

petitioner was maintaining his seniority in the cadre of SJA and SJA

was not a part of Class-II (C) post, the next promotion of the

petitioner is to the post of A.O.(J) which would be considered in due

course, when he falls in the zone of consideration. It was mentioned

that prior to the petitioner's Appointment as the Court Officer, the

petitioner was holding the post of SJA and was placed at serial No. 87

in the final gradation list published vide Notification dated 20.01.2016

wherein 26 numbers of Officers holding the post of A.O.(J) and 86

numbers of persons holding the post of SJA were senior to him in that

list. It was averred that though the petitioner was working as a Court

Page No.# 21/57

Officer w.e.f. 18.04.2016, however, his seniority has to be maintained

in his original cadre of SJA. It was further mentioned that in terms

with the gradation list of SJA published on 10.06.2024, there are total

of 47 numbers of Officers/Staff who are senior to the petitioner i.e. 26

numbers of A.O.(J) and 21 numbers of SJA including the Court Master,

Protocol Officer and Court Officer who maintain the seniority in the

cadre of SJA. It was further stated that as per the existing Rule i.e.

Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967, the petitioner is not eligible for the

post of Assistant Registrar as he is not in the feeder category of A.O.

(J) and he would be considered only for the promotion to the post of

A.O.(J) as he is retaining his seniority in his original cadre of SJA. It

was further mentioned that the petitioner was not borne in Class II(C)

cadre of the employees of the Gauhati High Court.

ANALYSIS OF THE GRADATION LIST AND NOTIFICATION

DATED 02.03.2021

23. This Court has duly taken note of the gradation list dated

10.06.2024 enclosed as Annexure-A12 to the affidavit-in-opposition. It

surprises this Court to note that though the post of Court Officer is a

cadre post in Class II(C), there is no gradation list prepared insofar as

the post of Court Officer is concerned. On the other hand, it would be

seen that Sri Hengoumang Lhoujiem who is a Court Officer and the

petitioner have been placed at serial Nos. 12 and 22 respectively in

Page No.# 22/57

the gradation list insofar as the SJA along with Court Masters in the

Gauhati High Court, Principal Seat.

24. This Court further finds it most pertinent to take note of the

Notification dated 02.03.2021 which has been enclosed as Annexure-

A6 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

From a perusal of the said Notification, it transpires that for the

purpose of having a proper and uniform execution of the promotion

policy (merit-cum-seniority) in respect of Officers and Staff of the

Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court, as well as the Outlying

Benches, certain parameters were laid down. The said parameters

being relevant are reproduced herein under:

“(i) The number of incumbents in the zome of consideration for promotion in

the next higher cadre shall be as follows:-

No. of Vacancies Size of zone of consideration

1 5

2 8

3 10

4 12

5 to 10 Twice the number vacancies+4

11 to 14 24

15 and above 1 ½ times of the number of vacancies,

Page No.# 23/57

rounded off to the next higher integer +3

(ii) Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the last 05 (five) years shall be

considered and total mark in the ACRs shall be fixed at 30.

(iii) Marking of the ACRs for each year shall be as follows:-

a. Outstanding- 6

b. Very Good- 5

c. Good- 4

d. Average- 3

e. Below Average- 2

(iv) Minimum eligibility criteria for being considered for promotion shall be

fixed at 18 marks out of total marks in the ACR.

(v) Interaction/Viva-voce shall be held to assess the knowledge of office

procedure and related issues, communication skill, general awareness level and

overall personality of the Officer/Staff and in the said process, 30 marks is

allotted. To be eligible to get promotion, an officer/Staff shall have to get at

least 60% marks in the aforesaid interaction/viva-voce.

(vi) Merit list of the Officers/Staff, who will be found eligible for

promotion as per the above criteria, shall be prepared purely as per

merit and seniority is to be counted only when merit is equal.

(vii) Vigilance clearance shall be mandatory for promotion to any higher

cadre.”

25. From the above quoted parameters, it would be seen that the

Page No.# 24/57

size of zone of consideration have been mandated. For e.g., against 1

vacancy, the zone of consideration is 5; for 2 vacancies, zone of

consideration is 8 and so on. But it is interesting to take note of that

nothing is spelt out in the said Notification that the said zone of

consideration would be applicable on the basis of seniority. Rather, a

reading of the Notification and, more particularly, the parameters laid

down therein appears that the zone of consideration would be based

upon merit. A reading of Clauses (ii) to (iv) quoted herein above

would show that a candidate who has minimum eligibility of 18 marks

in the last Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) would have the

minimum eligibility criteria for being considered for promotion. A

candidate who has the minimum eligibility criteria would then be

assessed on the basis of interaction/viva-voce on total marks of 30

and to be eligible for promotion, the candidate shall have to get at

least 60% marks in the interaction/viva-voce. Clause (vi) further

supports the view of this Court that the zone of consideration would

be based on merit and not on seniority wherein it has been mentioned

that the candidates would be adjudged purely on merit and seniority

would be only counted when the merit is equal. A further analysis of

this Notification would be made in the later segment of the present

judgment.

STAND OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS

Page No.# 25/57

26. Let this Court now take up the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the

private respondents. The case of these private respondents is that

they are A.O.(J) and they are senior to the petitioners in the rank of

SJA. It was further mentioned that the post of the Court Officers

belonging to Class-II(C) as per Schedule-I are optional posts and

options are open to A.O.(J) as well as SJA and as per Rule 7(4) of the

Rules of 1967. It was averred that as per Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967, the A.O.(J) and SJA are to maintain their seniority in their

respective original cadres, i.e. in the cadre of A.O.(J) or SJA and

further their promotions are to be considered on the basis thereof. It

was further mentioned that the posts of the Court Officers are not

promotional posts as would be reflected from the respective

Appointment letters of the respondent Nos. 4 to 18 as A.O.(J) vis-à-

vis, the Appointment order of the petitioner. In addition to that, the

respondent Nos. 4 to 18 have supported the stand of the respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 in their affidavit-in-opposition. It was further mentioned

that the petitioner had also challenged the Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967 by filing another petition being WP(C) No. 7086/2024 on

27.12.2024 and the said writ petition is presently pending.

CONSOLIDATED AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

NOS. 2 & 3

27. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that when the

Page No.# 26/57

instant writ petition along with another writ petition being WP(C) No.

604(AP)/2024 was taken up, this Court made a query on the interplay

of Rule 7(3) with Rule 7(4) and 7(4)(A) of the Rules of 1967 and,

more particularly, to the aspect, as to whether, the said Rule i.e. Rule

7(4) and Rule 7(4)(A) of the Rules of 1967 overrides Rule 7(3) of the

Rules of 1967. To the said query so made vide the order dated

30.01.2025, a consolidated affidavit was filed by the Registrar General

of the Gauhati High Court wherein in clear and unambiguous terms, it

was stated that Rule 7(4) and Rule 7(4)(A) of the Rules of 1967 do

not override Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967. It was also mentioned in

the said consolidated affidavit that in pursuance to the orders passed

by this Court in I.A.(Civil) No. 1769/2024 and I.A.(Civil) No.

3290/2024, the petitioner was allowed to appear for interview for the

post of Assistant Registrar. It was specifically stated that no

appointment or promotion would be given effect to without the leave

of the Court. It was also stated that the petitioner’s participation in

the selection process did not automatically entitle him to the post, and

the selection remains subject to judicial scrutiny.

CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE

PARTIES

28. Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted at the outset that Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967

Page No.# 27/57

had been put to challenge in WP(C) No. 7086/2024 primarily on the

ground that the said Rule is contrary to the well-established principles

of service jurisprudence inasmuch as a person who has been

appointed to a post in the higher cadre, his seniority has to be taken

on the basis of his appointment in the higher cadre post and not on

the basis of his seniority which he maintained in the lower cadre post.

The learned counsel submitted that the said Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967 is also challenged on the ground that there already exists Rule

7(4) of the Rules of 1967 which relates to the posts of Chief

Translators and Senior Grade Translators and as such, the super

imposition of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 relating to Court Officers

vide the Notification dated 24.07.2015 appears to be completely

without application of mind. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the legality and validity of Rule 7(4) of

the Rules of 1967 is pending before the learned Division Bench.

29. The learned counsel submitted that from the materials on

record, it would show that the petitioner was appointed to the post of

Court Officer pursuant to options being invited from all concerned and

thereupon a selection being conducted wherein the petitioner was

found to be the most suitable, for which, the petitioner was appointed

as a Court Officer. He submitted that even on the Administrative side,

the Hon’ble Sub-committee as well as the Hon’ble Committee have

expressed their opinion that the petitioner’s seniority should be

Page No.# 28/57

reckoned as per his Appointment to the post of Court Officer and

accordingly on 19.09.2023 recommended that Rule 7(4) of the Rules

of 1967 should be suitably amended. The learned counsel submitted

that these recommendations still stands but on the other hand various

Appointments to the post of Assistant Registrar (Ministerial Stream)

have been made and the grievances of the petitioner remain

unredressed. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner having no

other option had to approach this Court by filing the present writ

petition on 27.05.2024. He further submitted that after the filing of

the writ petition, on 03.06.2024, the Hon’ble Chief Justice had placed

the matter before the Rule Committee and almost a year have passed,

there has been no redressal to the grievances of the petitioner.

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that it is

a well-settled proposition that once an incumbent is appointed to a

post, according to the Rules, his seniority has to be reckoned from the

date of his initial Appointment and not according to the date of

confirmation unless the Rules provide otherwise. In that regard, he

has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of

Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in (1999) 9 SCC

596 as well as in the case of Pawan Pratap Singh & Others Vs. Reevan

Singh & Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267. He therefore submitted

that Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 though only states that the

seniority would be maintained as per the original cadre, but do not

Page No.# 29/57

stipulate that a person who has been appointed to the post of Court

Officer can be reverted back to his original cadre. He referred to Rule

7(5) of the Rules of 1967 which provides a stipulation that Court

Masters appointed can be reverted and Appointment of an employee

as Court Master would not be treated as his or her promotion. Under

such circumstances, the learned counsel therefore submitted that the

petitioner having been appointed in the post of Court Officer and

further having been rendering service without any blemish since the

last 9 years cannot be disregarded for being considered to the post of

Assistant Registrar.

31. The learned counsel further submitted that the perusal of the

Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967 would further show that the feeder

category to the post of Assistant Registrar would be amongst the

State Judicial Service Grade-III, or by promotion from amongst the

Gazetted Officers of the High Court’s Service belonging to Class II(B),

Class II(C) or Class II(D); or from amongst the Advocates of not less

than 5 years continuous practice at the Bar. He therefore submitted

that when the post of the Court Officer which is in Class-II(C) is a

feeder category post, merely because the petitioner's seniority is to be

reckoned in his original cadre, he cannot be deprived of being

considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right of the

petitioner enshrined under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution

of India.

Page No.# 30/57

32. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the

posts in category II(C); be it the A.O.(J), Court Officer, Protocol

Officer etc. are feeder posts to the post of Assistant Registrar and as

such, the seniority in whichever cadre is maintained would have only

relevance where the merit is equal and therefore the question of the

petitioner not being taken into consideration is in violation of Article

14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

33. The learned counsel further referring to the Notification dated

02.03.2021 submitted that as the parameter for the zone of

consideration mentions about the merit, the petitioner’s case was

required to be considered by applying the Notification dated

02.03.2021, rather depriving the petitioner. The learned counsel

further drew the attention to the judgment of the learned Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Nirod Sarma Vs. Safiqur Rahman &

Others reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Gau 360 and specifically

referred to paragraph No. 62 wherein it was specifically observed in

connection with a similar rider as had been imposed in the case of the

petitioner to the effect that the said rider does not take away the fact

that subsequent promotions made to the cadre post of SJA left vacant

by the promotion of SJA to higher post are regular promotions and

the bar on the appellant therein for being appointed as regular

Protocol Officer, due to the rider cannot continue, when his post of

SJA had been filled up on 20.07.2017.

Page No.# 31/57

34. Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High

Court appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted

that Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967 has to be harmoniously construed

with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967. The learned Standing Counsel

submitted that if Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967 is read harmoniously

with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967, the petitioner cannot be deemed

to have been appointed substantively to the post of Court Officer and

as such, he would be deemed to be holding the post of SJA and his

promotion would only be due when those senior to him have been

appointed to the post of A.O.(J) and it is only when the petitioner is

appointed to the post of A.O.(J), he can be considered to the post of

Assistant Registrar and not before that. Further to that, the learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court

submitted that the petitioner is maintaining his seniority in the cadre

of SJA and as SJA is not a part of Class II(C) post. The next

promotion of the petitioner is to the post of A.O.(J) would only be

considered in due course of time when he falls in the zone of

consideration. The learned Standing Counsel further reiterated its

stand as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the consolidated affidavit filed by the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

35. Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

private respondent Nos. 4 to 18 submitted that the Appointment of

Page No.# 32/57

the petitioner to the post of Court Officer was an optional

appointment and he cannot be deemed to have been promoted and

appointed in regular course from the post of SJA. He further

submitted that as per Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967, if an A.O.(J) is

appointed to the post of Court Officer, he would continue to hold the

seniority in the cadre of the A.O.(J) and if a SJA is appointed to the

post of Court Officer, he would continue to hold their seniority in the

category of SJA and their eligibility to enter the zone of consideration

for regular promotion to the next higher level i.e. from SJA to A.O.(J)

and from A.O.(J) to Assistant Registrar would have to be considered

on the basis of their seniority position in their respective cadre.

36. The learned counsel submitted that there is no amalgamated

seniority list of A.O.(J) and Court Officer. Therefore, the consideration

of a Court Officer for promotion and appointment to the post of

Assistant Registrar would only accrue from his position in the seniority

list of the A.O.(J), if such incumbent had been holding the post of

A.O.(J) prior to his appointment as Court Officer. The learned counsel

further submitted that an incumbent who is holding the post of SJA

prior to his appointment as Court Officer, would not be at par with an

incumbent who had been holding the post of A.O.(J) prior to his

appointment as a Court Officer. It was therefore submitted that while

being considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant

Registrar, the seniority both inter-cadre and intra-cadre is required to

Page No.# 33/57

be maintained to uphold the administrative fair play. The learned

counsel submitted that if any other interpretation is given, it would

lead to a situation where person junior in service would steal a march

over the senior person and such interpretation would also be in

violation to the Rules of 1967, which hold the field. The learned

counsel distinguished the judgment of the learned Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Nirod Sarma (supra) on the ground that the

facts therein were completely different from the facts involved in the

present proceedings.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

37. From the pleadings, the materials on record as well as the

submissions so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of

the parties, it would be seen that pursuant to Notices being issued on

04.01.2016 and 04.02.2016 inviting applications from all A.O.(J)(s) as

well as SJA(s), 3 persons submitted their options and they were called

for interview on 28.03.2016. The record further reveals that pursuant

to the interview, the petitioner was found most suitable and was

selected. On the basis of the selection, the matter was placed before

the Hon’ble Committee. The Hon’ble Committee vide its resolution

dated 07.04.2016 had recommended that the petitioner be appointed

to the post of Court Officer. The resolution so adopted by the Hon’ble

Committee is reproduced herein under:

Page No.# 34/57

“ITEM NO. 1: Consideration of this Registry’s note dated 30.3.2016 for

recommendation of the name of the candidate for appointment to the post of

Court Officer in the Principal Seat of Gauhati High Court.

RESOLUTION: The Committee is consideration of the relevant materials

and taking into account the parameters and yardsticks of selection, including

the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview held on 28.03.2016

recommends Shri Jahirul Islam, SJA for the post of Court Officer. However, he

will maintain his seniority in his original cadre, i.e. Senior Judicial Assistant and

his further promotion will be considered on that basis.”

38. Pursuant thereto, the Hon’ble Chief Justice duly accepted the

said recommendation, whereupon the petitioner was appointed vide

the Notification dated 18.04.2016.

39. At this stage, this Court further finds it very pertinent to observe

that the work to be performed by the persons manning posts such as

Court Officer, Protocol Officer, Assistant Protocol Officers are very

demanding and challenging due to the exigencies of the work

schedule. They are the face of the High Court to those who do not

belong to the particular High Court. It is because of the demanding

nature of their duties that options are called for as otherwise most of

the A.O.(J) or SJA are not interested in the said posts. From the very

Notices dated 04.01.2016 and 04.02.2016, it would be seen that

though options were sought for from all A.O.(J)(s) as well as SJA(s),

only 3 employees submitted their options including the petitioner. Rule

7(4) of the Rules of 1967, specifically mandates that the post of Court

Page No.# 35/57

Officer is to be filled up by calling for options from all A.O.(J)(s) and

SJA(s). Therefore, the Rules of 1967 are clear, as to how, the post of

the Court Officer is to be filled up. It is relevant to take note of that

on the basis of appointment to the post of Court Officer, an Officer in

the cadre of SJA reaches the status of Class-II(C) which apparently is

higher in rank, status, pay etc., from the post of SJA. The materials on

record do not show that the appointment of the petitioner to the post

of Court Officer or even the procedure adopted for selection of the

petitioner to the post of Court Officer are put to challenge. The

observations of the Hon’ble Sub-Committee as well as the Hon’ble

Committee as quoted above clearly shows that the petitioner was

selected for appointment to the post of Court Officer after carrying

out a proper selection process. It cannot also be brushed aside that

the petitioner herein was appointed against a substantive vacancy to

a cadre post of Court Officer and the petitioner had been since then

serving as a Court Officer till date i.e. for a period of more than 9

years. The resolution of the Hon’ble Committee dated 07.04.2016 as

quoted at Paragraph No. 37 would further show that the petitioner

was recommended for appointment for the post of Court Officer. This

Court also finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the learned

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nirod Sarma (supra)

wherein the learned Division Bench took into consideration the

demanding nature of work of the Protocol Officer and Assistant

Page No.# 36/57

Protocol Officer. In the opinion of this Court, the nature of work of a

Court Officer is no less demanding and challenging. The relevant

observations made at Paragraph No. 55 of the said judgment is

reproduced herein under:

“55. The official records show that the post of Protocol Officer and Assistant

Protocol Officer are very demanding posts, due to the exigencies of the work

schedule. They are the face of the High Court to those, who do not belong to

the particular High Court. As such, they have to be carefully selected. It is

because of the demanding nature of duties of the Protocol Officer that options

are called for, as otherwise most of the SJAs are not interested in the said post

of Protocol Officer……………..”

40. Before dealing with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 as was

inserted vide the Notification dated 24.07.2015 which is quoted in the

foregoing segments of the instant judgment, it is relevant at this

stage to take into consideration the Note placed by the Registry which

was approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) on 10.04.2015

prior to the Notification dated 24.07.2015 which led to the insertion of

Rule 7(4) and Rule 7(4)(A) to the Rules of 1967. Paragraph Nos. 6, 7

and 8 of the said Note placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting)

is quoted herein below:

“[6] In this context, it may be mentioned here that in the Principal Seat, the

post of Court Officer-I (en-cadred post) is equivalent to that of AOJ (Class-IIC)

and the same is filled up by calling option from in service employees in the

cadre of AOJ and SJA.

Page No.# 37/57

[7] It may further be mentioned that the Hon’ble Committee constituted for

dealing with all matters relating to officers and staff of the High Court held on

6

th

April, 2015 while considering the matter regarding filling up of the post of

Court Officer No.1 (encadre) in this Registry has resolved as follows

“Options be called for from the AOJ and SJA for appointment to

the post of Court Officer No.1 in the same terms and conditions

as laid down in this Committee’s resolution dated 9

th

March,

2015 adopted in respect of appointment to the post of PO and

APO.

The relevant portion of the resolution dated 9th March, 2015 runs as follows:

“...It is further clarified that although the selected candidates

will be appointed as PO and APO from the cadres of SJA and JA,

but they will maintain their respective seniority in their original

cadres and their further promotion will be considered on that

basis.”

These resolutions have already been approved by your Lordship.

(8) In view of the above, the post of Court Officer No. II in the Principal Seat of

the Gauhati High Court as well as the post of Court Officers in the Outlying

Benches of the Gauhati High Court shall be treated as en-cadre post equivalent

to that of AOJ and the same may be allowed to be filled up as mentioned in

para [7] hereinabove, if vacant.

Laid for favour of kind consideration and orders.”

41. From the above, it would be seen that the Gauhati High Court on

the Administrative side have all along treated the post of A.O.(J) and

Page No.# 38/57

Court Officer as equivalent posts. In that backdrop, let this Court now

deal with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967.

42. Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 categorically mandates that the

post of the Court Officer in the Principal Seat as well as Kohima Bench

of the Gauhati High Court would be filled up by calling for options

from the A.O.(J) and SJA. Rule 7(4) of the Rule of 1967 further

stipulates that person so appointed in the post of Court Officer shall

maintain his/her respective seniority in the original cadres, i.e., in the

cadre of A.O.(J)/SJA as the case may be and their further promotion

would be considered on that basis. It appears that on account of the

latter part of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 that the rider is included

in the appointment order dated 18.04.2016 of the petitioner.

43. The post of Court Officer is within the cadre of the Rules of

1967. The post though on administrative exigency can be filled up on

ad hoc or stopgap arrangement, but if the post of Court Officer is

filled up by following the procedure laid down by the Rule 7(4) of the

Rules of 1967, which would be by calling for options from A.O.(J) and

SJA and thereupon selecting the most suitable, the appointment to

the post of Court Officer cannot be said to be a stopgap, ad hoc or

fortuitous. Rather, the appointment would be substantive. In this

regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Rudra Kumar

Page No.# 39/57

Sain & Others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 25

wherein the Supreme Court considered the three terms namely “ad

hoc”, “stopgap” and “fortuitous”. Paragraph No. 20 of the said

judgment is reproduced herein under:

“20. In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite

qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed

with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in

the post for a fairly long period, then such an appointment cannot be held to be

“stopgap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc”. In this view of the matter, the

reasoning and basis on which the appointment of the promotees in the Delhi

Higher Judicial Service in the case in hand was held by the High Court to be

“fortuitous/ad hoc/stopgap” are wholly erroneous and, therefore, exclusion of

those appointees to have their continuous length of service for seniority is

erroneous.”

44. Let this Court now take into consideration, the effect of the latter

part of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 which stipulate that the

SJA/A.O.(J) so appointed to the post of Court Officer would maintain

his or her seniority in his or her original cadre and his or her further

promotion would be considered on that basis. It is not foreign to

service jurisprudence that a person can be promoted to higher cadre

but retaining the seniority in his/her erstwhile cadre. The said

principle though is an exception but is permissible in certain

circumstances. The circumstances would be when promotion is made

on ad hoc or officiating basis. Another circumstance would be when

Page No.# 40/57

the appointment is made by way of deputation or transfer.

Additionally, when the Rules stipulate promotion or appointment

subject to reversion or for consideration for further promotion.

In the foregoing discussion, this Court had already observed that

the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Court Officer was

done in terms with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 and through a

proper selection procedure and with the approval of the Authority

concerned. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be

said to be ad hoc or officiating or stopgap or fortuitous, more so,

when the Hon’ble Committee recommended that the petitioner be

appointed to the post of Court Officer.

45. The post of Court Officer being a cadre post, the concept of

transfer or deputation from A.O.(J) or SJA which are also posts with

the meaning of “cadre” as defined in Rule 2(e) of the Rules of 1967

does not arise.

46. The stipulation in Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 do not contain a

provision for reversion of a person appointed to the post of Court

Officer to the post of SJA. This aspect is also apparent from the

observations of the Hon’ble Sub-Committee as well as the Hon’ble

Committee which has been accepted by the Honb’le Chief Justice as

apparent from the report dated 15.11.2022 and the resolution dated

19.09.2023 respectively. Therefore, the stipulation contained in Rule

Page No.# 41/57

7(4) of the Rules of 1967 that the person appointment to the post of

Court Officer would retain the seniority in the respective cadre i.e.

A.O.(J) and SJA is only for the purpose of consideration in respect to

further promotion. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the

rider contained therein in the order of appointment of the petitioner

which is impugned in the present proceedings, is the fall out of the

stipulation contained in the latter part of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967.

47. Be that as it may, Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 nowhere

stipulates that merely because a SJA having been selected and

appointed as a Court Officer, he would be deprived of being

considered to the post of Assistant Registrar. There is also nothing in

Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 that the said Rule overrides the

mandate of Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967.

48. Before moving forward, this Court finds it apt to reiterate again

that the petitioner was appointed to the post of the Court Officer in

terms with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 after following a due

selection process and with the approval of the Competent Authority.

The judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the

case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 ,and

more particularly, to paragraph No. 47 details out the principles, as to

Page No.# 42/57

how, the seniority is to be counted when an incumbent is appointed

to a post according to the Rules. Sub-Paragraph A and B of Paragraph

No. 47 are quoted herein below:

“ (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his

seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not

according to the date of his confirmation.

The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is

only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap

arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account

for considering the seniority.

(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the

procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the

post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance

with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.”

49. In view of the above principles, the petitioner’s seniority ought to

be reckoned from the date of his Appointment to the post of Court

Officer i.e. 18.04.2016. However, on account of Rule 7(4) of the Rules

of 1967, the petitioner’s seniority has to be maintained in his erstwhile

cadre i.e. SJA. This Court for the sake of clarity finds it important to

observe that this Court is not dealing with the legality and validity of

Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 which is pending adjudication before

the learned Division Bench. Taking Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 as it

is, the present adjudication is being carried out.

Page No.# 43/57

50. In the present facts, it would be seen that the petitioner’s

appointment letter contained a rider that his seniority would be

counted on the basis of his seniority in his erstwhile cadre for

consideration of his future promotion. The said rider as stated above

is based upon Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967, and more particularly, to

the latter portion of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967. The Hon’ble

Committee and the Hon’ble Sub-Committee as noted above have

suggested and recommended amendment to Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967, but almost two years have passed but nothing have been

brought on record by the Gauhati High Court in the present

proceedings except stating that the Hon’ble Chief Justice had referred

it to the Rule Committee. The question therefore arises, as to what, is

the effect of the rider or the latter part of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967 in respect to the petitioner’s limited right to be considered for

promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. In this regard, this Court

finds it pertinent to take into consideration Rule 7(3) of the Rules of

1967. Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967 is quoted herein below:

“(3) The Assistant Registrar shall be appointed from among the State Judicial

Service Grade-III, or by promotion from among the Gazetted Officers of the

High Court’s Service belonging to Class-II(B), Class-II(C) or Class-II(D); or from

among Advocates of not less than five years’ continuous practice at the Bar.”

51. A perusal of the above quoted Rule would show that the feeder

category to the post of Assistant Registrar are-

Page No.# 44/57

(i)State Judicial Service Grade-III,

(ii)By promotion from amongst the Gazetted Officers of

the High Court Service belonging to Class II(B), Class II(C)

or Class II(D) or,

(iii)From amongst advocates of not less than 5 years

continuous practice at the Bar.

52. For the purpose of the present case, this Court is not concerned

with appointment from amongst the State Judicial Service Grade-III or

from Advocates of not less than 5 years continuous practice at the

Bar. The present case pertains to promotion from amongst the

Gazetted Officers of High Court Service belonging to Class II(B), Class

II(C) and Class II(D).

53. A perusal of Schedule-I of the Rules of 1967 would show that

there is only Class II(B) and Class II(C) and no Class II(D). This Court

further finds it relevant to take note of the Gradation list prepared of

the Officers and Ministerial Staffs of the Gauhati High Court, Principal

Seat as on 10.06.2024. It appears therefrom that the posts of

Assistant Registrar are divided amongst two streams. One is Assistant

Registrar (Ministerial Stream) and the other is the Assistant Registrar

(Stenographer Stream). This aspect of the matter would also be

apparent from the reply submitted by the Gauhati High Court dated

Page No.# 45/57

21.05.2024 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) wherein the promotion

to the Assistant Registrar (Ministerial Stream) and promotion to the

Assistant Registrar (Stenographer Stream) have been separately

mentioned. This bifurcation of the posts of Assistant Registrar

amongst the Ministerial Stream and the Stenographer Stream

assumes importance, taking into account Class II(B) relates to the

Stenographer Stream and Class II(C) relates to the Ministerial Stream.

Apart from the above, from the gradation list dated 10.06.2024, it also

appears that 8 posts have been earmarked for Assistant Registrar

(Ministerial Stream) and 3 posts have been earmarked for Assistant

Registrar (Stenographer Stream).

54. It further appears from the gradation list of the Assistant

Registrar (Ministerial Stream), that the said posts are only filled up

from A.O.(J) and not from the other categories of Class-II(C) posts

i.e. Stamp Reporter, Court Officer, Protocol Officer, Assistant Librarian

and Senior System Officer though all the posts fall with Class-II(C)

and are feeder posts to the post of Assistant Registrar. The reason

seems to be obvious i.e., the Gauhati High Court has been treating

the appointments made to the other categories of posts in Class-II(C),

other than A.O.(J), belonging to the SJA cadre.

55. Now let this Court revert back to the question whether the

petitioner in view of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 and the rider

Page No.# 46/57

attached to his Appointment order can be deprived from being

considered to the post of the Assistant Registrar.

56. The answer to the said question has to be in the negative. The

reason being that the said rider as observed earlier is only for the

purpose of counting the seniority in the erstwhile cadre of the

petitioner for the purpose of future promotion and nothing else. In

other words, the petitioner who is a Class-II(C) Officer would have to

be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar but his

seniority would be reckoned from the date he entered into the SJA

cadre or the seniority he maintains in the SJA cadre.

57. Now let this Court take into consideration the importance of

seniority vis-à-vis the Rules of 1967. Rule 18 of the Rules of 1967

stipulates as under:

“18. Vacancies in the higher grades of the Ministerial services shall be filled

according to merit, and ordinarily by promotion from the lower grades, seniority

being counted only when the merit is equal.”

The above quoted Rule would show that merit would be the

consideration and seniority would only come into play when the merit

is equal.

58. In view of the above Rule, the petitioner who is an Officer in

Category II(C) being appointed in terms with Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967 has to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant

Page No.# 47/57

Registrar. It is observed that if the petitioner fares well amongst all

the eligible candidates, the seniority would have no role to play.

However, if the petitioner’s merit is equal to that of another eligible

candidate who is senior to the petitioner, then the other eligible

candidate would march ahead of the petitioner.

59. This Court had dealt with the Notification dated 02.03.2021 in

detail in Paragraph Nos. 24 and 25 hereinabove. The said Notification

appears to be in consonance with Rule 18 of the Rules of 1967

wherein also primacy is given to merit and seniority would come into

play when the merit is equal. This Court at this stage finds it relevant

to take note of the submissions of the learned counsels for the

respondents that the zone of consideration has to be applied as per

seniority viz. if there is one post vacant, the 5 (five) senior most

would be taken into consideration for filling up of the post of Assistant

Registrar. In the opinion of this Court, the said submission is not only

contrary to Rule 18 of the Rules of 1967, but also to the Notification

dated 02.03.2021. The said Notification dated 02.03.2021 does not

mention that the zone of consideration would be on the basis of

seniority and rightly so inasmuch as if it is construed to limit the zone

of consideration on the basis of seniority, it would offend Rule 18 of

the Rules of 1967. In the opinion of this Court, the Notification dated

02.03.2021 is a measure adopted by the Gauhati High Court to

eliminate the less meritorious.

Page No.# 48/57

60. This Court at this stage finds it relevant to take note of a

judgment of the Supreme Court which supports the above

observations made by this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of B.

Amrutha Lakshmi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in

(2013) 16 SCC 440 while dealing with the Regulation 4 of the Indian

Administrative Services (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,

1955, wherein it was stipulated that the number of persons proposed

for consideration of the Committee shall not exceed five times the

number of vacancies proposed to be filled during the year, observed

that all eligible candidates have to be taken into consideration and not

the senior most. The Supreme Court observed that in order to

ascertain the numbers of persons whose name can be forwarded as

per the Regulation 4, all eligible persons have to be taken into

consideration. It was further observed that amongst the eligible

persons, further scrutiny on merits as well as other parameters has to

be carried out to ascertain those persons whose names can be

forwarded. The Supreme Court remarked that the action of the

respondents therein not to consider the case of the petitioner therein

and sending names of persons on the basis of seniority was illegal and

violated Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

Paragraph Nos. 18 to 20 of the said judgment being relevant are

reproduced herein under:

“18. The question for our consideration is whether such a restriction of the

Page No.# 49/57

candidates to be considered, who were otherwise eligible, was permissible

under the Rules.

19. It is not disputed that the petitioner was very much eligible for being

considered, and there were so many similar eligible candidates. It was being

portrayed by the respondents that from every department 300 persons were

eligible, and there are 30 departments and therefore, the number would go to

some 9000 and above. Now, what is to be noted is that all that the eligible

officers concerned have, is a limited right of being considered, though they do

not have a right of promotion, as held in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India. Mr

Narasimha submitted that this limited right should not be denied to the

candidates like the appellant, on the basis of the ground that in such a case a

large number of names will have to be forwarded. That apart, he submitted that

there was no substance in this justification, and it was merely a bogie. This is

because what the State Government had to do first was to find out as to who

fulfilled the criteria. Undoubtedly, a large number of persons will fulfil the

criteria, being gazetted officers with more than 8 years of service, and less than

54 years of age on the relevant date. They would also have to be in the

required pay scale. However, as stated in Para 4 of the Principal Secretary’s

letter, while considering the outstanding merit and ability, those with adverse

remarks and those facing departmental enquiries were to be excluded.

Therefore, there was no difficulty in excluding such persons on those grounds.

Thereafter, what remained to be seen was as to who were the persons with

outstanding ability and merit amongst them? The State Government maintains

their annual appraisal reports, and for such selection it lays down some criteria

of maintaining the outstanding merit and ability over certain period viz. that in

the previous five years the officer must have three outstanding reports, or that

in the previous three years the officer concerned must have all throughout an

outstanding rating, etc. It is for the State Government to lay down by rules as

to how the outstanding merit and ability is to be assessed, and over how much

period. After all these tests are applied, the number of persons to be

Page No.# 50/57

recommended will not be very large. However, once a candidate comes into the

zone of consideration, and satisfies all the requirements, including that of

outstanding merit and ability, he cannot be told that merely because he is junior

in the seniority, his name will not be forwarded for consideration. The rule

requires that from amongst the outstanding officers, 15 names are to be

forwarded to the Central Government, and hence it is possible that amongst

these 15, a junior officer may as well figure, depending upon the assessment of

his merit. He cannot be eliminated merely on the ground that he is a junior

officer, and that if selected he will write the ACRs of his superiors.

20. We have got to accept that, if the rules for selection contain a requirement,

the same has to be applied uniformly and strictly, and none from the eligible

group can be eliminated from being considered on any criteria, other than those

which are provided in the rules. If there is a criteria laid down for selection, the

administration has to confine to the same, and it cannot impose an additional

criterion over and above whatever has been laid down. If that is done, it will no

longer remain an exercise of discretion, but will result into discrimination. It will

mean treating similarly situated employees dissimilarly, and denying equal

opportunity to some of them in the matter of public employment on the basis of

a criterion which is not laid down, resulting into violation of Article 14 and

Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. If the rules were to provide that in the

event of large number of persons coming into the zone of consideration, the

names of the seniormost alone will be forwarded, then it would have been a

different situation. In the absence of any such restrictive rule, as in the present

case, the decision of the respondents cannot be justified.”

61. The principles laid down above would squarely be applicable to

the present case. The Notification dated 02.03.2021 also mandates a

procedure whereby all candidates belonging to the feeder category

who obtain 18 marks out of 30 in the Annual Confidential Reports

Page No.# 51/57

shall get a chance for being called for interview/viva-voce interaction

and those who secure 60% and above out of 30 marks in the

interview would be considered for promotion.

62. The Rules of 1967 do not envisage the concept of zone of

consideration. Be that as it may, the Gauhati High Court can

supplement the requirement by way of Notification(s) which are not in

conflict with the Rules of 1967 and it appears that the same had been

done by way of the Notification dated 02.03.2021. It is further

observed in this context that after elimination of the less meritorious,

by applying the parameters mentioned in Clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v)

of the Notification dated 02.03.2021, if there are still eligible

candidates more than what the zone of consideration stipulates at

Clause (i) of the Notification dated 02.03.2021, the Gauhati High

Court has to envisage further measures to eliminate on merits the less

meritorious. In the opinion of this Court, the eligible candidates in the

zone of consideration have also to be selected on the basis of merits.

It is only when merit is equal, the seniority can be taken into

consideration. Any elimination on the basis of seniority, when the

merit is not equal would run foul to Rule 18 of the Rules of 1967.

It may not be out of place to note that the Supreme Court in

B. Amrutha Lakshmi (supra) observed that even if the eligible persons

were large in number (it was 9000), the limited right to be considered

Page No.# 52/57

for promotion cannot be deprived.

63. Let this Court now take the stand taken by the respondent Nos.

2 and 3 wherein it is contended that the petitioner who had been

appointed to the post of Court Officer has to be reverted back to the

post of SJA and thereupon upon being promoted to the post of A.O.

(J), the petitioner can claim such a right to be considered to the post

of Assistant Registrar. The said contention of the respondent Nos. 2

and 3 is untenable, misconceived as well as contrary to the Rules of

1967.

64. The petitioner having being already appointed to the post of

Court Officer on 18.04.2016, and as the Rules of 1967 do not provide

reversion to the post of SJA, the question of the petitioner being

demoted to the post of SJA do not arise except as a consequences of

disciplinary proceedings. Asking the petitioner or for that matter any

Officer appointed to the posts under Class-II(C) in pursuance to a

selection as per the Rules of 1967 with the approval of the Competent

Authority would amount to inflicting a major punishment without any

enquiry which would violate Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

The interpretation so sought to be given by the respondent Nos. 2

and 3 on the basis of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967 as well as the

rider contained in the Appointment order, is completely fallacious in

view of the observation and opinion rendered by this Court in respect

Page No.# 53/57

to the interpretation to Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1967.

65. It is disheartening to observe that the Gauhati High Court for

reasons best known have adopted contradictory stands in the case of

Nirod Sarma (supra) and the present case. In the case of Nirod Sarma

(supra), the Appellant therein who was a Protocol Officer appointed

with a similar rider, the Gauhati High Court regarded the Appellant

therein to be substantively appointed to the post of Protocol Officer

i.e. a Class-II(C) post and contended that the appellant therein would

be eligible to be promoted to the post of Secretary to the Chief Justice

in terms of Rule 7(3A) of the Rules of 1967 in respect to which post,

the feeder category is Class-II(C) posts. The contention of the Gauhati

High Court in the case of Nirod Sarma (supra) can be seen from the

arguments made by the learned Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High

Court both before the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court as well

as before the learned Division Bench of this Court. Paragraph Nos. 8

and 13 of the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Nirod Sarma (supra) are reproduced herein

below:

“8. The counsels for the appellant and the High Court submit that the

appointment of the appellant to the post of Protocol Officer is on a substantive

and regular basis and as such, the maintaining of the appellant's seniority in the

cadre of Senior Judicial Assistant cannot bar him from being a part of the cadre

of Class-II(C) posts in the High Court service. They submit that the appointment

of the appellant as a Protocol Officer was a promotion, without there being any

Page No.# 54/57

limit to the consideration zone from the feeder grade of Senior Judicial Assistant

(SJA in short). All persons in the cadre of SJA were eligible and invited to

submit their option for being considered for appointment as P.O., in terms of the

criteria laid down for appointment. As such, all the candidates who had

submitted options for being considered for promotion were considered.

13. The learned counsel for the High Court submits that Protocol Officer

being one of the posts in the feeder cadre for promotion to the rank of the

Secretary to the HCJ, there was no illegality in the order dated 10.09.2018. As

regards the submission of the writ petitioners that there was a pre-conceived

notion to give the benefit of substantive appointment to the appellant, he

submits that options were invited from all persons of the SJA cadre to fill up the

vacant post of Protocol Officer, which is clear from the notice dated 14.09.2018.

He also submits that the rider accompanying the order dated 25.11.2016

appointing the appellant as P.O. had been made in terms of the High Court

Resolution dated 09.03.2015, while the officiating appointment of the appellant

as Secretary to HCJ vide Order dated 10.09.2018 had been made on the basis

of the proposal of the Registry.”

66. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the

instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:

(i) The petitioner who is a Court Officer belongs to Class-II(C) of

Schedule-I to the Rules of 1967 and as such has a limited right

for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant

Registrar.

(ii) The rider attached to the Appointment Letter dated

18.04.2016 as well as the latter part of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of

1967 would not affect the right of the petitioner to be considered

Page No.# 55/57

for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar (Ministerial

Stream).

(iii) This Court further observes that the petitioner who is a Court

Officer along with the A.O.(J)(s) and the other Officers who have

been appointed to the posts coming within the ambit of Class-

II(C) of Schedule-I of the Rules of 1967 have a right to be

considered for the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar

(Ministerial Stream).

(iv) The Notification dated 02.03.2021 is a measure adopted by

the Gauhati High Court dealing with the parameters how the

merit-cum-seniority promotion policy is required to adhere to.

The said Notification does not mention that the zone of

consideration for promotion is on the basis of seniority, but rather

it appears from Clauses (ii) to (vi) of the Notification dated

02.03.2021 that the same is based on merit and when the merit

is equal, then only the seniority would come into play.

(v) By the Notification dated 02.03.2021, the Gauhati High Court

had set out parameters to eliminate the less meritorious. In

terms with Clauses (ii) to (iv) of the Notification dated

02.03.2021, those candidates who apply and do not fulfill the

requirement of Clause (iv) of the Notification dated 02.03.2021

are required to be eliminated. Thereupon those candidates who

Page No.# 56/57

fulfill the requirement of Clause (iv) of the Notification dated

02.03.2021 have to be considered in terms with Clause (v) of the

Notification dated 02.03.2021. It is observed in this context that

after elimination of the less meritorious, by applying the

parameters mentioned in Clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of the

Notification dated 02.03.2021, if there are still eligible candidates

more than what the zone of consideration stipulates at Clause (i)

of the Notification dated 02.03.2021, the Gauhati High Court has

to adopt further measures to eliminate on merits the less

meritorious. It is further observed that the eligible candidates in

the zone of consideration have also to be selected on the basis of

merits. It is only when merit is equal, the seniority can be taken

into consideration. Any elimination on the basis of seniority, when

the merit is not equal would run foul to Rule 18 of the Rules of

1967.

(vi) The seniority amongst the Officers in Class-II(C) category

would only come into play when the merit amongst the

candidates are equal. Else seniority has no role to play.

(vii) Taking into consideration that the posts of Assistant

Registrar (Ministerial Stream) are to be filled up amongst all the

Officers falling within Class-II(C) of Schedule-I of the Rules of

1967, the Gauhati High Court may adopt such measures so that

Order downloaded on 04-08-2025 10:05:08 PMPage No.# 57/57

seniority list is prepared amongst all the Officers in Class-II(C)

category.

(viii) The directions passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of

this Court in the orders dated 11.06.2024 in I.A.(Civil) No.

1769/2024 as well as dated 30.10.2024 in I.A.(Civil) No.

3290/2024 have allowed the consideration of the petitioner in the

Interview process initiated vide Notices dated 07.06.2024 and

24.10.2024 for filling up of the posts of Assistant Registrar

(Ministerial Stream). This Court is made aware that the petitioner

was duly considered. Therefore, for the purpose of the instant

case, in view of the directions passed by the learned Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the aforesaid orders and the Respondent

Authorities having considered the case of the petitioner, the

limited right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to

the posts of Assistant Registrar has not been violated.

67. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant