Page No.# 1/45

GAHC010091892025

2025:GAU-AS:9862

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2325/2025

NOZRUL ISLAM LASKAR AND ANR

S/O- LATE BASIR UDDIN LASKAR, VILL. AND P.O. CHIPORSANGON, DIST.

HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788801.

2: GULZAR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA

S/O- LATE KHOYER UDDIN BARBHUIYA

R/O- VILL.- NIZ FULBARI PART-III

P.O. FULBARI

P.S. KATIGORAH

DIST. CACHAR

ASSAM

PIN- 788802

VERSUS

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 17 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,

GUWAHATI-1.

2:THE CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI

REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR (ADMIN) -CUM- IN-CHARGE

CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI-1.

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-1.

4:SURAJIT KAR Page No.# 1/45

GAHC010091892025

2025:GAU-AS:9862

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/2325/2025

NOZRUL ISLAM LASKAR AND ANR

S/O- LATE BASIR UDDIN LASKAR, VILL. AND P.O. CHIPORSANGON, DIST.

HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788801.

2: GULZAR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA

S/O- LATE KHOYER UDDIN BARBHUIYA

R/O- VILL.- NIZ FULBARI PART-III

P.O. FULBARI

P.S. KATIGORAH

DIST. CACHAR

ASSAM

PIN- 788802

VERSUS

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 17 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,

GUWAHATI-1.

2:THE CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI

REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR (ADMIN) -CUM- IN-CHARGE

CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI-1.

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-1.

4:SURAJIT KAR

Page No.# 2/45

STENOGRAPHER GRADE- III

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SONITPUR

P.O. TEZPUR

DISTRICT- SONITPUR

ASSAM. PIN-784001.

5:JAYANTA BURAGOHAIN

STENOGRAPHER GRADE III

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

CHARAIDEO

P.O. AND DIST- CHARAIDEO

ASSAM

PIN- 785640.

6:KAUSHIK NATH MAZUMDER

STENOGRAPHER GRADE III

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

CACHAR P.O. SILCHAR

DIST- CACHAR

ASSAM

PIN- 788001.

7:MANAS PRATIM MAHANTA

STENOGRAPHER GRADE- III

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

SIVASAGAR

P.O. AND DIST- SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

PIN- 785640.

8:ARABINDA GHOSH

STENOGRAPHER GR- III

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

DARRANG

P.O. MANGALDOI

DIST- DARRANG

ASSAM

PIN- 784125.

9:ATANU BISWAS

STENOGRAPHER GR- III

Page No.# 3/45

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

BISWANATH

P.O. BISWANATH CHARIALI

DISTRICT- BISWANATH

ASSAM

PIN- 784176.

10:MOHIBUL ISLAM

STENOGRAPHER GR- III

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

LAKHIMPUR

P.O. AND DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR

ASSAM

PIN- 787001.

11:HIMAKSHI DUTTA

STENOGRAPHER GR- III

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

KAMRUP (M)

P.O. GUWAHATI

DIST- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN- 781001.

12:PARASH JYOTI CHUTIA

STENOGRAPHER GR- III

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

JORHAT

P.O. AND DIST- JORHAT

ASSAM

PIN- 785001.

13:MAIKEL RAY

STENOGRAPHER GR-III

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

DIMA HASAO

P.O. HAFLONG

DIST- DIMA HASAO

ASSAM

PIN-788819.

14:MRINAL KANTI SARKAR

STENOGRAPHER GR- III

Page No.# 4/45

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

TINSUKIA

P.O. AND DISTRICT- TINSUKIA

ASSAM

PIN- 786125.

15:MANABI MAZUMDER

STENOGRAPHER GR- III

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

KAMRUP (M)

P.O. GUWAHATI

DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

PIN- 781001.

16:PALLAB KUMAR NATH

STENOGRAPHER GR- II

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

UDALGURI

P.O. AND DISTRICT- UDALGURI

ASSAM

PIN- 784509.

17:SOMEN CH PAUL

STENOGRAPHER GR- II

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

BISWANATH

P.O. BISWANATH CHARIALI

DIST- BISWANATH

ASSAM

PIN- 784176.

18:BHASKAR BRAHMA

STENOGRAPHER GR-II

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

BAKSA

P.O. AND DIST- BAKSA

ASSAM

PIN- 781313.

19:SARADA CHAKRABORTY

STENOGRAPHER GR-II

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

Page No.# 5/45

KOKRAJHAR

P.O. AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR

ASSAM

PIN-783370.

20:RASHMI RANJAN BORA

STENOGRAPHER GR II

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

NAGAON

P.O. AND DISTRICT- NAGAON

ASSAM

PIN- 782001

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. N HAQUE,MR K UDDIN,MR.

A K AZAD

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GHC, A S CHOUDHURY (R-14),MR. SURAJIT DAS(R-

5,7,11,15,18,19,14,6),MD A RAHMAN(R-5,7,11,15,18,19,14),6,SAMIM RAHMAN(R-

5,7,11,15,18,19,14,6),MS SURAYA RAHMAN(R-5,7,11,15,18,19,14),MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(R-

5,7,11,15,18,19,14,6),A W AMAN (R-5,7,11,15,18,19,14,6)

Linked Case : WP(C)/3408/2025

MANABENDRA MALAKAR AND ANR

S/O- SRI GOLOK MALAKAR

R/O- VILL.- BHIMABARI

P.O. BAGTA UNDER P.S. HAJO

DIST. KAMRUP

ASSAM

2: DHRUBA JYOTI DAS

S/O- SRI RAJANI KANTA DAS

R/O- VILL.- AUHALAGAON

P.O. CHARIDWAR

P.S. CHARIDWAR

DIST. SONITPUR

ASSAM

VERSUS

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 14 OTHERS

REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Page No.# 6/45

GUWAHATI-1

KAMRUP METRO

ASSAM

2:THE CENTRALIZED RECRUITMENT

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI

REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR (ADMIN)-CUM-IN-CHARGE

CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

GUWAHATI-1.

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-1.

4:SURAJIT KAR

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SONITPUR

P.O. TEZPUR

DIST. SONITPUR

ASSAM

PIN- 784001.

5:JAYANTA BURAGOHAIN

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

CHARAIDEO

P.O. AND DIST. CHARAIDEO

ASSAM

PIN- 785640.

6:KAUSHIK NATH MAZUMDER

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

CACHAR

P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR

DIST. CACHAR

ASSAM

PIN- 788001.

7:MANASH PRATIM MAHANTA

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

SIVASAGAR

P.O.

P.S. AND DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

Page No.# 7/45

PIN- 785640.

8:ARABINDA GHOSH

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

DARRANG

P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDOI

DIST. DARRANG

ASSAM

PIN- 784125.

9:ATANU BISWAS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

BISWANATH

P.O. BISWANATH CHARIALI

P.S. AND DIST. BISWANATH

ASSAM

PIN- 784176.

10:MOHIBUL ISLAM

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

LAKHIMPUR

P.O.

P.S. AND DIST. LAKHIMPUR

ASSAM

PIN- 787001.

11:SMTI HIMAKSHI DUTTA

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

KAMRUP METRO

GUWAHATI

P.O. AND P.S. PANBAZAR

DIST. KAMRUP METRO

ASSAM

PIN- 781001.

12:PARASH JYOTI CHUTIA

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

JORHAT

P.S. AND DIST. JORHAT

ASSAM

PIN- 785001.

13:MAIKEL ROY

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

DIMA HASAO

P.O. HAFLONG

DIST. DIMA HASAO

.ASSAM

Page No.# 8/45

PIN- 788819.

14:MRINAL KANTI SARKAR

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

TINSUKIA

P.O.

P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA

ASSAM

PIN- 786125.

15:SMTI MANABI MAZUMDER

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

KAMRUP(M)

GUWAHATI

P.O. AND P.S. PANBAZAR

DIST. KAMRUP METRO

ASSAM

PIN- 781001.

------------

Advocate for : MR. L MOHAN

Advocate for : GA

ASSAM appearing for THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 14 OTHERS

Linked Case : WP(C)/2410/2025

MITHU YADAV

S/O- SRI RAM CHANDRA GOALA

R/O. VILL- NATUN BAZAR DERBY ROAD

P.O.- NARSINGPUR

P.S.- DHOLAI

DIST.- CACHAR

ASSAM

PIN- 788115.

VERSUS

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 5 ORS

REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

UZANBAZAR

GUWAHATI- 01.

Page No.# 9/45

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

DEPT. OF LAW

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- 06.

3:RASHMI RANJAN BORA

C/O. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT

UZANBAZAR

GUWAHATI- 01.

4:BHASKAR BRAHMA

C/O. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT

UZANBAZAR

GUWAHATI- 01.

5:SOMEN CH. PAUL

C/O. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT

UZANBAZAR

GUWAHATI- 01.

6:PALLAB KUMAR NATH

C/O. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT

UZANBAZAR

GUWAHATI- 01.

------------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Advocate

: Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Advocate

: Mr. L. Mohan, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T.R. Gogoi, Government Advocate

: Mr. H.K. Das, Standing Counsel

: Mr. S. Das, Advocate

Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025

Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025

Page No.# 10/45

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2325/2025; Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No.

2410/2025 and Mr. L. Mohan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3408/2025. Mr. H.K. Das, the learned

Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Gauhati High Court. Mr.

T.R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of

the Judicial Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. S. Das,

the learned counsel appears on behalf of the private respondents.

2. The challenge made in the 3 (three) writ petitions relate to a

Notification dated 22.04.2025 whereby the private respondents in

WP(C) No. 2325/2025 were selected for promotion to the post of

Stenographer Grade-I in the District Courts of Assam. The challenge

to the impugned Notification by the petitioners in the respective writ

petitions are on different grounds, but taking into account that it

relates to the challenge to the impugned Notification dated

22.04.2025, all the 3 (three) writ petitions are taken up together for

disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. Before proceeding to analyze the dispute, this Court finds it

Page No.# 11/45

relevant to take note of the brief facts and the respective challenges

made by the petitioners in the 3 (three) writ petitions infra.

WP(C) No. 2325/2025

4. The petitioners herein are working as Stenographer Grade-II in

the District Judiciary of Assam. Pursuant to a Notification dated

09.12.2024 issued by the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In charge,

Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court inviting applications from

serving Stenographers of the District Courts of Assam for participation

in the promotional process for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I,

the petitioners herein participated in the said selection process. Along

with the petitioners, 133 other candidates have also participated in

the said selection process. Out of the total 135 numbers of eligible

candidates as per the Notification issued on 09.12.2024, 32 numbers

of candidates were from Stenographer Grade-II and 103 numbers of

candidates were from Stenographer Grade-III. This aspect of the

matter would be apparent from a perusal of Annexure-5 of WP(C) No.

2325/2025. Pursuant to the publication of the list of provisionally

eligible candidates, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to WP(C) No.

2325/2025, a selection was held in the manner provided in the

Notification dated 09.12.2024. At this stage, it is relevant to take note

of the manner in which the selection proceedings were to be

conducted as stipulated in the Notification dated 09.12.2024 which is

Page No.# 12/45

reproduced herein under:

“Eligible stenographers, who furnish their options, will have to appear in a Speed Test

as indicated below:

Speed Test for promotion to Grade-I

Sl. No. Subject Time/Marks

1 Voice testing before dictation2 minutes

2. Speed test in Shorthand at a

speed of 80 words per

minute (Duration 7 minutes)

[560 words]

50 marks/Duration 7 minutes

3. Time to be given to the

candidates for testing the

Computer

3 minutes

4. Time for transcription of the

dictated portion

20 minutes

5. Candidates securing 30 or more marks out of 50 will be eligible

for promotion to Grade-I”

5. From the above quoted procedure, so stipulated in the

recruitment Notification dated 09.12.2024, it would be seen that the

total marks, for which, the selection was to be held was 50 marks and

out of that, a candidate securing 30 or more marks would be

considered eligible for promotion to Grade-I. It is also very pertinent

Page No.# 13/45

to take note of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the recruitment

Notification dated 09.12.2024 which stipulated that as on the last date

of submission of the applications, i.e., 20.12.2024, the candidate has

to complete 5 (five) years of service as Stenographer Grade-II or

Grade-III in the District Judiciary of Assam. This aspect of the matter

assumes importance in view of the challenge made by the petitioner

in WP(C) No. 2410/2025.

6. The record further reveals that the Registrar (Administration)-

cum-In charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court had

issued a rank-wise mark sheet of Stenographers who appeared in the

speed test held on 02.03.2025 in connection with the promotion to

Stenographer Grade-I. The said rank-wise mark sheet has been

enclosed as Annexure-6 to WP(C) No. 2325/2025. It is relevant to

take note of that in the said rank-wise mark sheet, the private

respondents are enlisted at serial No. 1 to 17. The petitioner No. 1

and petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 2325/2025 are at serial No. 46 and

89 respectively. The writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 2410/2025 is at serial

No. 18 and the writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in WP(C) No. 3408/2025

are at serial No. 54 and 68 respectively. On the basis of the said rank-

wise mark sheet, the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In charge,

Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court had issued the impugned

Notification dated 22.04.2025 whereby the private respondents in

WP(C) No. 2325/2025 were selected for promotion to the post of

Page No.# 14/45

Stenographer Grade-I in the District Courts of Assam. It is under such

circumstances, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2325/2025 have assailed

the said impugned Notification dated 22.04.2025 primarily on two

grounds.

First, that in terms with the Shetty Commission's

recommendation, the feeder post to the post of Stenographer Grade-I

is Stenographer Grade-II and under such circumstances, the

Stenographer Grade-III, could not have been permitted to participate

in the said selection process. The recruitment Notification dated

09.12.2024 was assailed on the ground that Stenographer Grade-II

and Grade-III, having 5 years of experience, were allowed to

participate in the said selection process.

Secondly, it is the specific case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.

2325/2025 that the Shetty Commission's recommendation was binding

upon the Gauhati High Court on the Administrative side, in view of the

orders passed by the Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court on

the Administrative side accepting the recommendations of the Shetty

Commission. It was therefore the contention that even assuming for

argument's sake, the Gauhati High Court on the Administrative side

could have adopted a one-time measure though frequently resorted

to, since 2013, on the ground of non-availability of eligible candidates

belonging to the Stenographer Grade-II, but once the Stenographer

Page No.# 15/45

Grade-II are eligible, the Stenographer Grade-III cannot be allowed to

march ahead of the candidates, who are eligible Stenographer Grade-

II.

WP(C) No. 2410/2025

7. The petitioner in the instant proceedings is working as a

Stenographer Grade-III in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Cachar, Silchar for the last 8½ years. The facts pertaining to the

recruitment process having already been dealt with, while narrating

out the facts in WP(C) No. 2325/2025, this Court would not like to

reiterate the same for the sake of brevity. The relevant facts in the

present writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 2410/2025 is that the petitioner,

having 8½ years of service as Stenographer Grade-III was eligible as

per the eligibility condition stipulated in the recruitment Notification

dated 09.12.2024. It was the specific case of the petitioner in WP(C)

No. 2410/2025 that the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in WP(C) No.

2410/2025 who were at serial Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 16 respectively of the

impugned Notification dated 22.04.2025 did not meet the eligibility

criteria inasmuch as the said private respondents did not have 5 years

of experience in Stenographer Grade-II or 5 years of experience in

Stenographer Grade-III. In other words, it is the specific contention of

the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2410/2025 that the eligibility criteria

mentioned in the recruitment Notification dated 09.12.2024 should be

Page No.# 16/45

read that each candidate should have either 5 years of experience as

Stenographer Grade-II or 5 years of experience in Grade-III in the

District Judiciary of Assam and not a combined experience of 5 years

as Stenographer Grade-II or Grade-III in the District Judiciary of

Assam. It was therefore the specific case of the petitioner that though

the private respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 had more than 5 years of

total experience in Stenographer Grade II or Grade III in the District

Judiciary of Assam, but as the said private respondents did not have 5

years of service as Stenographer Grade-II or Grade-III, they were not

eligible.

WP(C) No. 3408/2025

8. The petitioners in the present writ petition are Grade-III

Stenographers having 13 years of length of service in the present

cadre. They were eligible to be considered for promotion to

Stenographer Grade-I as they have secured more than 30 (thirty)

marks i.e. the petitioner No. 1 secured 43.75 marks and the petitioner

No. 2 secured 42.14 marks respectively and the petitioners were given

the ranks at serial Nos. 54 and 68 respectively of the rank-wise mark

sheet. The specific case of the petitioners herein is that they having

completed 13 years of service as Stenographer Grade- III, they should

have been given the promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I

or in other words they should be promoted to Stenographer Grade-I

Page No.# 17/45

merely on the basis of their seniority.

9. It is relevant to take note of that upon WP(C) No. 2325/2025

being filed, this Court issued notice on 01.05.2025 and further stayed

the impugned Notification dated 22.04.2025 as well as all further

Notifications issued on the basis thereof. The said interim order

continues till date.

STAND OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 &2 IN WP(C) NO.

2325/2025

10. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that at the time of

conducting the hearing, Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel

representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted that the

affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP(C) No. 2325/2025 be treated as the

stand taken by the said respondents in all the writ petitions.

11. It was stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that pursuant to

the decision taken by the “Committee for Centralized Recruitment of

Officers and Staff of the Subordinate Judiciary and all Benches of the

High Court”, dated 22.02.2018, the eligibility criteria was relaxed to 5

years in service experience as Stenographer in any Grade as one-time

measure to tide over the situation of lack of sufficient numbers of

eligible candidates for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I. It was

mentioned that the said respondents while publishing the Notification

Page No.# 18/45

dated 09.12.2024 took decision to follow the decision in the Minutes

dated 22.02.2018 i.e. opening the vacancies to any Grade-II or Grade-

III Stenographers, because of lack of sufficient Stenographer Grade-

II, as the promotion was based on merit determined by speed test.

12. It was categorically stated that the insufficiency of candidates

from Stenographer Grade-II was established from the fact that out of

31 Stenographer Grade-II, only 5 (five) candidates could achieve the

cutoff mark of 46.78. Further to that, it was mentioned that since

2018, the Centralized Recruitment Cell conducted 5 recruitment

processes i.e., in the year 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023 and 2024 and even

after inclusion of both Grades for taking part in the promotional

process in Stenographer Grade-I, substantial numbers of posts

remained unfilled on account of failure to acquire the minimum cutoff

marks in the speed test. The details so provided were that in the year

2018, 33 posts remained unfilled out of 38 vacant posts; in the year

2019, 31 posts remained unfilled out of 36 vacant posts; in the year

2020, 31 posts remained unfilled out of 34 vacant posts and in the

year 2023, 9 posts remained unfilled out of 52 vacant posts. It was

stated that non-filling up of the posts causes delay in the Court

proceedings and accordingly effects the administration of justice.

Therefore, only in the interest of public and for betterment of the

administration of justice, a conscious decision was taken by the High

Court to follow the resolution dated 22.02.2018.

Page No.# 19/45

13. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the maintainability of the writ

petition was challenged on the ground that the petitioners having

already participated in the said selection process, they cannot be

permitted to challenge the recruitment Notification dated 09.12.2024.

It was further mentioned that candidates securing 30 or more marks

out of 50 in the skill test were eligible for promotion to the post of

Stenographer Grade-I. It was further clarified that only the candidates

securing 30 or more marks in the skill test will be in the zone of

consideration for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I.

However, merely securing 30 or more marks does not automatically

entitle a candidate to claim promotion inasmuch as promotion cannot

be claimed as a matter of right, and the final selection is done purely

on the basis of inter-se merit, which is dependent upon the number of

vacancies or number of posts advertised.

14. It was further stated that the promotion to the post of

Stenographer Grade-I in the District Courts of Assam is not based on

seniority, rather it is made purely on the basis of merit determined

through a selection process, i.e., skill test and accordingly, the top 17

candidates in accordance with their merit position were recommended

for selection in the instant promotion process. It was further

mentioned that the Notification dated 09.12.2024 was published in

terms with the decisions contained in the resolution dated 22.02.2018

and the petitioners, without any challenge to the said resolution,

Page No.# 20/45

cannot maintain the instant writ petition. It was further averred that

precisely on the same ground, the earlier writ petition being WP(C)

No. 3123/2023 was dismissed by this Court. It was reiterated that the

decision was taken by the High Court is as one-time measure and

does not amount to treating unequal as equal. Further to that, it was

stated that in the event of accepting the contention of the petitioners

to fill up the post by following the recommendation of the Shetty

Commission, only 5 Stenographer Grade-II would be eligible,

rendering remaining posts to be unfilled, which would seriously

hamper the administration of justice.

15. To the said affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have

enclosed a datasheet giving details as to how many candidates

participated in the selection process held in the year 2018, 2019,

2020, 2023 and 2024. The said datasheet being relevant is

reproduced herein under:

“Sl

.

No

YearNos. of

vacancies

Total

Applicants

Having five

years of

experience

(Grade-II &

Grade-III)

Nos. of

Steno

Grade-II

Applicant

s

Nos. of

Steno

Grade-III

Applicant

s

Total

selected

No of

Steno

Grade-

II

selected

No of

Steno

Grade-

III

selected

Posts

remained

vacant

after

completion

of the

process

1201838** 22 14 8 5 5 0 33

2201934** 15 10 5 3 3 0 31

Page No.# 21/45

3202036 34 15 19 5 1 4 31

4202352 129 37 92 43 17 26 9

5202417 135 32 103 17 5 12 0”

16. It is further pertinent to take note of that a Minutes of a meeting

of the Committee dealing with matters relating to Officers and Staff of

the High Court, Principal Seat and the Outlying Benches including the

District Courts of all States under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High

Court was enclosed. Relevant herein to mention that the said Minutes

were undated but from a perusal of the said Minutes itself, would

show that the said decision so taken in the Minutes was after

09.10.2024 and prior to the recruitment Notification dated

09.12.2024.

STAND OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) NO.

2325/2025

17. It is relevant to take note of that the respondent Nos. 4 to 15

have filed one affidavit-in-opposition. All these respondents are

Stenographer Grade-III working at various District Establishments

throughout the State of Assam. The stand so taken is in conformity

with the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent

Nos. 16, 18 and 20 are all Stenographer Grade-II working in various

Establishments of the District Judiciary of Assam. The respondent

Page No.# 22/45

Nos. 16, 18 and 20 were placed at serial Nos. 3, 6 and 16 respectively

of the rank-wise mark sheet, having secured 48.48 marks, 47.76

marks and 46.78 marks respectively. The respondent No. 19 has also

separately filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent No. 19 is a

Stenographer Grade-II and is presently attached with the learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division) in the establishment of the District and

Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar. She was placed at serial No. 8 with total of

47.58 marks out of 50.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS

APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

18. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2325/2025 submitted that the Shetty

Commission's recommendation having been accepted by the Supreme

Court and there being specific directions to the High Courts to

implement the same, it was binding upon the Gauhati High Court on

the Administrative side, to confirm with the Shetty Commission

recommendation, which stipulated that for the Stenographer Grade-I,

the feeder category is by promotion from Stenographer Grade-II. He

submitted that this aspect of one-time measure cannot be allowed to

be applied in perpetually, more so, when against 17 vacancies, there

were already 32 candidates available from Stenographer Grade-II. He

submitted that the undated resolution adopted by the Gauhati High

Page No.# 23/45

Court on the Administrative side appears to have been made

mechanically without proper application of mind inasmuch as there

was no quantifiable data taken that there were insufficient

Stenographer Grade-II who could be promoted to the post of

Stenographer Grade-I.

19. The learned counsel further referred to the recruitment

Notification dated 09.12.2024 which stipulated the cutoff mark to be

eligible is 30 and above, out of 50, meaning thereby, that if there are

Stenographer Grade-II candidates who secures 30 and above marks

out of 50, the said candidates would be eligible for promotion. He

therefore submitted that the Stenographer Grade-III would not come

into the picture till there are Stenographer Grade-II who are already

eligible having obtained more than 30 marks. The learned counsel

further drew the attention of this Court to the rank-wise mark sheet

enclosed as Annexure-6 to WP(C) No. 2325/2025 and submitted that

out of 118 candidates who had participated in the said selection

process, amongst the top 50, there were 17 candidates who were

Stenographer Grade-II and the 17

th

candidate of Stenographer Grade-

II is at serial No. 50 and had obtained 44.19 marks out of 50 and

therefore, all these candidates were eligible to be promoted applying

the Shetty Commission's recommendation. He therefore submitted

that what the Gauhati High Court on the Administrative side have

Page No.# 24/45

done is a complete negation to the Shetty Commission's

recommendation and the every time adoption as a one time measure

to bypass the Shetty Commission recommendation, since 2013 till

date amounts to nullifying the Shetty Commission’s recommendation

and is contrary to the orders passed by the Supreme Court. The

learned counsel submitted that it can be appreciated that once or

twice the recommendation can be bypassed for Administrative

exigency, but every time doing so is willful disregard to the orders

passed by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel further submitted

that the Gauhati High Court on the Administrative side can direct that

filling up of the Stenographer Grade-II and thereupon go for selection

to Stenographer Grade-I, which for reasons best known is not

adopted. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned

Notification dated 22.04.2025 is required to be interfered with and a

fresh select list has to be prepared on the basis of the rank-wise mark

sheet amongst the Stenographer Grade-II in the speed test held on

02.03.2025, and the 17 vacancies be filled up amongst those

Stenographers Grade-II who have already become eligible having

secured more than 30 or more marks out of 50.

20. Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 2410/2025 submitted that a reading of

the recruitment Notification dated 09.12.2024 would clearly show that

the eligibility criteria set out is that the candidate has to have 5 years

Page No.# 25/45

of service as Stenographer Grade-II or Grade-III in the District

Judiciary of Assam. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the

use of the word “or” in between Stenographer Grade-II and Grade-III

would mean that the candidate has to be either having 5 years of

service as Stenographer Grade-II or 5 years of service as

Stenographer Grade-III. He therefore submitted that the respondent

Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in WP(C) No. 2410/2025 though cumulatively have

5 years of service as Stenographer Grade-II and Grade-III, but they

do not have 5 years of service as Grade-II or 5 years of service as

Grade-III and as such they were not eligible.

21. Mr. L. Mohan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners in WP(C) No. 3408/2025 submitted that the petitioners

herein have already completed 13 years of service as Stenographer

Grade-III and therefore as they are senior, they should be promoted

to the post of Stenographer Grade-I as they have already become

eligible having secured more than 30 marks out of 50.

22. Per contra Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appearing

on behalf of the Gauhati High Court submitted that the writ

petitioners in WP(C) No. 2325/2025 cannot assail the recruitment

Notification dated 09.12.2024 having participated in the said selection

process and after having not secured a meritorious position. He

further submitted that in an earlier round of litigation filed by the

Page No.# 26/45

petitioner No. 1 along with two others, which is WP(C) No.

3121/2023, this Court had declined to interfere as there was no

challenge to the resolution by which a different criteria is adopted

from the Shetty Commission's report as a one-time measure. He

therefore submitted that in the present proceedings also, there is no

specific challenge to the said resolutions.

23. On merits, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that

pursuant to the resolution adopted on 22.02.2018 whereby the

eligibility criteria for taking part in the promotion process for Grade-I

was further relaxed to 5 years in service experience as Stenographer

in any Grade, was also applied in the instant selection process on the

ground that the selections which were carried out in the previous 4

years, i.e. in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2023, in spite of relaxation being

granted of 5 years from both the Grades, there were no sufficient

candidates who could be held eligible to be promoted to the post of

Stenographer Grade-I and resulting in unfilled vacancies as would be

seen from the chart enclosed as Annexure-R/1 to the affidavit-in-

opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He further submitted

that what is being sought to be done by the respondents cannot be

said to be illegal or arbitrary, taking into account that the meritorious

17 candidates who have secured the highest marks have been

selected based on merit and therefore the question of interference

does not arise. He further submitted that the petitioners merely being

Page No.# 27/45

Stenographer Grade-II cannot have a right to seek promotion. Their

right is only limited to consideration for promotion which has been

duly granted to them.

24. Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel has further

submitted, that the submission so made by the writ petitioner in

WP(C) No. 2410/2025 is on a complete misreading of the eligibility

conditions inasmuch as the basis on which the eligibility conditions

have been stipulated is on account of the decision taken by the

committee in the meeting dated 22.02.2018, which categorically

stipulated that the eligibility criteria for taking part in the promotion

process from Grade-I was required to be further relaxed to 5 years in

service as Stenographer in any Grade as a one-time measure so as to

tide over the current situation. He therefore submitted that on the

basis thereof, the said eligibility criteria was set out and therefore the

5 years of service as required has to be taken cumulatively as from

the Stenographer Grade-II or Grade-III in the District Judiciary of

Assam. He therefore submitted that the writ petition being WP(C) No.

2410/2025 is completely meritless and ought to be dismissed.

25. Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel has further

submitted that the case set out by the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.

3408/2025 is completely misconceived and not tenable, taking into

account that the selection has to be made on the basis of merit and

Page No.# 28/45

not on the ground of seniority and that too in Stenographer Grade-III.

He further referred to that even if a candidate possesses 15 years of

service, he may not be promoted as Stenographer Grade-I if the

candidate does not secure a merit position in the test to be conducted

for selection. He therefore submitted that the case of the petitioners

in WP(C) No. 3408/2025 is completely misconceived and accordingly

the writ petition is required to be dismissed.

26. Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

private respondents made similar submissions as made by Mr. H.K.

Das, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court. He

further submitted that as the respondent Nos. 4 to 20 having been

found eligible and having met the eligibility criteria, the question of

interference with the impugned select list dated 22.04.2025 ought not

to be made. Further to that, the learned counsel submitted that as

regards the respondent Nos. 16 to 20, the petitioners cannot have any

say in their selection inasmuch as they are Grade-II stenographers

and they are more meritorious than the petitioners.

COURT’S QUERY

27. During the course of the arguments, this Court while taking into

account the stand of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the affidavit-in-

opposition and more particularly, Annexure R/1 enquired with Mr. H.K.

Das, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati

Page No.# 29/45

High Court, as to why, the posts remained unfilled in the selections

held in the year 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2023. It is also relevant to

observe that in the year 2018, though the vacancies were 38 only 22

candidates applied, in the year 2019 the vacancy was 34 but only 15

candidates applied and in the year 2020, total vacancy was 36, of

which only 34 applied.

28. Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High

Court submitted that the post remained unfilled on account of the fact

that the candidates other than those selected who participated in the

years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2023 could not obtain the minimum

qualifying mark of 30 marks out of 50.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

29. Before dealing with the merits, this Court finds it relevant to take

note of the preliminary objections taken on the maintainability of the

writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2325/2025. The first preliminary objection so

taken is that the challenge to the recruitment Notification dated

09.12.2024 cannot be permitted to be made on the ground that the

petitioners in WP(C) No. 2325/2025 have already participated

pursuant to the said recruitment advertisement. It is relevant to take

note of that the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2325/2025

hinges on two facets. First, on the illegality in allowing the

Stenographer Grade-III to participate in the selection proceeding

Page No.# 30/45

relating to promotion to Stenographer Grade-I as it was contrary to

the Shetty Commission's recommendation. The second aspect is even

assuming for argument's sake, the Stenographer Grade-III is

permitted to participate, they cannot steal a march ahead of the

Stenographer Grade-II, if the Stenographer Grade-II are eligible as

per the speed test.

30. This Court finds it pertinent to observe that if the petitioners in

WP(C) No. 2325/2025 have not participated in the said selection

process, they would not have the locus standi to challenge the

selection of Stenographer Grade-III on promotion to Stenographer

Grade-I. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DR (Major) Meeta

Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17

wherein at paragraph No. 17, the Supreme Court observed that in a

case where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and

discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the said actions

cannot be condoned merely because the candidates had partaken in

it. Paragraph No. 17 of the said judgment, further stipulates that if the

candidate would have not participated in the said selection process,

the candidate may not have the locus standi to assail the incurable

illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

Paragraph No. 17 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced

herein under:

Page No.# 31/45

“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. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court as quoted

above, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2325/2025 in the opinion of this

Court cannot be non-suited. Additionally, the second submission so

made by the petitioners would continue to remain, even if the

eligibility criteria so mentioned in the recruitment Notification dated

09.12.2024 continues to hold the field.

32. The second preliminary objection so taken is that there is no

challenge to the resolutions or decisions on the basis of which the

recruitment Notification dated 09.12.2024 was made. The said

preliminary objection in the opinion of this Court does not arise, more

particularly, taking into account the relief No. (A) of WP(C) No.

2325/2025 whereby the petitioners have sought for setting aside

and/or quashing the impugned Minutes of the meeting of the

Committee for Centralized Recruitment of Officers and Staff of the

Subordinate Judiciary and all Benches of the High Court regarding

relaxation of the eligibility criteria for promotion to Stenographer

Page No.# 32/45

Grade-I for the Subordinate Courts of Assam, basing on which the

Notification dated 09.12.2024 was issued.

33. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now deal with the

merits.

34. In the year 1989, the All India Judges Association and its

working President filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India seeking various reliefs for members of the

District Judiciary, focusing on uniformity in service conditions. On

13.11.1991, the said writ petition was disposed of with directions

issued by the Supreme Court to the States and Union Territories to

separately examine and review the pay structure. The decision of the

Supreme Court rendered on 13.11.1991 is reported as All India

Judges Association (1) Vs. Union of India & Others in (1992) 1 SCC

119. Subsequent thereto, the Central Government as well as the few

State Governments filed review petitions before the Supreme Court.

This led to another judgment delivered on 24.08.1993 and titled as All

India Judges Association (2) Vs. Union of India and Others reported in

(1993) 4 SCC 288. By this judgment rendered on 24.08.1993, some of

the reliefs so granted in the original judgment dated 13.11.1991 were

modified and certain directions were passed. Basing upon such

directions, the Union of India appointed the first National Judicial Pay

Commission on 21.03.1996 under the chairmanship of Justice K.J.

Page No.# 33/45

Shetty. The Justice Shetty Commission thereupon submitted various

reports from time to time. Relevant, however, is for the purpose of the

instant case is the recommendation so made in respect to the

Stenographer. The specific recommendations in the Justice Shetty

Commission’s report for the three grades of Stenographers for three

levels of the Courts with pay scale read as under:

“Grades Mode

of recruitment

Pay Scale

(i) Stenographer Grade-III

Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)

(Existing Stenographer Grade-III)

Direct Rs.3850-7350

(Existing pay scale)

(ii) Stenographer Grade-II

Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div)

50% by promotion

from Stenographer

Grade-III and 50%

by direct

recruitment

Rs.4120-9725

(Sl.No.16 of the

General Pay Scale)

(iii) Stenographer Grade-I

Court of District & Sessions

Judge

By promotion from

Stenographer Gr-II

Rs.5725-11825

(Existingpay Scale)”

35. From the above recommendations, it would be seen that the

mode of recruitment for Stenographer Grade-III is direct recruitment.

In respect to Stenographer Grade-II, the mode of recruitment is 50%

by promotion from Stenographer Grade-III and 50% by direct

Page No.# 34/45

recruitment. In respect to Stenographer Grade-I, the mode of

recruitment is only by way of promotion from Stenographer Grade-II.

It is relevant to take note of that the Supreme Court in its order dated

15.07.2008 directed that the recommendations be implemented w.e.f.

01.04.2003. The Supreme Court in the order dated 07.10.2009 passed

the various directions. The relevant portion of the said order is

reproduced herein under:

“We are told that so far all the states/Uts have not implemented the recommendations

fully. Some of the States have implemented the recommendations but had given effect

to the date later than 1-4-2003. Still some of the grievances of various officers are

subsisting. In view of these circumstances, we direct that hereafter these matters be

considered by the respective High Court of the States/Uts. We direct that:

(i) The High Courts, on judicial/ administrative side, will ensure implementation

of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission within a reasonable period

of one year. The High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may

be filed by the individual or staff association representing the various members

of the staff.

(ii) The High courts shall also see that the recommendations are implemented

w.e.f. 1-4-2003.

(iii) There shall be benefit of one advance increment on the existing pay-scale

instead of initial pay scale. In many of the States, the same benefit has not

been given to the members of the staff, the High Court should also see that

these recommendations are implemented.

(iv) In some of the States based on various other pay commissions Reports,

benefits had been given to the members of the staff, these benefits, if any,

given shall be in addition to the recommendations given by the Shetty

Page No.# 35/45

Commission. In any case if the members of the staff association/ subordinate

staff getting higher benefits under any of the recommendations of the pay

commission/Government Orders, they shall be permitted to avail those

benefits.”

36. It is relevant to take note of that the Gauhati High Court on the

Administrative side and, more particularly, the Committee for

consideration of the Shetty Commission's recommendation of revision

of pay scale, etc. of the Subordinate Courts Staff of Assam and the

Committee for Centralized Recruitment of Officers and Staff of

Subordinate Judiciary and all Benches of the High Court had adopted

a resolution on 06.03.2013. The relevant portion of the said resolution

is reproduced herein under:

“……(a) For promotion of the existing Stenographers of Subordinate

Judiciary of Assam, the Committee recommends the following criteria as

one time measure pending framing of “Subordinate Courts Establishment

Rules of Assam”

(i) Irrespective of any grade and educational qualification they possess,

existing stenographers who have 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 may fix on availability of vacancy(s).

(ii) Irrespective of their educational qualification they possess, existing

Grade-III Stenographers, who have completed 5 (five) years of service, be

promoted as Grade-II Stenographers, subject to such criteria as regards

speed test etc. which the High Court may fix against 50% of the sanctioned

strength on availability of vacancy(s).

Page No.# 36/45

(iii) For the aforesaid promotions/appointments, eligibility criteria i.e.,

Speed test etc. to be determined by the High court”

37. Subsequent thereto, the above mentioned Joint Committees, in

their meeting dated 20.07.2013 adopted another resolution. The

relevant portion of the said resolution is reproduced herein below:

“…..For Promotion of existing stenographers, the Recruitment Cell may

follow the relaxation criteria adopted in the meeting dated 06-03-

2013…….”

It was further resolved as follows:

“The Joint Committee perused the report of the Registry regarding

recruitment of Stenographers of all grades of Subordinate Judiciary. The

recommendation of the Shetty Commission regarding mode of recruitment

of Stenographers in all grades was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

by a judicial order. Thus it is imperative that the stenographers of different

grades be recruited in the following manner:-

(i) Stenographer Grade-III, by Direct Recruitment.

(ii) Stenographer grade-II, 50% by promotion from Grade-III and 50%

by Direct Recruitment.

(iii) Stenographer Grade-I, by promotion from Stenographer Grade-II.”

38. From the above resolution adopted in the Minutes of the meeting

dated 20.07.2013, the Joint Committees of the Gauhati High Court

observed that it was imperative that the Stenographer Grade-I is filled

by promotion from Stenographer Grade-II. In another meeting, held

of the Joint Committees on 10.11.2016, the above two quoted

Page No.# 37/45

resolutions were duly taken into consideration by the Joint

Committees and taking into account that after conducting the

promotional examinations on earlier occasions substantial number of

Grade-I and Grade-II posts of Stenographer in District Courts could

not be filled up owing to non-availability of eligible candidates and

further on account of creation of new posts, adopted another

resolution. The relevant part of the resolution dated 10.11.2016 is

reproduced herein under:

“It is pertinent to mention here that even after conducting the promotional

examination on earlier occasion, substantial number of Grade-I and of Grade-II

posts of Stenographer in the districts courts could not be filled up owing to non-

availability of eligible candidates.

In view of creation of new posts and non-availability of sufficient numbers of

stenographers meeting the above criteria, till date, there are several vacant posts of

Stenographer Grade-I and Stenographer Grade-II lying in the district courts. However,

the vacancy position of Stenographer Grade-II will vary on completion of promotion to

Grade-I. It may be mentioned that the posts of Stenographer Grade-I and 50% of the

total sanctioned posts of Grade-II in an establishment are promotional posts.

Moreover, in some establishments, there are no feeder cadre of stenographers who

could be promoted despite having sanctioned posts of Stenographer Grade-I and

Grade-II. Further, in some establishments there are no sanctioned posts in the higher

cadre though eligible Stenographers are available.

Since a considerable number of promotional posts in grade-I and

Grade-II Stenographers in the subordinate courts of Assam remained

vacant even after completing the last promotional process and as the Rules

have not yet been notified, hence, in order to fill up the posts in Grade-I

Page No.# 38/45

through promotion, requirement of qualifying period of service of 15

(fifteen) years as indicated in the resolution dated 06.03.2013, which was

subsequently approved by the Joint Committee of both the aforesaid

committees vide resolution dated 20.07.2013, may be relaxed to 10(ten)

years keeping the other eligibility criteria intact. For promotion to

Stenographer Grade-II existing requirement of qualifying period of service

of 5 (five) years may remain same.”

39. From the above quoted portion, it would be seen that in order to

fill up the post in Stenographer Grade-I through promotion, the

qualifying period of service of 15 years as indicated in the resolution

of 06.03.2013 which was subsequently approved by the Joint

Committees vide resolution dated 20.07.2013 was relaxed to 10 years,

however, keeping the other eligibility criteria intact. The other

eligibility criteria in the opinion of this Court would also include the

eligibility criteria which was further resolved in the resolution of the

Joint Committees held on 20.07.2013, meaning thereby, that a

Stenographer Grade-I is to be filled up by promotion from

Stenographer Grade-II. It would also be seen from the above quoted

resolution, the promotion to Stenographer Grade-II would require 5

years of qualifying service.

40. From the records, it is also seen that in the affidavit-in-

opposition filed by the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court,

though he had mentioned in his affidavit-in-opposition that the

resolution dated 22.02.2018 was enclosed as Annexure R/2, but the

Page No.# 39/45

said resolution was not enclosed to the said affidavit-in-opposition

rather an undated resolution which can be presumed to be after

09.10.2024 but prior to 09.12.2024 was enclosed. Be that as it may,

in the said undated resolution, there is a reference made to the

resolution adopted in the Minutes of the meeting held on 22.02.2018

which being relevant is reproduced herein under:

“In view of non-availability of adequate number of stenographers having 10

years of service experience and considering the fact that there is huge

number of vacancies in the post of Stenographer Grade-I (all being

promotional posts), the Committee is of the opinion that the eligibility

criteria for taking part in the promotion process for Grade-I be further

relaxed to 5 years in service experience as Stenographer in any grade as an

one time measure so as to tide over the current situation.”

41. From the above quoted resolution dated 22.02.2018, it would be

seen that the 10 years of service experience in any grade to be

eligible to be promoted to Stenographer Grade-I was further reduced

to 5 years in service experience as Stenographer in any Grade as a

one-time measure so as to tide over the current situation. It is

however surprising to take note of that based upon this decision

taken in the meeting dated 22.02.2018, the Gauhati High Court on the

Administrative side applied the said decision which was only as a one-

time measure for the subsequent years as would be apparent from

Annexure- R/1, i.e. for the year 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023 as well as

2024 (the present selection). This Court had perused Annexure-R/2 to

Page No.# 40/45

the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The

said decision so taken by the Hon’ble Committee dealing with matters

relating to Officers and Staff of the High Court (Principal Seat and

Outlying Benches) including the District Courts of all States under the

jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court (hereinafter referred to as, “the

Hon’ble Committee”) do not appear that the Registry of the Gauhati

High Court had placed any quantifiable data as regards how many

Stenographer Grade-II were there in the Ministerial Services of the

District Judiciary against the post to be advertised. There also appears

to be no materials placed whether Stenographer Grade-III can be

promoted to the Stenographer Grade-II so that the mandate of the

recommendation of the Shetty Commission can be adhered to. It

appears that the Hon’ble Committee routinely applied the Resolution

adopted earlier which was specifically mentioned to be a one time

measure. It may not be out of place to observe that one time

measure refers to an action or policy that is to be implemented or

applied once. Bypassing the Shetty Commission’s recommendation

each time, in the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be said to be

a one time measure. It takes the flavour of a recurring measure.

42. This Court now finds it relevant to take note of that the statutory

rules insofar as promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I is yet

to be framed by the Government of Assam. In that context, it is

Page No.# 41/45

pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Abhimeet Sinha & Others Vs. High Court of Judicature At

Patna & Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 262 wherein the Supreme

Court after taking into account the various judgments deduced the

following conclusions at Paragraph No. 59 which is reproduced herein

under:

“59. With the above pronouncements on the interplay between the Shetty Commission

recommendations and the prevalent Rules, the following logical deduction can be laid

down:

(i) In case of inconsistency between the recommendations and the Rules, primacy

should be given to the existing statutory rules.

(ii) In the absence of existing Rules, the High Court should follow the directions of

this Court.”

43. From the above quoted paragraph, it would be seen that in

absence of existing rules, the Gauhati High Court is obliged to follow

the directions of the Supreme Court meaning thereby the Gauhati

High Court was required to follow the mandate as stipulated by the

Shetty Commission, i.e., for filling up the vacancy of Stenographer

Grade-I, the candidates from Stenographer Grade-II were required to

be considered alone. The undated resolution of the Hon’ble

Committee enclosed as Annexure-R/2 is absolutely silent, as to why,

resolution dated 22.02.2018 which was a one time measure be again

applied for the promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I. The

Page No.# 42/45

materials on record as stated herein above as well as analyzed

hereinafter would show that the undated resolution (Annexure-R/2)

was not in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court.

44. Let this Court now take note of the recruitment Notification

dated 09.12.2024. From the said Notification, it would be seen that

the eligibility criteria as on 20.12.2024 is that the candidates must

have completed 5 years of service as Stenographer Grade-II or Grade-

III in the District Judiciary of Assam. The Notification further mentions

that for selecting the candidates, a speed test of 50 marks would be

held and a candidate securing 30 or more marks out of 50 would be

eligible for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I. In the said backdrop,

it would be seen that out of 118 candidates who have participated in

the speed test, 108 candidates belonging to Stenographer Grade-II

and Grade-III were eligible, having secured more than 30 marks out

of 50. It would also be seen that the candidates at serial Nos. 3, 4, 6,

8, 16, 19, 23, 29, 32, 33, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 49 and 50 of the rank-

wise merit list (Annexure-6 to WP(C) No. 2325/2025) were

Stenographer Grade-II meaning thereby that there was no dearth of

eligible candidates from Stenographer Grade-II who could be

considered for promotion. Therefore, the one-time measure which had

been adopted frequently since 2013 onwards could not have been

applied in the present case, more so, when there were eligible

Page No.# 43/45

candidates in Stenographer Grade-II who could be promoted to

Stenographer Grade-I.

45. This Court further takes note of the stand so taken by the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was

mentioned that the cut off mark was 46.78, but it is not

understandable, as to how, 46.78 would be the cut off mark inasmuch

as to be eligible for considered for promotion was 30 marks and above

out of 50. The Stenographer Grade-III in the opinion of this Court

could not have been brought for consideration as the same would

negate the recommendation of the Shetty Commission as well as the

orders passed by the Supreme Court directing implementation of the

Shetty Commission which was binding upon the Gauhati High Court.

46. Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of the

instant writ petitions with the following observations and directions:

(i) The impugned Notification dated 22.04.2025 stands set

aside and quashed on the ground that in spite of

availability of eligible Stenographer Grade-II, candidates

who were Stenographers Grade-III were selected to the

post of Stenographer Grade-I.

(ii) Any order(s) of Appointment issued on the basis of the

Page No.# 44/45

Notification dated 22.04.2025 is/are set aside and

quashed.

(iii) This Court directs the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in WP(C)

No. 2325/2025 to prepare a fresh select list, on the basis

of the rank-wise mark sheet (Annexure-6 to WP(C) No.

2325/2025) amongst the Stenographers Grade-II who

appeared in the speed test held on 02.03.2025 in

connection with promotion to Stenographer Grade-I in

the District Courts of Assam. The select list so directed to

be prepared shall be strictly on merit. The said select list

shall not contain names of those incumbents who are

Stenographers Grade-III.

(iv) On the basis of the said select list so directed to be

prepared, consequential promotion orders may be issued

by the concerned Authority strictly on the basis of merit

amongst the Stenographer Grade-II.

(v) The petitioners in WP(C) No. 2410/2025 and WP(C) No.

3408/2025 being Stenographers Grade-III have no right

to be considered for promotion to the post of

Stenographer Grade-I in view of there being already

eligible candidates from Stenographer Grade-II, who can

Order downloaded on 04-08-2025 10:05:08 PMPage No.# 45/45

be considered for promotion to the post of Stenographer

Grade-I.

(vi) No costs. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant