ASOMI GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 being the authorities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. TK Barman, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 being the authorities under the Assam Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission). In respect of respondents No.4 and 5, namely Sri Rabi Sankar Borgoiry and Sri Sonmoni Das, the office note dtd. 9/7/2018 provides that the A/D card has been received in respect of the said two respondents and the perusal of the A/D card reveals the receipt of the notices by the said two respondents. In respect of respondent No.6, the petitioner was allowed to serve dasti as per the order dtd. 16/7/2018 and to that extent an affidavit of dasti service is available which shows that the respondent No.6 Smti. Mamata Hojai had been duly served. Accordingly, service of notice on the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 are accepted. But inspite of such notices being served, none appears for the said respondents for the past four years and accordingly, we are required to proceed in the matter in the absence of the said respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, Dr. Asomi Gogoi and the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 were all in the cadre of Deputy Director in the Assam Education Services and as per the gradation list dtd. 22/12/2011 in the cadre of Deputy Director, the petitioner Dr. Asomi Gogoi is at Sl.No.14, the respondent No.4 Sri Rabi Sankar Borgoiry is at Sl. No.15, the respondent No.5 Sri Sonmoni Das is at Sl.No.17 and the respondent No.6 Smti Mamata Hojai is at Sl.No.18. It is taken note of that the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 all belongs to the reserved category respectively being S.T.(P), S.C., S.T.(H), whereas the petitioner belongs to the O.B.C category. The petitioner as well as the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 were all subjected to a process of promotion to the next higher cadre of Joint Director in the Assam Education Services. A statement is made that the promotion process was for 8(eight) available vacancies and a further resultant vacancy, the total being 9(nine) vacancies and the cadre strength for the post of Joint Director is also stated to be 9 (nine).

(3.) The selection board constituted under the Rules initially recommended six candidates for promotion against six of the available vacancies in the following order: