MUKUNDA KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. G. Uzir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondents are represented by Mr. KN Choudhury, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam.

(2.) THE petitioners herein are working as Receptionists under the Directorate of Tourism, Assam. They are former militants and under rehabilitation scheme of the Government, they were appointed in Govt. jobs. But since the post of Receptionist is not en -cadred in the Assam Tourism Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules), the petitioners are serving since last 20 years without the benefit of promotion.

(3.) REPRESENTING the State authorities, the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. KN Choudhury however submits that in pursuant to the court 's direction given in this case, the Government examined whether the Receptionists can be considered for promotion to the cadre of ATIOs. But after due deliberation, the Government WP(C) No.7131 of 2005 decided against en -cadrement of the Receptionist to be in the feeder cadre for promotion to ATIOs. The decision of the Government is based on the job profile of the ATIO and the educational qualification of the post i.e. graduate or a diploma in Tourism and Travel Management or diploma in Hotel Management. But the State proposed to designate the Receptionists as Jr. Assistants since both Receptionists and Jr. Assistants enjoy the same pay scale and similar grade pay and the Jr. Assistants have the opportunities of promotion as they are en -cadred under the Service Rules.