MADHAB MEDHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment we propose to dispose of Writ Appeal No. 438/04 and 439/04 which have arisen out of common judgment and order dated 24.11.04 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1043/03 and 2195/03.

(2.) Before the point of controversy is taken up for consideration, it would be apposite to recapitulate hereinafter the facts of the case in brief. WP(C) No. 1043/03 has been filed by Junior Subject Matter Specialists (hereinafter referred to as JSMS) working in the Department of Agriculture, challenging the vires of Rule 12(4)(v) of the Assam Agricultural Service Rules, 1980, on the ground of alleged inconsistency amongst certain provisions embodied therein. Further prayer has been made for consideration of the case of the JSMS only for promotion to the next higher cadre, i.e. Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer (for short "SDAO"). The purpose behind the writ is to keep the Agricultural Extension Officers out of the purview of promotion. WP(C) No. 2195/03 has been filed by the Agricultural Extension Officers (for short "AEO") working in the same department for direction for consideration of their case for promotion to the posts of Sub- Divisional Agricultural officer in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1980, subject to clearance of back log of reserved vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the Assam SC and ST (Reservation of Vacancies and Posts) Act, 1978 and the rules framed thereunder. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition (C) No. 1043/2003 filedby the JSMS and dismissed the Writ Petition (C) No. 2195 of 2003 filedby the AEOs'. The learned Single Judge read down the provisions of Rule 12(4)(v) holding inter alia that the Junior Subject Matter Specialists alone are eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Agricultural Officers. Thus, the scope for promotion of the incumbents to the cadre of Agricultural Extension Officers has been totally obliterated.

(3.) It has been extensively argued at the Bar that as a matter of practice, the State Government have never promoted AEOs directly to the posts of Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer. All along, promotion to the cadre of Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officers has. been made from and amongst the eligible: JSMS only. It has also been argued to justify that the JSMS are of higher pedestal than the AEOs. The pleadings as well as the materials on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including the learned State Counsel suggest that the AEOs have never been directly promoted to the posts of Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer. However, Mr PK Goswami, learned senior counsel argued that past practice contrary to the provisions of law is of no significance and it cannot scuttle down the rights of the employees vested on them for consideration for promotion as per provisions of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Mr Goswami pointed out that a statute has to be interpreted in its own language without being influenced by the background, past practice and other extraneous matters unless the provisions therein are ambiguous and not capable of interpretation without the aid of past practice etc. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel further submitted that the past practice, preceding documents, the objects and reasons of an enactment are relevant for interpretation of a statute only to remove confusion and not otherwise. According to Mr. Goswami, interpretation on the basis of past practice etc. are permissible also to remove the hardship which, according to him, is not the case here. Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, Mr. D. K. Mishra and Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned senior counsels, however, countered the above contentions of Mr. Goswami. According to them, there are conflicting and contradictory provisions in the Rules which necessitate reliance on the past practice etc. for interpretation. We have applied our mind to the above contentions. We are of the view that scntiny would be confined to the provisions of the Rules relevant for answering the question whether the cadres of JSMS and the AEOs are independent, and the incumbents of both the cadres have vested rights under the Rules for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade.