SOHRABUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners, who are 14 in number, have assailed the validity of Rules 13 and 14 of the Assam Accounts Service Rules, 1963, as amended by the amendment Rules of the year 2002. The actions of the respondents in making promotion to the post of Accounts Officer on the basis of the list of empanelled candidates prepared on 07.10.97 is the other aspect of the challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The facts on which the aforesaid challenge is made may briefly be noticed at the outset. An advertisement was issued by the Assam Public Service Commission on 17th February, 1995 regarding the holding at a departmental promotion examination for filling up of approximately 50 number of posts of Accounts Officer in the Assam Accounts Service. The petitioners, who were/are holding the posts of Deputy Accounts Officer, along with other candidates, participated in the departmental promotion examination which was held on different dates in the month of May, 1996. On the basis of the examination held, a list of empanelled candidates, in order of merit, was published by the Commission on 7th October, 1997. A total number of 163 candidates including the Respondent No. 3 to 10 (subsequently impleaded) were included in the aforesaid list of empanelled candidates. The writ petitioners, it must be noticed at this stage, did not qualify in the departmental promotion examination and as such their names were not included in the list. The aforesaid list having been operated upon for appointment in the post of Accounts Officer beyond the posts specified in the advertisement and the Government having made clear its intention to act on the list until it is exhausted, the said action has been put to challenge in the present writ application. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Assam Accounts Service Rules 1963 as amended in the year 2002 making the Assistant Accounts Officers eligible to sit in the departmental promotion examination for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer along with the Deputy Accounts Officers has been challenged on the grounds of infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Similarly, the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, as amended in the year 2002, contemplating operation of a panel until it is exhausted has also been challenged as being violative of the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners, Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Mr. G.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents No. 3 to 10.