NAMITA RABHA Vs. GAUHATI HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 4085/2013 and WP(C) No. 4644/2013 have been filed by four employees of this High Court espousing same grievance and challenging the same orders passed by High Court in administrative side thereby cancelling the promotion of the petitioners in the rank of Senior Administrative Assistant (hereinafter referred to as "SAA") and consequently giving promotions to the private respondents against the posts so vacated by them. WP(C) No. 4085/2013 has been preferred by one lone petitioner, Smti. Namita Rabha whereas WP(C) No. 4644/2013 has been preferred by three petitioners, namely, Sri Anil Kumar Singha, Sri Surya Kanta Rajkumar and Md. Arman Ali. As both the writ petitions have more or less identical pleadings with same prayer, the respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition in one case, namely, WP(C) No. 4085/2013 and the learned counsel for the respondents submitted at the time of argument that the affidavit-in-oppositions filed in WP(C) No. 4085/2013 be considered as reply to the pleadings of both the writ petitions. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions are analogously heard on the basis of one set of pleadings. The WP(C) No 4085/2013 is considered to be the lead case for the purpose of hearing.

(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioners that they were initially appointed as extra typists by the High Court on various dates from 1989 to 1996. They claim to have been subsequently appointed as regular typists. On 20.6.2007 by another order passed by the Registrar General of the High Court, they were promoted and appointed as Lower Division Assistants w.e.f. the date of their joining in the scale of pay of Rs. 3490-90-4480-120-4600-EB-120-5200-175-6600-250-8100/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under the rules. In the mean time, the posts of Lower Division Assistant were renamed as that of Junior Administrative Assistant (hereinafter referred to as "JAA"). They immediately joined to the promotional post. On 16.11.2011 by yet another order of the Registrar General of the High Court, all the petitioners were promoted and appointed as Senior Administrative Assistant (hereinafter referred to as "SAA") against various posts in the Pay Band of Rs. 8000-35000/- per month with Grade Pay of Rs. 4300/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under the rules w.e.f. the date of their joining. It is needless to say that the petitioners immediately reported for joining to the promotional posts. According to the petitioners, their promotion to the post of SAA was preceded by a due process of selection conducted by a duly constituted committee of Hon'ble Judges in accordance with the rules and executive instructions in force at the relevant point of time. Precisely, this was done in terms of Rule 18 of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule 18 prescribes that the vacancies in the higher grades of Ministerial Services shall be filled up according to merit, and ordinarily by promotion from the lower grades, seniority being counted only when the merit is equal. This is why there was supersession of some senior incumbents in the cadre of JAA.

(3.) The problem started thereafter when as many as 12 JAAs submitted a representation on 19.01.2012 challenging the promotion of the petitioners and others by aforesaid notification dated 16.11.2011 and 05.01.2012. According to them, their supersession was bad for the following reasons:-