SHYAMAL SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Rule the petitioner has challenged Annexure-B letter dated 9.1.89 issued by the Deputy Registrar (Admn), Annexure-D letter dated 21.7.89 and Annexure-F order dated 7.3.91 issued by the Registrar (Admn) and prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction.

(2.) For the purpose of disposal of this Civil Rule the facts are:- The petitioner was appointed Library Attendant in the Gauhati High Court on 11.7.81 and since then he has been working as such. He is a Graduate in Commerce and he claims that he possesses all the requisite qualifications for promotion to the next higher grade in Class-Ill Ministerial Establishment (Non Gazetted) of the High Court. His pay scale with Lower Division Assistant in the High Court had been exactly same. As per the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of Services and Conduct) Rules, 1967, for short "the Rules", the said posts are of same cadre including in the Ministerial Establishment of the High Court Class-Ill (Non Gazetted) as will appear in the Schedule-I of the Gauhati High Court Rules. In the year 1967 the pay scale of the Government employees of Assam was revised. As per the revision, the pay scale of LD Assistants of Secretariat, High Court and the Library Attendant had been made similar with same benefits of increments as per the Rules. Again in the year 1974 the pay scale of the employees of the Assam Government was revised. As per this revision of pay, the scale of pay of LD Assistants and the Library Attendant was made identical and with similar benefits. In 1967 the scale of pay of LD Assistant and Library Attendant was again revised. Again, by an office Memorandum dated 10.10.77 the pay scale of LD Assistant of Assam Secretariat was again revised with effect from 1,10.77, The said Memorandum was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, Establishment-A, Dispur. The petitioner's grievance is that although the effect of the said Memorandum had been given immediately, but the petitioner was denied the benefit of the said revision. Being aggrieved, the petitioner along with some others submitted representations before the Registrar (Admn) - Respondent No. 3. However, the representation was not favourably disposed of. Situated thus, the petitioner and two others moved a writ application (Civil.Rule 295/82) before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 2.1.84 allowed the application by declaring that the posts of Library Attendant and LD Assistant were equal in status, pay and responsibility. The post of LD Assistant was never considered as a promotional post of Library Attendant. The petitioner's grievance is that as per the judgment of this Court in Civil Rule 295/82, the Library Attendant and LD Assistant are equally eligible for promotion to the next higher posts, namely. Assistant Librarian, Upper Division Assistants, Commissioner of Affidavits, Editor of paper Books etc. At the time when the said decision was rendered by this Court, a number of posts of Upper Division Assistants were lying vacant in the High Court Establishment. In spite of the said judgment the petitioner's case was never considered at any time for promotion to the said posts. The petitioner, therefore, again submitted a representation dated 23.9.88 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court to include his name as per the seniority tor consideration of promotion. The representation dated 23.9,88 was considered by this Court in its administrative side and the petitioner was informed by Annexure-B letter dated 9.1.89 that necessary action would be taken when vacancy would occur in the post of L.D. Assistant. The petitioner submits that this was in clear violation of the decision of this Court in Civil Rule 295/82 as it had been declared that the post of LD Assistant was not a promotion post of Library Attendant. This was pointed out by the petitioner by yet another representation dated 4.4.89 to the effect that Annexure-B letter was in violation of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Civil Rule No. 295/82. The petitioner also made a prayer for his promotion to the post of UD Assistant when due as per seniority. By Annexure-D letter dated 21.7.89 the petitioner was informed that his representation for promotion to the post of UD Assistant was carefully studied and the same could not be considered and was. therefore, rejected. The said order however did not disclose in clear terms that the petitioner as a Library Attendant could not gel promotion to the UD Assistant or that he was no' as entitled to the said post. By Annexure-E order dated 1.9,89 this Court in its administrative side promoted five LD Assistants to the posts of UD Assistants in the Principal Seat of this Court. The said promotees included Abedur Rahman, who joined as LDA on the same day when the petitioner joined as Library Attendant and Biman Gogoi and Bidyut Kumar Sen, who were juniors to the petitioner having joined as LD Assistants on 16.1,82. The said Bidyut Kumar Sen, however, resigned from his post. In the meantime, the petitioner was still hoping that his case would be favourably considered and correct the wrong decision. However, by Annexure-F notification dated 7.3.91 this Court promoted yet another Junior to the petitioner Smt Meera Rajbangshi (Respondent-6) to the post of UD Assistant by superseding the petitioner. The said respondent had joined as LD Assistant on 23.6.82. The promotions that had been made to the persons to the post of U.D. Assistants are all juniors to the petitioner, except Abedur Rahman, who joined on the same day. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 9.1.89, 21.7.89 and promotion given by the orders dated 1.9.89 and 7.3.91 were arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner was discriminated Without any reason. Besides, according to him, the impugned orders and the promotions had been given in a most mechanical manner on the basis of irrelevant and extraneous considerations. There had been a total non application of mind to the relevant provisions of Rules. There had been malice in law in passing the impugned orders and not based on proper interpretation of Rules. Hence the present petition.

(3.) An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Registrar (I & E) of this Court. As per the said affidavit the petitioner was initially appointed Record Arranger on 12.9.72 on compassionate ground due to the sudden demise of his father. At the time of his initial appointment the petitioner was not a Graduate and since his appointment was on compassionate ground he was appointed Record Arranger for which no minimum qualification had been prescribed. However, the petitioner subsequently obtained graduation and he was promoted to the post of Library Attendant on 11.7.81. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that mere indential pay scale is not the scle criterion to determine the status. The mode of selection, appointment and prescribed qualification for the two posts are totally different. There is no prescribed qualification for filling up the post of Library Attendant and the same is filled up by promotion from Record Arranger, but in contrast the minimum qualification for the post of 'LD Assistant is Graduate and appointments are made by direct recruitment as well as by promotion. 10% of the posts are to be filled up by promotion from the Graduate Typist having 4 years continuous service as salaried typist and another 10% from qualified Grade- IV employees including the Record Arranger. Regarding the judgment passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 295/82 this respondent has stated that this Court had held that the status, pay and responsibility of the post of Library Attendant is equal to that of L.D. Assistants. But the judgment did not indicate that the two posts belong to the same cadre as it is obvious from the fact that qualification, mode of selection and criteria for appointment in the two posts are distinct and separate. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the rqpresentation of the petitioner had been considered and he was not found to be eligible for promotion. According to-him the orders dated 9.1.89 and 27.7.89 were just and proper.