SUPRABHA BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AND ORDER - This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 10.2.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's WP(C) No. 6414/2011.

(2.) The appellant - Smti. Suprabha Bora challenged the promotion of Smti. Kusumita Bora (Respondent No.4 of the writ petition) to the post of Upper Division Assistant (UDA, in short) vide order no. 302 dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that as both of them were selected as LDA-cum-Typist in the same selection process and were appointed on same date and that too on the basis of the same select list, her seniority ought to have been fixed on the basis of their respective dates of birth and she being older in age than Kusumita, her case for promotion should have been considered by the authority.

(3.) Rule 19(5) of The Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 provides that inter-se seniority of LDA appointed on the same date shall be according to the order of selection made by the appointing authority. The writ appellant placed reliance on the General Handbook of Circulars wherein it is provided that inter-se seniority should be determined in accordance with the date of birth in absence of any merit list. But by virtue of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the circular would get no precedence over the Rules where specific provisions are stipulated therein. It is revealed from the compilation sheet of the marks pertaining to both typing test and viva-voce in the selection process, the writ appellant secured lesser marks than that of the Respondent No.4 and as such, Respondent No. 4 was rightly placed above the writ appellant. The writ appellant did not raise the issue of wrong fixation of seniority for 10 (ten) years subsequent to the appointments and raised the question for the first time after such a long time and did not approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances at the earliest opportunity. The records also reveal that the Respondent no. 4 was placed at Serial No. 1 whereas the writ appellant was placed at Serial No. 2 in the select list. As such, we completely agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the respondent no. 4 was senior to the Writ Appellant and she had been rightly promoted by the authorities. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. The appeal is dismissed.