ANAMIKA TAMULI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing counsel, Soil Conservation Department, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.3 as well as Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

(2.) Presently, both the writ petitioner and respondent No.5 are working as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer (ASCO) under the Soil Conservation Department, Government of Assam. There is a Service Order called "Assam Soil Conservation Department (Recruitment and Promotion to the Service) Order, 1988 (for short, "Service Order"). Order 5 of the Service Order provides, amongst others, that 50% percent of the cadre strength of the post of ASCO shall be filled up by promotion in accordance with Order-8 of the Service Order. Order 6(i) of the Service Order visualizes direct recruitment to the cadre of ASCO through the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC).

(3.) The petitioner was selected in a selection process conducted by the APSC for appointment to the post of ASCO and, on the recommendation of the APSC dated 23.12.2009, she was placed at Serial No.1 in order of preference. By a notification dated 17.05.2010, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Soil Conservation Department, the petitioner was appointed to the post of ASCO and she joined her service on 18.05.2010. On 30.10.2013, five Draft Gradation Lists for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 were published. In the said Draft Gradation Lists for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.13 and the name of the respondent No.5 figured at Serial Nos.18, 18 and 25, respectively. On 30.06.2015, the Draft Gradation Lists in respect of ASCOs for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 were finalized after hearing objections and, in the said final Gradation List, while the name of the respondent No.5 figured at Serial No.3, the petitioner was pushed down and relegated to Serial No.14.