(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel who appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 has chosen not to participate in the proceedings although notice was served on him.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is a Master Degree holder in English Language and has been appointed as a Translator in the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court on 14. 12. 1992, is challenging the right of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were also appointed as Translators to be considered as encadred Translators in the newly created cadre of High Court Translators, brought about by incorporation of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 7 of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') through amendment of the Rules in 1994. The challenge to the entitlement of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to be part of the newly created cadre is on the ground that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 do not possess the qualification prescribed under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules to be fitted into the entry level post of Junior Grade Translator in the newly created cadre, where Degree in Law or Master Degree in English language have been prescribed as the requisite qualification. The writ petitioner is also seeking direction for notifying the encadrement of eligible persons in the cadre of Translators, by excluding respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the said exercise.
(3.) THE respondent No. 3 is an Honours Graduate in Education and was appointed as a Translator in the year 1988 in pursuant to the advertisement notification dated 18. 11. 1987. The respondent No. 4 was also appointed around the same time as respondent No. 3. This respondent also does not possess a Master Degree and was appointed as Translator while holding an Honours Degree which as earlier noted was the required qualification for being appointed as Translator at the relevant point of time in the year 1988.