GHANA KANTA NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge made in this writ petition is the promotion of the respondent No. 4 as Superintendent effected in 2003. Further challenge made in this writ petition is the gradation list of 1992 of Upper Division Assistant (UDA).

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner, a Graduate in Arts was appointed as Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the office of the Inspector of Schools, Tezpur on 20.10.75. He was confirmed in service/post on 20.10.80. As against the said postion of the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 was appointed as LDA in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tezpur on 20.11.76. It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondent No. 4 is only matriculate, he is not qualified to be promoted as UDA/Superintendent. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973. Rule 12 lays down the Educational qualification for the post of LDA as Higher Secondary Examination passed. Rule 9 dealing with the appointment to the post of UDA by way of promotion, provides that the same is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the LDA of the service and by selection strictly on the basis of merit from amongst the ministerial staff of the District offices having at their credit not less than two years of continuous service as UDA.

(3.) THE gradation list of UDA was published and circulated in 1992 vide notification dated 25.09.92 (Annexure-E) in which the petitioner was shown at serial No. 3 while the respondent No. 4 was shown at serial No. 1. It appears that the petitioner did not make any grivance against the same and the gradation list attained its finality. According to the petitioner he came to know that the post of Superintendent in the office of the Commissioner, NAD, Tezpur was lying vacant since September/2002. Since he was serving as UDA for more than 15 years and had the requisite experience, he made representation dated 13.05.03 requesting the competent authority to consider his case for promotion to the post of Superintendent. However, it was the respondent No. 4 who was promoted to the post by the impugned notification dated 01.10.03 (Annexure-J). Being aggrieved and his appeal having not been disposed of, the petitioner has approached this Court making the prayers for setting aside and quashing of the aforesaid gradation list and the order of promotion.