EKENDRA BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner belongs to Bodo Kochari community (Scheduled caste). In 1985 he passed H.S.L.C. examination under the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. Earlier to it on 24.11.83 the petitioner was appointed as office peon in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Gossaigaon. In 1988 he completed a diploma course in typing in English and Assamese. On 21.12.88 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Jarikarak post in the same office of S.D.O.(Civil). Gossaigaon. On 9.5.93 a gradation list for Grade IV employees in the establishment of S.D.O.(Civil), Gossaigaon was published showing the petitioner in Serial No. 5. On 18.4.94 a provisional gradation list for Grade-IV employees of amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar was pubished showing the petitioner in serial No. 33 and the Respondent No. 3 in serial No. 34 and the respondent No. 4 in serial No. 43. On 10.12.96 there was a notice asking the Grade-IV employees of the Deputy Commissioner's establishment who have completed continuous 7 years service with typing experience to appear before the Selection Board for promotion to Grade-III post. THE petitioner appeared before the Selection Board. It is contended that the Select list was not published by the concerned authority. That is denied by the respondents No. 3 and 4 by filing affidavit stating that the select list was duly published. On 10.3.97 the respondent No. 2 by an order promoted the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to the post of L.D.A. and they were posted in Food and Civil Supplies Branch, at Gossaigaon and Kokrajhar. THE contention of the petitioner is that he is senior to the Respondents No. 3 and 4 as because the petitioner was appointed on 30.11.83 whereas the Respondent No. 3 on 1.7.84 and the Respondent No. 4 on 30.9.85 respectively. On 11.3.97 a representation was filed with a prayer to review the order of promotion but the same was not disposed of. THE claim of the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 2 promoted the Respondents No. 3 and 4 by superseding the petitioner and in violation of rules that is Assam Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1967.

(2.) I have heard Mr R L Yadav, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr G.N. Sahewalla, learned Advocate for the Respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. Talukdar, learned GA, for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr Yadav, places reliance on the following decisions, (i) AIR 1998 SC 2565 (B. V. Siviah and ors. Vs K. Addanki Babu and ors) wherein paragraphs 8,10 and 18 has pointed out as follows :