Page No.

# 1/8

GAHC010231372024

2025:GAU-AS:4956

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/5851/2024

PROBITRA SONOWAL
S/O- BHABESH SONOWAL, VILLAGE- NOWPARA GAON, P.O.- BAM RAJA
BARI, P.S. DEMOW, DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785671

VERSUS

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 7 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781001

2:THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781001

3:THE REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781001

4:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SIVASAGAR
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 785640

5:THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

SIVASAGAR
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
 Page No.# 2/8

PIN- 785640

6:SRI SANJEEVAN HAZARIKA

O/O- THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SIVASAGAR
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 785640

7:SRI DIGANTA PANGING

O/O- THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SIVASAGAR
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 785640

8:SRI NARAYAN SARMAH

O/O- THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SIVASAGAR
DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 78564

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. Hoque, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondents :Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC

Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025

Date of Judgment : 24.04.2025

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S. Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. S.
Borthakur the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
 Page No.# 3/8

respondent Nos.6 to 8.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by

the non-selection of the petitioner to the post of LDA, Junior
Administrative Assistant by the respondent Nos.4 & 5 in terms
with the criteria laid down by the Assam Chief Judicial
Magistrates Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 (for
short, ‘the Rules of 1987’) whereby in terms with Rule 6 (4) (c),
the criteria is seniority-cum-merit.

3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner

herein was appointed as a Peon in the Office of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sivasagar in the year 2013 vide an order dated
14.08.2013 and he joined his services on 16.08.2013. It is the
claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discharging
his duties with sincerity and dedication and to the utmost
satisfaction of the higher authorities. On 07.09.2024, pursuant to
a resolution adopted by the Selection Board, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sivasagar-cum-Chairman of the Selection Board had
issued a notice asking various persons including the petitioner
and the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 to appear in an interview to be
held on 23.09.2024 for promotion to one vacant post of LDA
(STP) and two vacant posts of Copyist (UR). From the very
notice, it would be seen that the criteria for the interview was set
out, i.e. the ACR, draft of application, notes etc. and the viva-
 Page No.# 4/8

voce would be taken into consideration for the purpose of

selection.

4. During the course of hearing, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court placed
before this Court certain instructions along with the records. In
the said records so produced, the minutes of the meeting of the
Selection Board held on 22.08.2024 was also placed before this
Court. A perusal of the said minutes of the meeting dated
22.08.2024 would show that the procedure on the basis of which
the selection would be conducted have been duly mentioned. It
however surprises this Court that although in terms with Rule 6
(4) (c) of the Rules of 1987, the criteria to promotion to the post
of LDA was seniority-cum-merit, but the minutes of the Selection
Board held on 22.08.2024 did not conceive of fixing any bench
mark to evaluate the minimum requisite merit and suitability of
the candidate amongst the eligible persons. It is further seen
from the materials which have been placed before this Court by
Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 that each of the 10 candidates who were
taken into consideration were adjudged purely on merit and this
very aspect of the matter could be apparent from the instructions
so placed. It is on the basis of the said procedure so adopted,
the impugned order was passed on 19.10.2024 whereby the
 Page No.# 5/8

respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 were promoted to the post of Copyist

and LDA. The instructions which have been placed by Mr. H. K.
Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”
collectively.

5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of

the parties in this regard and I have also taken note of Rule 6(4)
(c) of the Rules of 1987 which specifically mandates that the
criteria for promotion is seniority-cum- merit.

6. At this stage, this Court taking into account the manner in

which the Selection Committee proceeded with the selection
finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of B. V. Sivaiah & Ors. Vs. K. Addanki Babu &
Ors, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720, wherein the difference between
the principle of merit-cum-seniority, vis-à-vis, the principle of
seniority-cum-merit were explained. It was observed by the
Supreme Court that where promotion is to be based on principle
of merit-cum-seniority, a greater emphasis is laid on merit and
the ability of the candidate and the seniority is to be given
weight where merit and ability are approximately equal. Whereas
when it comes to the principle of seniority-cum-merit, the
promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority alone, subject
to having the minimum requisite merit and suitability of the
 Page No.# 6/8

candidate amongst the eligible persons. The Supreme Court

further observed that the principle of merit-cum-seniority
postulates the requirement of making a comparative assessment
of merit, whereas no such comparative assessment is required,
where the criterion for promotion is based on the principle of
seniority-cum-merit. It was further observed that if the
candidates have the same length of service, it is only to be
determined whether the candidates possess the minimum
required threshold of merit or not.

7. The Supreme Court further observed that where the

criterion of promotion is seniority-cum-merit, marks can only be
prescribed as a minimum qualifying requirement, and as such,
where promotion was being given to the eligible senior-most
candidates on the basis of their individual marks, such promotion
would be contrary to the principle of seniority-cum-merit.

8. Taking into account the above laid down principles by the

Supreme Court in the case of B. V. Sivaiah (supra) and the manner
in which the selection was carried out by the Respondent
Selection Committee, this Court is of the opinion that the
criterion so adopted was merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-
cum-merit.

9. Taking into account the above proposition of law, it would

 Page No.# 7/8

be seen that the Selection Committee, i.e. the respondent Nos.4

& 5 had applied the wrong yardstick and had in fact assessed the
petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 along with other
candidates on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not on
seniority-cum-merit.

9. Consequently, as the above promotion so made is contrary

to Rule 6(4) (c) of the Rules of 1987, this Court is of the opinion
that the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 is required to be
interfered with.

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with

the following observations and directions:-

(i) The order dated 19.10.2024 issued by the Office of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sivasagar whereby the
respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 were promoted to the post of
Copyist as well as LDA are set aside and quashed.

(ii) In view of the setting aside and quashing of the

order dated 19.10.2024, the respondents, more
particularly the respondent Nos.4 & 5 are directed to
forthwith take appropriate steps to fill up the vacancies
by following the mandate of Rule 6(4) (c) of the Rules
of 1987 and more particularly the criteria, i.e.
seniority-cum-merit.
 Page No.# 8/8

(iii) There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant