Dismissed

Tirtha Nath Hazarika and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Feb 2024WP(C)/5825/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of writ petitions challenging promotion of private respondents without mandatory training. Relying on a Division Bench precedent, the court held survival of cause of action was negated regarding existing promotions and advised petitioners with grievances to file a representation to the Directorate of Fisheries within three months.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for representatives to file a representation to the Directorate of Fisheries within three months regarding delayed effect of their promotions.

Tirtha Nath Hazarika and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010138412017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5123/2017

¶5

TIRTHA NATH HAZARIKA and 15 ORS. S/O LT. THANESWAR HAZARIKA R/O VILL and P.O. NORAGAON, LAKHIMPUR, 787052.

¶6

2: SRI BHARAT SARMAH S/O DHARANIDHAR SARMAH R/O BIDYAPUR HOUSE NO. 3 NALBARI TOWN 781335

¶7

3: SRI BHAGABAN KALITA S/O JALESWAR KALITA R/O KANIMAER P.O.BALUKI

¶8

BARPETA - 781371.

¶9

4: SRI KRISHNA KANTA KALITA S/O LT. MOHENDRA MOHAN KALITA R/O VILL and P.O. DWARKUCHI BAKSA - 781376.

¶10

5: SRI BIMAL SARMAH

¶11

S/O SCHI SARMAH R/O DAKHALA KALONY P.O. BIJOYNAGAR KAMRUP - 781122.

¶12

6: SRI RAMENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN S/OLT. ARJUN BARMAN R/O VILL- and P.O. BELSOR NALBARI- 781304.

¶13

7: SRI SUCHIL KUMAR NATH S/O LT. KOBIRAM NATN R/O VILL and P.O. BHURAGOAN MORIGAON - 782121.

¶14

Page No.# 2/8

¶15

8: SRI SOMANTA KONWAR S/O MADAN CHANDR AKONWAR R/O VILL and P.O. CHABUKODHARA MORIGAON- 782106.

¶16

9: ABU SUFIAN S/O LT. NAWAB ALI R/O VILL- BLIGAON P.O. HABIBORNGABARI MORIGAON-782106.

¶17

10: SRI BHABANI PRASAD NATH S/O LT. DEBENDRNATH NATH R/O VILL and P.O. P.O. DIGHALDARI NAGAON- 782103.

¶18

11: SRI TRAILOKYA SALOI S/O LT. PADMA RAM SALOI R/O VILL- GURUKUCHI P.O. RANGIA KAMRUP R 781354.

¶19

12: SRI HIMANGSHU PRAKASH DAS S/OLT. CHANDRA MOHAN DAS R/O NAPARA P.O. SARUPETA BARPETA- 781318.

¶20

13: SRI BHASKAR JYOTI NATH S/OLT. MANIRAM NATH R/O VILL- RAJAGAON P.O. RAHA NAGAON- 782103. 14: SRI AJAN MAHANTA S/O KHAGEN MAHANTA R/O VILL and P.O. GARIGAON WARD NO. 1 KAMRUP M M 781012.

¶21

15: SRI IBRAHIM ALI KHAN S/O LT. MD. CHAND KHAN R/O HOWLY TOWN BARPETA- 781316 VERSUS

¶22

Page No.# 3/8

¶23

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS.

¶24

REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶25

2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶26

3:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶27

4:THE DIRECTOR

¶28

DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES MEEN BHABAN GOPINATH NAGAR GUWHATI -16.

¶29

5:SRI PRAKASH KUMAR DEVASHARMA

¶30

S/O LATE KRIPA NATH SARMA R/O- BAMGAON BISWANATH CHARIALI P.S.- BISWANATH CHARIALI P.S- BISWANATH CHARIALI ASSAM

¶31

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U K NAIR

¶32

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶33

Linked Case : WP(C)/5825/2017

¶34

TIRTHA NATH HAZARIKA and 7 ORS. S/O LT. THANESWAR HAZARIKA R/O VILL and P.O. NORAGAON LAKHIMPUR 787052.

¶35

Page No.# 4/8

¶36

2: SRI BHARAT SARMAH S/O DHARANIDHAR SARMAH R/O BIDYAPUR HOUSE NO. 3 NALBARI TOWN PIN - 781335.

¶37

3: SRI BHAGABAN KALITA S/O LT. JALESWAR KALITA R/O KANIMAER P.O. BALUKI BARPETA- 781371.

¶38

4: SRI KRISHNA KANTA KALITA S/O LT. MOHENDRA MOHAN KALITA R/O VILLand P.O. DWARKUCHI BAKSA PIN - 781376

¶39

5: SRI BIMAL SARMAH S/O SACHI SARMAH R/O DAKHALA KALONY P.O. BIJOYNAGAR KAMRUP781122.

¶40

6: SRI RAMENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN S/OLT. ARJUN BARMAN R/O VILL and P.O. BELSOR NALBARI- 781304.

¶41

7: SRI SUCHIL KUMAR NATH S/O LT. KOBIRAM NATH R/O VILL and P.O. BHURAGAON MORIGAON - 782121.

¶42

8: SRI AJAN MAHANTA S/O KHAGEN MAHANTA R/O VILL- and P.O. GARIGAON WARD NO. 1 KAMRUP M 781012. VERSUS

¶43

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 10 ORS. REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶44

2:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶45

Page No.# 5/8

¶46

GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES MEEN BHABAN GOINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI -16. 4:SRI JOGNESWAR BORDOLOI SL NO. 2 ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 5:SRI RAMCHARAN THOWSAN SL. NO. 7 ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 6:SRI DEBA KUMAR DEURI SL.NO. 12 ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 7:SRI PRDIP DAS SL. NO. 19 ORDER DATED 21.08. 2017 8:SRI UDAY BASUMATARY SL. NO. 22 ORDER DATED -21.08.2017 9:SRI ALTAF HUSSAIN SL. NO. 30 ORDER DATED 21-08-2017 10:SMTI. KRISHNASHREE DAS KALITA SL. NO. 32 ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 11:SRI DHARMESWAR KALITA SL. NO. 2 ORDER DATED 21.08.2017. RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 11 THROUGH THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES MEEN BHABAN GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI -16. -----------Advocate for : MS.P BORGOHAIN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 10 ORS.

¶47

Page No.# 6/8

¶48

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶49

ORDER

¶50

05.02.2024.

¶51

Heard Mr. M. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5123/2017 and WP(C) No. 5825/2017. Also heard Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the State respondents.

¶52

By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed an order of appointment dated 21.08.2017, whereby the private respondents were promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Fishery Development Officer purportedly in violation of the Assam Fishery Service (Recruitment and Promotion Orders 1989 (in short the Orders’ 1989). The further challenge was the Minutes of the DPC meeting held on 2^nd week of August 2017 for considering the case of the private respondents to the post of Sub Divisional Fishery Development Officer. Prayer made in these writ petitions was to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the said post strictly in terms of Schedule-I at Sl. No. 13 of the Orders’ 1989.

¶53

The primary dispute raised in these cases is the essential qualification for promotion to the next higher grade as discussed hereinabove. Admittedly, the respondents are not having the required one year training recognized by I.C.A.R. which is mandatory for such promotion.

¶54

The issues regarding the essential qualification were determined by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of WP(C) No. 3546/2021 (Bhanu Borah and 10

¶55

Page No.# 7/8

¶56

Ors –Vs- State of Assam and Ors). The Hon’ble Division Bench by its judgment dated 01.11.2021 held that since the Rule itself makes training mandatory for those incumbents, Court cannot pass an order which is contrary to the Rules. It was further held by the Hon’ble Division Bench that it is not possible in the given facts of the said case either to declare the requirement of mandatory training as unworkable as claimed by the petitioners or to pass a direction to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher post of Sub Divisional Fishery Development Officer, irrespective of their training. However, it was further observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench that it is purely the discretion of the Government as the power of relaxation is given to the Government under Clause-14 of the Assam Fishery Service (Recruitment and Promotion) Orders, 1989.

¶57

Accordingly, while declining to allow the prayers made by those writ petitioners, it was left to the wisdom of the Government to apply to Clause 14 of the Orders, 1989 i.e. power of relaxation.

¶58

It is an undisputed position that the respondents were promoted by exercising power of Rule of relaxation. The other aspect of the matter is that except the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 5825/2017, all the other respondents who were promoted to the next higher post after relaxing the rule, have in the meantime retired. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the promotion of the respondent No. 5 inasmuch as such promotion was granted in exercise of power of the Government under Clause 14 of the Orders 1989, which course of action has also been permitted by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

¶59

That being the position, in the considered opinion of this Court, no surviving cause of action is there in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Divison Bench in the case of Bhanu Borah and Ors (supra).

¶60

Page No.# 8/8

¶61

At this stage, Mr. S. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have also been promoted in the meantime, however, their promotions have not been given effect from the date other respondents were promoted.

¶62

In the opinion of this Court, such grievances can be raised by the petitioners before their employer by filing necessary representation and in the event, such representation is filed, the employer shall consider their case as per law. And in the event, such claim of the petitioners is negated or the petitioners are aggrieved by any of such decision, they shall always be at liberty to approach before this Court.

¶63

Such exercise for consideration of the representation shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of filing a representation along with furnishing a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 3, i.e. The Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Meen Bhaban, Gopinath Nagar, Guwahati-16.

¶64

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

Comparing Assistant

Tirtha Nath Hazarika and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirtha Nath Hazarika and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishnu Mili Vs Alok Kumar, Ias, and 6 Ors.

Shyamal Kanti Aich Vs Borsingh Rongpi and Anr.

Nazmul Hussain Laskar Vs Barun Bhuyan, IAS

Dwithun Muchahary and 11 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vishnoi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Benu Mohan Borah and 25 Ors. Vs Vinod Kr. Pipersania and 4 Ors.