Neelam Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/11

¶2

GAHC010256292024

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:10390-DB

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WA No. 414/2024

¶6

Neelam Saikia

¶7

D/O- Pitambar Saikia, Near LGB College, Mission Chariali, Patiachuburi, Tezpur-784001.

¶8

… .Appellant

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

The State of Assam,

¶11

Represented by the Secretary to the

¶12

Government of Assam, Information and Public Relations, P & S Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

¶13

The Under Secretary to the

¶14

Government of Assam, Information and Public Relations, P& S Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

¶15

The Director, Directorate of Information and

¶16

Public Relations, P & S Department (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last Gate, Guwahati-6.

¶17

4. Registrar,

¶18

Directorate of Information &

¶19

Public Relations and P & S Department (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last Gate, Guwahati-6.

¶20

Page No.# 2/11

¶21

Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

¶22

The Secretary, Assam Public Service Commission, Jawahar Nagar, Khanapara- 781022

¶23

Mouchumi Bhattacharyya Baruah,

¶24

Press Research Officer (PRO), Directorate of Information & Public Relations and P & S Department, (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last gate, Guwahati-6

¶25

Himangshu Lahkar, Translator,

¶26

Directorate of Information & Public Relations and P & S Department, (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last gate, Guwahati-6

¶27

9. Mr. Manoj Kalita, Translator,

¶28

Directorate of Information & Public Relations and P & S Department, (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last gate, Guwahati-6

¶29

10.Ms. Rubina Islam, Translator, Directorate of Information & Public Relations and P & S Department, (DIPR), Government of Assam, Last gate, Guwahati-6.

¶30

11.Rituparna Kakati, Son of Late Birendra Nath Kakati, S.S. Road, Town Abhaypuri, PS/PO-Abhaypuri, DistrictBongaigaon – 783384.

… .Respondents

Page No.# 3/11

– B E F O R E –

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶35

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶36

For the appellant : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate

¶37

Mr. A. Phukan, Advocate

¶38

For the respondents : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam

¶39

For respondent Nos.1 to 5

¶40

Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, S.C., APSC For respondent No.6

¶41

Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Mr. A. Das & Mr. R. Das, Advocates for respondent No.7,

¶42

Mr. M.K. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.8

¶43

Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate for Respondent No.9, 10 & 11

¶44

Date of hearing & judgment : 07.08.2025

¶45

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶46

(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)

¶47

We have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Phukan, learned Advocate for the appellant; and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Das, Advocate; Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned Advocate for the

¶48

Page No.# 4/11

¶49

respondents.

¶50

The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 21.11.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 4538/2023, whereby the appellant’s contention that the respondent No. 7 was wrongly promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer and that the appellant should, instead, have been promoted, has been rejected and the decision of promoting the respondent No.7 to the post of Junior Information Officer has been upheld.

¶51

The appellant is a Librarian in the Directorate of Information and Public Relations and Printing and Press Department, Government of Assam, on which post she was appointed on 08.03.2019, and since then she is continuing on that post.

¶52

According to Assam Information and Public Relations Service Rules, 1986, (hereinafter referred as “1986 Rules”) for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, the feeder posts are Journalist, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Reader and Librarian. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent No.7, who is a Translator, has been promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer, which de hors the rules and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶53

The contention of the appellant is that she possesses necessary qualification and experience for being promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer, having continuously served without any break, for more than five years. She has undergone the departmental training and also has passed the departmental examination. She ought not to have been excluded from being promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer. The respondent No. 7, a Translator, is not in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer.

¶54

Page No.# 5/11

¶55

The State respondents, on the other hand, have contended that the gradation list of Translators, Journalists, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers, Librarians and Proof Readers of the Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Assam, has been prepared on the basis of seniority and merit and such preparation of gradation list is in practice for decades. The posts referred to above have the same pay structure and, in fact, notwithstanding the nomenclature of such posts, the nature of work is also the same. The Translators are appointed along with Journalists, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers etc. through same selection process which, in the present case, was pursuant to the Advertisement dated 30.10.2018 and the recruitment process having been completed in 2019. The pay scale of all the posts is also same. Thus, the post of Translator being equivalent to the posts of Librarian etc., which constitute the feeder cadre under the Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, there is no illegality in the respondent No.7, a Translator, having been promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer.

¶56

On behalf of the respondent No.7, it has been urged that Rule 3(1) of the 1986 Rules, referred to above, specifies the class, cadres and status of various officers on different posts.

¶57

Class III posts comprise the cadre of Junior Information Officer, which also includes Assistant Editor of Publications, Assistant Publicity Officer, Press Research Officer, Manager of Publications, Script Writer, Publication Assistant, Sub-Divisional Information and Public Relations Officer.

¶58

This class may also include, according to rule 3(2) of the 1986 Rules, (a) any post equivalent to a post in any one of the cadres mentioned in rule 3(1), and (b) any cadre or post laid down by the Government to be included in a cadre of service.

¶59

Page No.# 6/11

¶60

The relevant Rule regarding promotion is Rule 11 which provides that for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, the feeder post would be of Journalists, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers and Librarians. The post of Translator, however is conspicuously not listed in that provision.

¶61

It is the case of the respondents in general that a composite reading of Rule 11(2)(v) with Rule 3(2)(a)(b) would demonstrate that by way of executive instructions a decision could be taken to encadre any post as a feeder post for promotion to any of the cadres mentioned in Sub-Rule 1 and Sub-Rule 2(b). It has therefore been contended that the case of the respondent No.7, a Translator, is covered under rule 3(2)(a) and (b) of 1986 Rules.

¶62

It has been reiterated by all the respondents that since the Librarians and Translators have been recruited against the same advertisement and the same selection process, they would be deemed to be in the same cadre and, thus, notwithstanding Rule 11(2)(v) listing only the posts of Journalist, Sub-Editorcum-Proof Reader and Librarian as the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, the Translators also would fall in the feeder post category for such promotion.

¶63

It appears that respondent No.7, in the merit list for promotion, was placed at Sl. No.2, whereas the appellant was placed at Sl. No.11. The respondent No.7 therefore was selected for promotion to the higher post of Junior Information Officer.

¶64

The other contention of the respondents is that the promotion to the respondent No.7 was given on 12.04.2022 but the challenge was put up only on 05.08.2023, i.e. after approximately one year and four months.

¶65

It would be apposite to cull out the relevant part of the Rules of 1986 for

¶66

Page No.# 7/11

¶67

the sake of ready reference and completeness:

¶68

“ Rule 3. Class, cadres, status .

¶69

(1) The service shall consist of the following classes and cadres.

¶70

(a) Class I. (Senior Grade). It shall consist of the cadre of –

¶71

(i) Director of Information and Public Relations/Chief Information Officer.

¶72

(ii) Additional Director of Information and Public Relations.

¶73

(b) Class I. It shall consist of the cadres of –

¶74

(i) Joint Director of Information and Public Relations.

¶75

(ii) Deputy Director, which shall include Deputy Director of Information and Public Relations and Research Officer.

¶76

(c) Class II. It shall consist of the cadres of Senior Information Officer, which shall include Editor, District Information and Public Relations Officer, Liaison Officer and Office-in-Charge, Information Centre, Guwahati.

¶77

(d) Class III . It shall consist of the cadre of Junior Information Officer, which shall include Assistant Editor of publications, Assistant Publicity Officer, Press Research Officer, Manager of Publications, Script Writer, Publication Assistant, SubDivisional Information and Public Relations Officer.

¶78

(2) The service may also include –

¶79

(a) Any post equivalent to a post in any of the cadres mentioned in sub-R.(1); and

¶80

(b) Any cadre or post laid down by Government to be included in a cadre of the service.

¶81

11. Promotion .

¶82

(1) Vacancies in the cadres of Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director in Class I and Information Officer in Class II of the service, to the extent as specified in sub-R. (1) and (2) (a) of R. 5 shall be filled by promotion in the manner prescribed herein below.

¶83

(2) Subject to suitability as may be decided by the Commission, as set forth in R. 12 and also subject to possessing qualification and experience as prescribed hereinafter, an

¶84

Page No.# 8/11

¶85

officer shall be eligible for promotion from one cadre to another of the service in the manner provided below:

¶86

(i) From Joint Director to Additional Director;

¶87

(ii) From Deputy Director/Research Officer to Joint Director;

¶88

(iii) From Senior Information Officer to Deputy Director/Research Officer;

¶89

(iv) From Joint Information Officer and Sub-Divisional Information and Public Relations Officer to Senior Information Officer;

¶90

(v) From Journalist, Sub-Editor-Cum-Proof Reader and Librarian to Junior Information Officer.

¶91

(3) Subject to suitability, an officer shall be eligible for promotion if he possesses the qualifications and experience as set forth below:

¶92

(a) He has rendered continuous service on the first January of the year of promotion, for a period of-

¶93

(i) 3 years in the cadre of Joint Director for promotion to the cadre of Additional Director;

¶94

(ii) 3 years in the cadre of the Deputy Director for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director;

¶95

(iii) 5 years in the cadre of Senior Information Officer for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Director;

¶96

(iv) 5 years in the cadre of Junior Information Officer/SubDivisional Information and public Relations Officer for promotion to the cadre of Senior Information Officer.

¶97

(c) He has successfully undergone such training and passed such departmental examination as may be prescribed by Government for the purpose.”

¶98

A plain reading of the above Rules demonstrate that in addition to the listed feeder posts encadered under the 1986 Rules, any cadre or post may be included by the State Government, thereby not making it necessary to restrict the promotion from one cadre to another from only the listed feeder posts.

¶99

It appears from the records that vide a letter dated 16.08.1994, issued by the Director of Information and Public Relations, Assam, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (B) Department, it was communicated that the post of Translator of the Directorate was created and retained by the Government and therefore the post may be encadered. The

¶100

Page No.# 9/11

¶101

letter also reveals that the posts of Translators, Sub-Editor-cum-Proof Readers and Librarians are grouped into Information Assistants, which are substantive posts. Notwithstanding the Service Rule, the letter further declares, there is a provision for their promotion to the Junior Information Officer group from the Information Assistant group.

¶102

By another letter dated 21.09.1994, again issued by the Director of Information and Public Relations, Assam, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (B) Department, it was informed that a proposal had been suggested to the Government to empower the Departmental Selection Committee to select the Translators and that the posts of Journalist, Sub-Editor and Librarian and Translator are equivalent posts and their appointments would be guided by the same Rules.

¶103

It further appears that in the advertisement, against which the appointment of the appellant and the respondent No. 7 was made, their posts were in the same cadre (and they were subjected to the same/common examination). The posts, it is reiterated, carry the same scale of pay.

¶104

A proposal also appears to have been mooted for the purpose of the recommendations of the 7^th Pay and Productivity Pay Commission, in which the posts of Translator and Librarian and others have been clubbed together with a note that the nature of job in the feeder cadre is almost the same with that of the next in the hierarchy.

¶105

Considering this aspect of the matter and reading the Rules in a composite manner, the learned Single Judge held that even though the post of Translator was missing in the list of feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, which list does not appear to be exhaustive but only

¶106

Page No.# 10/11

¶107

illustrative, the cadre of Translator would fall in that category and therefore there is no illegality in the respondent No. 7, a Translator, having been considered for the promotional post.

¶108

To further strengthen the reason on which the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed, the learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors, 1992 (1) SCC (Supp) 584 , wherein it was held that the practice followed in the department for a long time must be counted for. Thus, it was concluded by the learned Single Judge that the Rules of 1986 provide the power to the State to include any post or cadre in the category of feeder posts and, even otherwise, all class of services, according to the Rules, may also include any post equivalent to a post in any of the cadres mentioned in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3.

¶109

Challenging the afore-noted judgment of the learned Single Judge, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that past practice ought not to be treated as precedent. Any erroneous promotion having been given in the past, which is contrary to the Service Rules, should not be treated as precedent and that statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive instructions. Merely because the government had contemplated to amend the Rules does not mean that the Rules stood amended or overridden. Till the rule is amended, the extant rules apply. Once the rule specifies the posts in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer, no inferential logic should be adopted for justifying a promotion to the post for which the post of Translator is not the feeder cadre. (Refer to K. Kuppusamy and Anr. vs. State of T.N. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 469; D. Stephen Joseph vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 753 ).

¶110

Page No.# 11/11

¶111

The upshot of the above discussion is that for all practical purposes, the post of Translator stands bracketed with the post of Librarian and other posts listed in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer.

¶112

The Translators and Librarians are all appointed under the same selection process and they carry the same pay scale and more or less similar work responsibilities. Apart from this, the 1986 Rules, though couched in vague terms, clearly provides that any post equivalent to a post in any of the cadres could be included in any of the class of the posts. This, read with the contemplated encadrement of the posts of Translator, suggests unequivocally that Translators also form a part of the feeder group for the purpose of promotion to the post of Junior Information Officer.

¶113

For the afore-noted reasons, we do not find any illegality in the respondent No. 7 having been promoted to the post of Junior Information Officer to the exclusion of the appellant.

¶114

The appeal is thus dismissed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶115

JUDGE

¶116

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶117

Comparing Assistant

Neelam Saikia v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Saikia v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaynab Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abdul Kuddus Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Mithlesh Kumar Devedi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Vs Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Vs Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

The State of Assam Vs Ashish Nath and Anr.