Dismissed¶¶59

Dipu Mani Kalita v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Jun 2025WP(C)/590/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Laches/delay in challenging promotion; Sheristadar/Chief Administrative Officer, Special Judge CBI & NIA Assam; Rule 16 relaxation of eligibility; Rule 6(1) Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules 1987; cascading effect on UDA/LDA appointments; writ petition dismissed. Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/590/2025, Justice Devashis Baruah, 05.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

The delay of over two years in challenging the 29.07.2022 appointment has become fatal; interference with respondent No.6's appointment would affect the incumbents who filled the UDA and LDA posts; on this ground alone the writ petition is required to be dismissed. ¶¶54

Dipu Mani Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.6, who was not the Head Assistant, was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Sheristadar/Chief Administrative Officer. +2 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

The petitioner himself was admittedly not eligible in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1987, as he did not have five years of experience in the post of Head Assistant.

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

¶¶54

Key takeaways

Respondent No.6 admittedly had experience of serving in the post of Sheristadar in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam, Guwahati in the capacity as In-charge.ratio¶¶58
The respondent authorities committed no error in selecting respondent No.6 to the post of Sheristadar/Chief Administrative Officer.ratio¶¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/590/2025 (oral judgment, Justice Devashis Baruah, decided 05.06.2025): writ petition challenging Order No.41 dated 29.07.2022 of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam appointing respondent No.6 (Sri Ranjit Kalita) on promotion as Sheristadar/Chief Administrative Officer. In the selection of 26.07.2022 all five candidates were ineligible in terms of the advertisement/Rule 6(1) of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987; the Selection Committee relaxed the criteria under Rule 16 and selected respondent No.6, who had discharged the functions of Sheristadar as In-charge since 2015. The petitioner himself admittedly lacked five years' service as Head Assistant. After an unanswered representation of 12.08.2022, the petition was filed on 23.12.2024. Held: the delay was fatal — respondent No.6 had meanwhile been confirmed and the UDA and LDA posts had been filled, so interference would have a cascading effect; and the respondent authorities committed no error in selecting respondent No.6. Writ petition dismissed.

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010279332024

2025:GAU-AS:7690

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/590/2025

¶6

DIPU MANI KALITA

¶7

S/O- LATE LALIT CH. KALITA, R/O- DIHING SATRA, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, GUWAHATI- 781030

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

¶10

2:THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER-CUM-COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TOTHE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

¶12

4:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GUWAHATI- 781001

¶13

5:THE SPECIAL JUDGE CBI AND NIA ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781003

¶14

6:SRI RANJIT KALITA

¶15

CURRENTLY POSTED AS SHERISTADAR/CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE

¶16

Page No.# 2/8

¶17

OFFICER

¶18

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE CBI AND NIA COURT GUWAHATI ASSA

¶19

B E F O R E

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶21

Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. R Sarma

¶22

Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. HK Das

Standing Counsel

Gauhati High Court

Mr. TR Gogoi

Government Advocate,

Assam

Mr. S Das

For respondent No.6

Date of hearing & judgment : 05.06.2025

¶31

JUDGMENT &ORDER(ORAL)

¶32

Heard Mr. R Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. TR Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, Mr. HK Das, the learned

¶33

Page No.# 3/8

¶34

Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Mr. S Das, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6.

¶35

The petitioner herein has assailed the impugned order bearing Order No.41 dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam whereby the respondent No.6 was appointed on promotion to the post of Sheristadar / Chief Administrative Officer in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam Guwahati.

¶36

The challenge so made in the instant writ petition is on the ground that the respondent No.6 was not the Head Assistant and as such, he was not eligible to be considered for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sheristadar / Chief Administrative Officer.

¶37

Taking into account the said challenge, let this Court take up the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

¶38

The petitioner herein joined his service as a Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in the year 2000. Thereupon, he was selected to be appointed as an Upper Division Assistant in the office of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No.1, Chandmari vide the order dated 25.04.2013 and he joined the said post on 02.05.2013. Subsequently, in the year 2017, the petitioner was transferred from the office of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No.1, Chandmari, Guwahati to the office of the CBI, Assam Additional Court No.2, Chandmari, Guwahati vide

¶39

Page No.# 4/8

¶40

an order dated 05.09.2017, which he joined on 11.09.2017. The petitioner subsequently, was again promoted to the post of Head Assistant in the office of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No.2, Chandmari at Guwahati vide the order dated 16.09.2021.

¶41

It is further seen from the records that on 04.05.2022, the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam issued an advertisement inviting applications from experienced persons from the District Court Establishments, State of Assam for filling up a vacant post of Chief Administrative Officer/ Sheristadar in the office of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam in the pay scale of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- with grade pay of Rs.14,500/- per month along with other admissible allowance as per the ROP Rules 2017. In the said advertisement, it was categorically mentioned that the applicant must be a Graduate having experience of serving as either Sheristadar of Additional District and Sessions Judge or as Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge Establishment (or equivalent District Court establishments) for a period of at least 5(five) years. It was also mentioned that the Selection Board reserved the right to relax the requisite criteria in case of need and exigencies, in terms with Rule 16 of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 (for short, the Rules of 1987).

¶42

Subsequent to the said advertisement, although the petitioner did not have the eligibility of working in the post of the Head Assistant for a period of five years had applied to the said post. The respondent No.6 along with other candidates also applied to the said post. At this stage, it is relevant to take note

¶43

Page No.# 5/8

¶44

of that a meeting of the Selection Board was held on 26.07.2022, pursuant to the interview conducted on all the five candidates. It was found that all the five candidates, who participated were not eligible in terms with the said advertisement, inasmuch as, four of the candidates including the petitioner did not have five years experience in the post of the Head Assistant and the respondent No.6 was working as an Upper Division Assistant, but discharging the functions of the post of Sheristadar in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam since 2015.

¶45

Taking into consideration the above, the Selection Committee in exercise of the powers under Rule 16 relaxed the eligibility criteria and thereupon selected the respondent No.6 for promotion/appointment to the post of Sheristadar in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam, Guwahati. On the basis of the said selection so conducted on 26.07.2022, the impugned order was passed on 29.07.2022. The petitioner along with another submitted a representation on 12.08.2022 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court and thereupon as the petitioner did not receive any response, the present writ petition was filed on 23.12.2024.

¶46

It is further relevant to take note of that although the writ petition was filed on 23.12.2024, but there were certain defects and it is under such circumstances, the writ petition was first listed before this Court on 21.02.2025, whereby this Court issued notice.

¶47

Mr. HK Das, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶48

Page No.# 6/8

¶49

Gauhati High Court submitted that the materials on record would show that taking into account that all the candidates who participated in the selection proceedings did not have the eligibility in terms with Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1987, power was exercised to condone the eligibility and accordingly the petitioner, the respondent No.6 as well as the other two candidates were duly considered for the purpose of selection. The learned counsel further submitted that the selection was held in the year 2022 and thereupon the respondent No.6 had been also confirmed in the year 2025. In addition to that, the post of the UDA from where the respondent No.6 was promoted to the post of Sheristadar / Chief Administrative Officer had already been filled up from the feeder cadre of LDA. The post of the LDA from which post the incumbent had been promoted as UDA has also been filled up. In that regard, he has placed before this Court an instruction which is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’.

¶50

The learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing the instant writ petition cannot be condoned taking into account that if there is an interference so made to the promotion to the post of the respondent No.6, it would have a cascading effect. He submitted that not only the respondent, but the incumbent who has been promoted from the post of the LDA to the post of UDA, as well as the person who has been appointed to the post of LDA would be affected. He, therefore, submitted that on the grounds of delay, the instant petition should be dismissed. Additionally, he submitted that if the relaxation would not have been given, not only the respondent No.6, but also the petitioner would not be eligible.

¶51

Page No.# 7/8

¶52

Mr. S Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 submits that though he had not filed an affidavit-in- opposition, but he supports the submissions so made by Mr. HK Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court.

¶53

I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made.

¶54

It is seen from the records that on 29.07.2022, the respondent No.6 was promoted to the post of Sheristadar / Chief Administrative Officer under the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam. The petitioner who was a candidate in the said selection process knew it very well. The petitioner along with another submitted a representation on 12.08.2022. Thereupon, the petitioner kept waiting for more than two years to challenge the selection process. This Court takes note from the instructions that the respondent No.6 by the time the instant writ petition is being taken up for disposal had already been confirmed to the post of Sheristadar / Chief Administrative Officer; the post from where the respondent No.6 had been promoted had already been filled up by way of promotion from the post of LDA and the post of the LDA had also been filled up. The delay in filing the instant writ petition, in the opinion of this Court has become fatal, taking into account that if there is an interference made to the appointment of the respondent No.6, it would affect the appointment of the incumbent who had filled up the post in the cadre of UDA and also would affect the incumbent who had filled up the post of the LDA. On this ground alone, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition is

¶55

Page No.# 8/8

¶56

required to be dismissed.

¶57

This Court further takes note of that the petitioner herein admittedly was not eligible in terms with Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1987 as he did not have five years of experience in the post of Head Assistant. This Court further takes note of the advertisement categorically stipulated that the applicant must be a graduate having experience of serving as either Sheristadar of the Additional District and Sessions Judge or as Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge Establishment.

¶58

Admittedly, the respondent No.6 had the experience of serving in the post of the Sheristadar in the establishment of Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam, Guwahati in the capacity as In-charge. Under such circumstances, it is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that the respondent authorities had committed no error in selecting the respondent No.6 to the post of Sheristadar / Chief Administrative Officer.

¶59

For the reasons aforesaid, therefore, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order No.41 dated 29.07.2022 appointing respondent No.6 on promotion to the post of Sheristadar/Chief Administrative Officer in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam, Guwahati¶¶35
Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam · 29.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner joined service as Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in 2000; selected as Upper Division Assistant in the office of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No.1, Chandmari vide order dated 25.04.2013, joining on 02.05.2013¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioner transferred on 05.09.2017 (joined 11.09.2017) and thereafter promoted to the post of Head Assistant in the office of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No.2, Chandmari, Guwahati vide order dated 16.09.2021¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Advertisement dated 04.05.2022 by the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam for a vacant post of Chief Administrative Officer/Sheristadar (pay scale Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- with grade pay Rs.14,500/-); eligibility fixed as graduate with at least 5 years as Sheristadar of Additional District and Sessions Judge or as Head Assistant; Selection Board reserved right to relax criteria under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1987¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Selection Board meeting held on 26.07.2022 after interview of all five candidates; all five found ineligible in terms of the advertisement — four including the petitioner lacked five years as Head Assistant, and respondent No.6 was working as Upper Division Assistant but discharging Sheristadar functions since 2015¶¶44
Prior proceeding
Selection Committee exercised powers under Rule 16, relaxed the eligibility criteria and selected respondent No.6 for promotion/appointment as Sheristadar; impugned order passed on 29.07.2022¶¶45
Prior proceeding
Petitioner along with another submitted a representation on 12.08.2022 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court; no response received¶¶45
Prior proceeding
Writ petition filed on 23.12.2024¶¶45
Prior proceeding
Writ petition had certain defects; first listed before this Court on 21.02.2025 when notice was issued¶¶46
Prior proceeding
Post-selection developments reported via instruction marked 'X': respondent No.6 confirmed in 2025; the UDA post vacated by his promotion filled by promotion from the LDA feeder cadre; the LDA post also filled¶¶49

Dipu Mani Kalita v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipu Mani Kalita v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haji Idris Ali Laskar and Anr. Vs on the Death of Md. Ibrahim Ali Laskar His Legal Heirs Namely

Kakojan Kristi Kendra and 2 Ors. Vs Prodip Dutta and Anr.

Sibcharan Barman Vs Punya Barman and 2 Ors.

Sri Sujoy Mitra Vs Smt. Rimashree Paul

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Isurauddin Ali @ Md. Yaseruddin and 2 Ors.

Dalimi Devi Vs Giridhar Sarma