Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010155032020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4914/2020 KANDAL DAS S/O ARUN DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOLOIBARI, PO MOLOIBARI, PS KHETRI, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPT. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER GUWAHATI PROJECT CIRCLE IRRIGATION GUWAHATI 3 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GUWAHATI DIVISION IRRIGATION ULUBARI GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PHUKAN, MR R RAJKHOWA,MR. B KHAKHLARY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 13.05.2026 Heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for Irrigation Department. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for his promotion from Grade-IV employee, Khalasi to Grade-III as Assistant Electrician. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Khalasi under the Office of Executive Engineer, Guwahati Division, (Irrigation) and that he was engaged as Master Role worker on 01.02.1986 and since then the petitioner has been working in the said office. The petitioner further states that his services was regularized with effect from 22.07.2005 in pursuance to an order dated 06.10.2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, Guwahati, Division (Irrigation). The petitioner had also stated that he had obtained provisional workman permit on 10.07.1995 and that he has applied for his promotion to the post of Assistant Electrician on 20.04.2017 to the Executive Engineer, Guwahati Division (Irrigation) who had forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer Guwahati Project Circle (Irrigation) on 03.06.2019. The petitioner also had stated that he had filed another representation before respondent no.1 but the same was not paid any heed to. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner was regularized to his post of Khalasi vider order dated 06.10.2005 but the post that the petitioner was holding was personal to the incumbent but he submits that the petitioner due to his long service career has prayed for promotion to the post of Grade-III. Page No.# 3/4 To substantiate his argument, he has placed two judgments of this Court by filing an additional affidavit. On the other hand, Mr. N Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for Irrigation Department had submitted that the post held by the petitioner was personal to him as could be seen from the regularization order dated 06.10.2005 wherein the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 33 and that the petitioner is not entitled for any promotion been working in a post personal to him. He had placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dilip Talukdar and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2017 (2) GLT 135, by which this Court held that the concept of personal post was analyzed a number of times and it was also noted that regularization of workers working in their personal post were not against any cadre post of the department and the said workers are not entitled for any promotion to the next higher post. He had also relied on the judgment of this Court delivered in writ petition no.8985/2019 by which this Court had held that reversion to the earlier post held by the worker which was personal to him was correct. I have heard the Counsels and also I have gone through the record. It is seen from the regularization order dated 06.10.2005 that the post the petitioner was holding since 1986 was personal to him and it is no res integra that there is a difference between workers continuing in encadred post in the feeder cadre and the workers working in post personal to him. Promotion to higher rank can be considered only from the feeder cadre and since the petitioner was not encadred in the feeder cadre he cannot claim promotion to the next higher post. It is also found that the services of the petitioner was regularized temporarily against personal post and the said petitioner cannot turn around and claim promotion to the higher cadre post. The judgments that the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner has annexed to his additional affidavit was on a different footing. In the said judgments, the facts were different. The petitioners were reverted to their original post not on the ground that he was continuing in his personal post but on some other ground in those cases. As such the reversion was held to be bad but in the present case, it is crystal clear that petitioner was working in a post personal to him and as such he cannot claim promotion to the next higher post. However, it is open to the petitioner to make representation before the authorities to include the said post as cadre post in the hierarchy of the post in the irrigation department. Petition is dismissed and disposed of. No order to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant