Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010116812023 2025:GAU-AS:3730 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3123/2023 TULASHI DEB SARMA AND 2 ORS SON OF LATE SATRAM SARMA, VILLAGE- BONIA OJA, P.O.- AULACHOWKA, P.S.- MANGALDAI, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784529. 2: JAYED USMANI LASKAR SON OF LATE MATHIN UDDIN LASKAR VILLAGE AND P.O.- KAJIDAHARA DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788115. 3: NOZRUL ISLAM LASKAR SON OF LATE BASIR UDDIN LASKAR VILLAGE AND P.O.- CHIPORSANGON DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788801 VERSUS THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT, GUWAHATI-1. Page No.# 2/8 2:THE CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR (ADMIN)-CUM-IN-CHARGE CENTRALIZED RECRUITMENT GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI-1. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, Advocate : Mr. K. Uddin, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC Date of Judgment : 27.03.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court. 2. The petitioners herein have assailed the advertisement dated Page No.# 3/8 21.03.2023 whereby the respondent No.2 had invited application for the post of Stenographer Grade-I; for setting aside and quashing the list of eligible candidates published by the notification dated 09.05.2023; for appropriate direction that the advertisement should be carried out in accordance with the Assam Stenographers’ Service Rules, 1995 as well as for directing the respondent No.2 not to conduct the speed test with candidates having 5 years service experience of Stenographer Grade-III as per notification dated 09.05.2023 issued by the respondent No.2. 3. At the outset it is relevant to take note of that the petitioner No.1 has already taken benefit on the basis of the advertisement dated 21.03.2023 as well as the notification dated 09.05.2023. Therefore, the case before this Court is as regards the grievance of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 4. The case of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is that they are Stenographer Grade-II and for the purpose of promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I, the feeder category is from the Stenographer Grader-II. The basis on which the petitioners try to make out their case is on the basis of the Assam Stenographers’ Service Rules, 1995 as well as the Shetty Commission Report which was approved by the Supreme Court and have directed the various High Courts to act upon the said recommendations. The grievance of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 therefore is that by issuance of an advertisement dated 21.03.2023, the eligibility criteria for promotion to post of Stenographer Grade-I has been made as completion of 5 years of service as Stenographer Grade-II or Grade-III in the District Judiciary of Assam which goes against the Assam Stenographer’s Service Rules, 1995 as well as the Shetty Committee recommendation. Page No.# 4/8 5. Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted on 20.03.2025 when the matter was heard at length that though the Assam Stenographers’ Service Rules, 1995 would not be applicable insofar as the posts in the District Judiciary is concerned but in view of the Shetty Commissions Report which have been directed to be followed by the Supreme Court upon all High Courts, the post of the Stenographer Grade-I can only be filled up by promotion from Stenographer Grade-II. Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel therefore submitted that the advertisement goes against the Shetty Commission's recommendation as well as the directions of the Supreme Court. 6. This Court heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learning Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court who submitted that though the Gauhati High Court in its administrative side duly acknowledges that the recommendations of the Shetty Commission in respect to the recruitment to the different Grades of the Stenographer is required to be followed but taking into account the Subordinate Courts Establishment Rules of Assam have not yet been finalized by the Government of Assam, the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side from time to time have filled up several vacant posts of Stenographer Grade-I from the Stenographer Grade-II and Stenographer Grade-III till such finalization of the Rules by the Government of Assam. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel submitted that prior to every selection to the post of Stenographer Grade-I, the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side makes assessment of the number of posts available in the cadre of Stenographer Grade-I and as the number of posts are on the higher side, the Committee had decided to relax the eligibility criteria. He further submitted that the Committee had also formulated the Page No.# 5/8 manner of selection process so that the best candidates are promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-I. Drawing reference to the various minutes, the learned Standing counsel submitted that if this process is not followed, there would dearth in the Stenographer Grade-I. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel further submitted that in pursuance to this notification dated 09.05.2023, promotional orders have also been passed to various eligible candidates and they are not parties to the instant proceedings. 7. This Court has heard the matter at length and given its anxious consideration. 8. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the petitioners herein have assailed the advertisement dated 21.03.2023 as well as the notification dated 09.05.2023 whereby there were certain candidates who were held to be eligible to be promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-I. This Court is of the opinion that any order passed in the instant proceedings thereby interfering with the advertisement as well as the notification dated 09.05.2023 would have an impact on the various promotional orders issued to the eligible candidates. In the absence of the selected candidates who have been promoted as well as also without challenging their promotional orders, it would not be proper to pass orders interfering with the advertisement dated 21.03.2023 and the notification dated 09.05.2023. On this count alone, the writ petition fails. 9. This Court, however cannot be unmindful of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned advertisement is contrary to the Shetty Commission's Report and the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court to the High Courts to Page No.# 6/8 adhere to the said recommendations. 10. A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would show that the decision of the Committee for Centralized Recruitment of Officers and staffs of Subordinate Judiciary and all Benches of the High Court is enclosed. From the resolutions so adopted by the said Committee, it is seen that the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side have duly acknowledged that the Shetty Commission's Report is binding upon the Gauhati High Court. However on account of the Subordinate Court Establishment Rules of Assam have not yet been made by the State of Assam, it was noted that there are substantial numbers of vacant posts of Grade-I and Grade-II of Stenographers in the districts owing to non- availability of eligible candidates. Therefore, it was decided that the eligibility criteria for taking part in the promotion process for Grade-I be further relaxed to five years of service experience in any grade of Stenographer as an one time measure so as to tide over the current situation. It is further seen from the documents placed by Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.03.2025 that the said Committee prior to each recruitment of Stenographer Grade-I and Grade-II have taken into account that the Rules have not yet been made and there are requirement of filling up the posts of Stenographer Grade-I and have relaxed the eligibility criteria. 11. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to extract the pertinent portion of the Shetty Commission report insofar as the Stenographers are concerned. The said is quoted hereinunder: Grades Mode of Pay Scale Page No.# 7/8 recruitment (i) Stenographer Grade-III Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) (Existing Stenographer Grade-III) Direct Rs.3850-7350 (Existing pay scale) (ii) Stenographer Grade-II Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 50% by promotion from Stenographer Grade-III and 50% by direct recruitment Rs.4120-9725 (Sl. No.16 of the General Pay Scale) (iii) Stenographer Grade-I Court of District & Sessions Judge By promotion from Stenographer Gr-II Rs.5725-11825 (Existing pay scale) 12. It is pertinent herein to mention that the Shetty Commission’s recommendation was made and placed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide a judicial order directed the High Courts to implement the same. It is also seen from Annexure-R1 to the affidavit-in-opposition that the Joint Committees i.e. the Committee for Centralized Recruitment of Officers and Staff of Sub-Ordinate Judiciary and all Benches of the High Court and the Committee for consideration of the Shetty Commission recommendations had in its meeting resolved to relax the eligibility criteria for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I. It was done so as a one time measure. It is also seen that subsequent thereto, similar exercise have been Page No.# 8/8 carried out from time to time. 13. This Court have also taken note of that these relaxation made from time to time to the eligibility criteria have not been assailed in the present proceedings. What is challenged in the instant proceedings is only the advertisement and notification. In that view of the matter, without a challenge to the resolution by which a different criteria is adopted from that of the Shetty Commission Report as a one time measure, it would not be proper to decide the legality of the advertisement and the notification assailed in the present proceedings on the basis of violation of the Shetty Commission recommendation. 14. The question whether the recommendation so made every time as a one time measure is contrary to the Shetty Commission Report and the direction passed by the Supreme Court is kept open and in a proper case, the same would be duly adjudicated. 15. Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition for which the instant petition stands dismissed. J U D G E Comparing Assistant