Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010279812024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7086/2024 JAHIRUL ISLAM S/O LATE MAHABBAT ALI, HOUSE NO. 14, BAGHOBARI ROAD, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-781037, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781037 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE L.R. AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:HONOURABLE THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI-781001 3:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI-781001 4:THE REGISTRAR ESTABLISHMENT GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI-781001 Page No.# 2/7 For the petitioners : Mr. A. Chamuah, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam for Respondent No.1 Mr. G. Baishya, S.C., Gauhati High Court For respondent Nos.2 to 4 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 02-09-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Baishya, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court. 2. The challenge has been thrown by the petitioner to the provision contained in Rule 7(4) of the Gauhati High Court (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘1967 Rules’). The Rule reads as under: “(4) The post of Court Officer in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court and the Kohima bench shall be filled up by calling options from the Administrative Officer (Judicial) and the Senior Judicial Assistants. The persons so appointed in the posts of Court Officer(s) shall maintain their respective seniority in their original cadres, i.e. in the cadre of Administrative Officer (Judicial)/Senior Judicial Assistant and their further promotion will be considered on that basis.” 3. The challenge is on several grounds: the first being the numbering of the Page No.# 3/7 rule as amended in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India by the then Chief Justice. The original sub-Rule 4 of Rule 7 deals with different class of posts. At best the amendment should have been made as Rule 7(4) (a) or (b) for it to be implemented effectively. The other challenge is with respect to the condition in the Rule that any person appointed on the post of Court Officer, for which the feeder post would be Administrative Officer (Judicial) and Senior Judicial Assistant, would be required to maintain his respective seniority in the original cadre, i.e. either in the cadre of Administrative Officer (Judicial) or Senior Judicial Assistant or in the cadre of Class-II (C) posts and that the promotion, thereafter, shall be considered on that basis. 4. With reference to the Schedule, the learned counsel of for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that an Administrative Officer (Judicial) and a Court Officer fall in the same class of employees, i.e. under Class II(C) whereas the Senior Judicial Assistant, which would include an Accountant or Editor Paper Book or Cashier, falls in Class-III (A) which is a junior post. A bare reading of Section 7(4), as it stands today, indicates that the post of Court Officer is required to be filled up by calling options from either Administrative Officers (Judicial) or Senior Judicial Assistants, who fall in a different class of officers. 5. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Administrative Officer (Judicial), i.e. in the same class in which the post of Court Officer has been placed. His application was considered and after proper selection process, was appointed as the Court Officer-I. There are two earmarked posts of Court Officers. Page No.# 4/7 6. The issue with respect to inter se seniority of such Court Officers came up for consideration before the administrative side of the High Court. In the consideration, the issues which were factored in were that the post of Court Officer originally was an ex-cadre post which could have been filled up, as a temporary measure, from persons not particularly belonging to High Court service but, later, the post of Court Officer was encadred in Class II(C) post of the Gauhati High Court. 7. The Schedule-I of the 1967 Rules lays down the grade pay and the cadre of the post coming under the High Court service. 8. As noted above, two posts of Court Officers are included in Class-II (C) cadre. The other posts in Class-II(C) are Administrative Officer (Judicial) and Protocol Officer. 9. It is thus to be noted that the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) and the Court Officer as also the Protocol Officer belong to the same cadre, i.e. Class-II (C). Even otherwise, it would be apparent that all the three posts referred to above in the same cadre carry identical pay scale and therefore, these posts could be interchangeable. However, the post of Senior Judicial Assistant, which is not a Class-II(C) post but a Class-III(A) post, has also been considered to be the feeder post for appointment and promotion to the post of Court Officer. 10. There is no interdict in the principles of service jurisprudence that inter se seniority of employees is to be considered amongst candidates who belong to the same cadre. Hence, a Court Officer’s seniority will have to be maintained, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, along with the incumbents holding Page No.# 5/7 various posts in Class-II (C) namely, Administrative Officer (Judicial) and Protocol Officer apart from the post of Court Officer. 11. The question which has been raised is whether such seniority would be required to be maintained by a Court Officer who gets selected from the feeder post of Senior Judicial Assistant which, as noted above, is an inferior post falling in Class-III (A). 12. The rules which are under challenge, however, do not address the afore- noted issue and according to the rule, as it stands today, the Court Officer appointed from the post of Senior Judicial Assistant would be required to maintain his seniority in the original cadre, i.e. Senior Judicial Assistant which is not a Class-II (C) post. 13. With respect to the petitioner, who before being appointed as Court Officer was an Administrative Officer (Judicial), the issue would not be very relevant. 14. However, for a Court Officer who is appointed from the post of Senior Judicial Assistant, the rule would not be jurisprudentially sustainable especially in view of the fact that an applicant for the post of Court Officer is considered against a substantive vacant post belonging to Class-II(C) and the appointment is based on proper selection process after interview and other tests. 15. The Judges’ committee, about which reference has been made earlier, has also noticed that there is no provision in the rules for reversion of a Court Officer to a class of post which is inferior to the post of Court Officer. In that scenario, asking a Court Officer, who is appointed from the post of Senior Judicial Assistant, to maintain his seniority in his cadre would be rendering the very concept of inter se seniority meaningless. Page No.# 6/7 16. It was thus suggested by the committee of Judges that Rule 7(4), which is under challenge in the present case, ought to be amended. 17. During the course of argument, it has further been brought to our notice that the petitioner, when was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, which is a superior post to that of the Court Officer, he approached this Court by WP(C) 2755/2024, in which it was held that a Court Officer belonging to Class-II(C) of Schedule-I to the Rules of 1967 has a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and that the rider attached to the appointment letter of the petitioner as also the provision contained in the second part of the Rule 7(4) of the 1967 Rules would not affect the right of such Court Officer and, in this case, the petitioner is to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar (ministerial stream). If the same would not have been done, the further promotion or appointment on different posts on the basis of either seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum- seniority could not be effected/implemented in a proper manner. 18. However, in the present case, we do not find the petitioner to be in any inconvenience on any account whatsoever, as he has been considered for being promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar, thereby considering his seniority in accordance with the principle of inter se seniority amongst the same cadre falling in a particular class of post. 19. However, the rules are required to be changed/amended to make it more implementable and meaningful as well. 20. We, therefore, eschew from deciding this case in the judicial side and close this petition but with a direction to the Registry to place this case before Page No.# 7/7 the Chief Justice in his administrative side for making suitable amendments in the 1967 Rules with respect to the correct numbering of the rule and necessary modification with respect to the seniority of the Court Officers. The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant