Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010028162022 2025:GAU-AS:14653-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) NO.1203 OF 2022 1. Smti. Sabita Phukan Majumdar, Daughter of Late Dhiren Majumdar, Resident of North East Gotanagar, PO: Gotanagar, Guwahati - 781021. 2. Smt. Manisha Kutum, Wife of Sri Mukut Chandra Pegu, Resident of Sonaighuli, PO: Sawkuchi, District: Kamrup (Metro), Pin -781040. 3. Sri Samin Rongpi, Son of Late Budhi Ram Rongpi, Resident of Nazirakaht, Sonapur, PO: Tepesia, District: Kamrup, Pin - 782402. 4. Smt. Dikha Bordoloi, Wife of Sri Biren Kalita, Resident of Super Market Complex, Dispur, PO: Assam Sachibalaya, Kamrup (Metro), Pin - 781006. 5. Sri Gautam Bordoloi, Son of Late Ramesh Bordoloi, Resident of Village & PO: Dakhala (Bijoy Nagar), PO: Palashbari, Pin - 781122. 6. Sri Dinesh Chandra Das, Son of Late Bipin Chandra Das, Resident of Village & PO: Mirza, District: Kamrup (Rural), Pin - 781125. 7. Smt. Minu Borah, Wife of Dipen Chetia, Page No.# 2/16 Resident of Dakhingaon, Kahilipara, District: Kamrup (Metro), Pin - 781019. 8. Sri Gautam Nath, Son of Late Gopal Nath, Resident of Quarter No.Vii(M) Ff-ii, Hudco Complex, Rukmini Nagar, Dispur, Kamrup, Pin - 781006. .... Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, General Administrative Department, Assam Secretariat, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006. 3. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006. 4. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, Dispur, Guwahati – 781006. ....Respondents – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate assisted by Mr. N.K. Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. A. Phukan, Standing Counsel, General Administration Department. Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025. Date of Judgment : 31.10.2025. Page No.# 3/16 J UDGMENT & O RDER (CAV) (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, General Administration Department for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the impugned proviso to Rule 5(5) of the Assam Secretariat Service Rules, 2019, by which a Degree of Graduation has been made mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Superintendent for employees in the feeder post of Senior Administrative Assistant, thereby totally eliminating the promotional prospects of the petitioners, infringing their right to be considered for promotion. 3. The question raised before this Court, therefore, is “whether prescription of a higher educational qualification in the feeder cadre for promotion to the higher post by virtue of an amendment to the Service Rules is constitutionally valid?” 4. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the Assam Secretariat Service Rules, 1963, the Assam Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 was brought out, which was gazetted on 13.06.2019. Under Section 3 of the above-noted Rules of 2019, the class and cadre have been provided. Class-I includes the cadre of (i) Additional Secretary; (ii) Joint Secretary; (iii) Deputy Secretary, and (iv) Under Secretary. In Class-II, there is a single cadre of Superintendent. Page No.# 4/16 The Rules prescribe that each of the Class shall form an independent cadre and members of any cadre shall have no claim for appointment to a higher cadre except in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. 5. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2019 further provides that recruitment to the cadre of Superintendent in Class-II shall be made by promotion from the select list prepared for this purpose under Rule 7 from amongst the Senior Administrative Assistants in the Secretariat, who have rendered not less than 5(five) years of continuous service as Senior Administrative Assistants on or before the 1st day of the year in which the selection is made and have passed Group-B training or equivalent as prescribed by the Government from time to time. The proviso appended to Rule 5 further stipulates that the candidate must possess graduation Degree in any stream as academic qualification from any recognized University. 6. This above-noted proviso to Rule 5 offends the petitioners, whose services are controlled by the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963. They were initially appointed as Typists as per Rule 10(1) of the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as “Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963”), who were ultimately promoted to the posts of Senior Grade Typist after completion of minimum 4(four) years of service and then to the cadre of Lower Division Assistant/Junior Administrative Assistant in terms of Rule 8(2) of the Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (as amended) by following the criterion of selection from amongst the Senior Grade Typists Page No.# 5/16 of the Secretariat, who are Matriculate/pre-University/Higher Secondary passed. 7. The Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 was amended vide Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2012. By the said amendment, Rule 8 & Rule 10 of the earlier Rules were amended, making Graduation as an essential educational qualification for promotion from the feeder post of Senior Grade Typist to Junior Administrative Assistant. However, the Typists recruited in the years 1987 and 1992 were exempted from possessing Graduate Degree for their higher promotions. 8. Notwithstanding the change in the Subordinate Service Rules brought out by virtue of amendments in the year 2012, the petitioners were promoted to the cadre of Senior Administrative Assistant under Rule 7(1) of the Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 giving them the exemption. Their names appeared in the Final Gradation List of Senior Administrative Assistants. 9. In the meantime, as noted above, the Superior Service Rules, namely, the Assam Secretariat Service Rules, 1963, was also amended by bringing into force the Assam Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as “Superior Service Rules, 2019”). This had introduced the provision requiring a candidate to possess a graduation Degree in any stream from any recognized University as academic qualification for the purposes of recruitment to the posts of Superintendent; the single cadre in Class-II, from the select list prepared under Rule 7 from amongst the Senior Administrative Assistants in the Page No.# 6/16 Secretariat, who have rendered not less than 5(five) years of continuous service as Senior Administrative Assistants on or before the 1st day of the year in which the selection is made and have passed the Group-B training or equivalent as prescribed by the Government from time to time. 10. Thus, it is noted that Senior Administrative Assistants, if promoted to the superior post of Superintendent, which falls in Class-II post governed by the Superior Service Rules, 2019, they would have further opportunity of being promoted to the post of Under Secretary and going as far as to the post of Additional Secretary. 11. The contention of the petitioners, therefore, is that such requirement having been introduced in the Superior Service Rules, 2019 completely excludes them from the prospect of promotion to the superior post of Superintendent. 12. The petitioners, therefore, contend that it violates Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The amendment is arbitrary and discriminatory in the sense that it seeks to deprive the petitioners of the accrued promotional rights and that the requirement mandated by the Superior Service Rules, 2019 does not bear any rational nexus with the duties of the higher post of Superintendent. It also fails the test of reasonableness and proportionality under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. Mr. H.K. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that once the employees, who have become members of Senior Page No.# 7/16 Administrative Assistants group, enter the feeder cadre for promotion to the higher post of Superintendent, they ought to be treated equally and cannot be differentiated for the purposes of promotion. This has amounted to creation of a class within a class. 14. Mr. Das relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union -Vs- State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: (2018) 1 SCC 149, wherein the issue was with respect to restriction introduced on the basis of educational qualification for participation in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, namely, the eligibility being introduced for possessing a degree of a statutory University or any other qualification, declared by the Government to be equivalent thereto. The Supreme Court in the said case, after reviewing the case laws, in Roshan Lal Tandon -Vs- Union of India :: (1968) 1 SCR 185; State of Mysore -Vs- P. Narasinga Rao :: (1968) 1 SCR 407; State of J&K -Vs- Triloki Nath Khosa :: (1974) 1 SCC 19; T.R. Kothandaraman -Vs- T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board :: (1994) 6 SCC 282, where it was held that higher educational qualification is a permissible basis for classification; the acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Higher educational qualification can not only be the basis for barring promotion but also for restricting the scope of promotion and such restriction placed cannot, however, go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion for deciding, which aspect viz. the extent of restriction would also be required to be looked into to ascertain whether it is reasonable. In the said case, the Supreme Court found that the prescribed provision in the Recruitment Rules, which imposed the requirement of being a Graduate for being promoted to Page No.# 8/16 the post of Forester from the feeder cadre of Forest Guards, was arbitrary and unconstitutional. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there is nothing on record to show that Graduate Senior Administrative Assistant deserve preferential treatment vis-a-vis non-Graduates, more so, when all of them had served for almost 3(three) decades and this was only the last chance of their promotion to the post of Superintendent under the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019. The job profile of a Superintendent, it has been argued, does not require Graduation as an essential qualification nor does it require any specific charter, making any distinction between Graduate and non-Graduates. It was also argued that when amendments were brought about in the Subordinate Service Rules of 1963 in the year 2012, relaxations were made for the petitioners by providing them exemption on the ground of their having been appointed as Typists in 1987 or 1992 with the qualification of Higher Secondary pass. 16. Mr. Das has argued that the fact that the petitioners formed a class which could not have been segregated on the basis of educational qualification, also gets strengthened by the fact that the petitioners were provided with Group-B training, which is also one of the essential pre-requisites for being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent. 17. In such a scenario, it has been argued by Mr. Das that the proviso to Rule 5 of the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 is arbitrary and, therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law. Page No.# 9/16 18. The second limb of argument of Mr. Das is that notwithstanding the amended Superior Service Rules, 2019 remaining in existence, which, as noted above, was gazetted on 13.06.2019, many persons of the Senior Administrative Assistant cadre were promoted to the post of Superintendent without insisting for the compulsory Graduation Degree. 19. The petitioners have provided the names of the persons who were promoted to the post of Superintendent without the Graduation Degree after 13.06.2019 till the year 2021. 20. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondents, however, expostulated that bringing in the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 was aimed at recruiting persons with higher qualification and enhanced efficiency in as much as any person being promoted to the post of Superintendent will have the avenue for being promoted to the higher posts of Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary, which posts obviously demand administrative efficiency and more responsibility. Since the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019, Mr. Nayak contended, was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the constitutionality of the same could only be questioned on accepted parameters of legality, which is the competence of the State Legislature to frame such a law, and if it violates any one of the fundamental rights of the persons affected. 21. With respect to the charge that post 2019 amendment in the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019, many Senior Administrative Assistants were promoted to the post of Superintendents without their Page No.# 10/16 being Graduates, Mr. Nayak has contended that the Assam Secretariat Services Rules, 2019 was notified on 13.06.2019. Prior to that, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for Senior Administrative Assistants, which was to be held in the 1st week of January, 2019, was actually held on 04.06.2019, which had recommended the candidates as per the provision of the Service Rules which existed on January, 2019. Only persons cleared in such DPC were promoted to the posts of Superintendent without their being Graduates as the new Rule could not have been made applicable to them. There cannot be, it was argued, an insistence for relaxation in the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 only for the reason that such educational prescriptions in the Subordinate Service Rules, as amended in 2012, were relaxed earlier. 22. In sum and substance, the argument on behalf of the State is that the proviso to Rule 5 of the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 is reasonable, non-exclusionary and not arbitrary. There can be no insistence by anybody for being governed by old Rules. That apart, the incumbents do not have any vested right to be promoted to the post of Superintendent but they only have a right to be considered for promotion to the said post. The concept of legitimate expectation cannot override the statutory requirements. 23. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to trace the law in this regard before expounding our opinion on the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 24. The issue whether educational qualification could be used as a Page No.# 11/16 criterion for classification between persons integrated into one class for the purposes of promotion, came for discussion before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Khosa (supra). In that case, the post of Assistant Engineer in the Engineering Service Branch of the State was filled by way of direct recruitment or through promotion from the cadre of Subordinate Engineering Service. A new Rule was introduced in the year 1970 restricting the promotion to the next higher post of Executive Engineer only to those Assistant Engineers, who possessed a Degree in Engineering or held the qualification of A.M.I.E. and had put in 7(seven) years of service. 25. In the said case, the diploma holder Assistant Engineers challenged the Rule as being discriminatory primarily on the ground that persons recruited from different sources but integrated into one Class could not be classified by giving preferential treatment to some on the basis of their educational qualification. 26. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) held as follows:- “32. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permissible it would be open to the Courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the Rule-making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object. 33. Judged from this point of view, it seems to us impossible to accept the respondents' submission that the classification of Assistant Engineers into degree-holders and diploma-holders rests on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification, according to the appellants, was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering Page No.# 12/16 services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly co-related to it, for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment. This is not to suggest that administrative efficiency can be achieved only through the medium of those possessing comparatively higher educational qualifications but that is beside the point. What is relevant is that the object to be achieved here is not a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequalities and the classification cannot be characterized as arbitrary or absurd. That is the farthest that judicial scrutiny can extend. 34. On the fact of the case, classification on the basis of educational qualifications made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstance and one has always to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in order to judge the validity of a classification.” The challenge thus could not be sustained. 27. In Chandan Banerjee & Ors. -Vs- Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors. :: (2022) 15 SCC 453, the Supreme Court, relying on the afore-noted dictum, upheld a Circular of Calcutta Municipal Corporation prescribing separate conditions for diploma holder and degree holder Sub-Assistant Engineers for supernumerary appointments as Assistant Engineers, holding that the Circular in question did not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. While doing so, the Supreme Court summarized the principles as follows: (i) classification between persons must not produce artificial inequalities. The classification must be founded on a reasonable basis and must bear nexus to the object and purpose sought to be achieved to pass the muster of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (ii) judicial review in matters of classification is limited to a determination whether the classification is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Courts cannot indulge in a mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification or replace the wisdom of Page No.# 13/16 legislature or its delegate with their own; (iii) generally speaking, educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion and is not violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution; (iv) persons drawn from different sources and integrated into a common class can be differentiated on grounds of educational qualification for the purpose of promotion, where this bears a nexus with the efficiency required in the promotional post; (v) educational qualification may be used for introducing quotas for promotion for a certain class of persons; or may even be used to restrict promotion entirely to one class to the exclusion of others; (vi) educational qualification may be used as a criterion for classification for promotion to increase administrative efficiency at the higher posts; (vii) however, a classification made on grounds of educational qualification should bear nexus to the purpose of classification or the extent of differences in qualifications. 28. There is force in the submission of Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam that the prescription of Graduation for the feeder cadre of Senior Administrative Assistants to make them eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent under the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 had a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, efficiency. A higher qualification is necessary as the post of Superintendent falls in the feeder category for promotion to higher post up-till the rank of Additional Secretary in the State Government. Even otherwise, under the Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules of 2012, providing exemptions/ relaxations to the Page No.# 14/16 Typists, who were only Higher Secondary pass, would not justify or make up a ground for seeking relaxation under the new Rules governing the Superior Secretariat Services. 29. The Constitutional validity of an Act could be challenged only on limited grounds, viz. lack of legislative competence; violation of any other fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India or any other constitutional provision. 30. While considering the validity of a statute, the presumption is always in favour of the Constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon the person who attacks it to show that there has been a transgression of the constitutional principles. The Courts should try to sustain the validity of an Act to the extent possible and it should be interfered with only if it is not possible to sustain it. 31. The Courts cannot go hunting for inexactitudes even while looking for the intent and purpose for an enactment or its scope and application. [Also refer to – State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. -Vs- McDowell & Co. & Ors. :: (1996) 3 SCC 709; Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. & Ors. -Vs- Radhakrishan & Ors. :: (1979) 2 SCC 249; State of Bihar & Ors. -Vs- Bihar Distillery Limited :: (1997) 2 SCC 453]. 32. In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. -Vs- Union of India :: (2017) 10 SCC 1, the 9(nine) Judges Bench expanded the ambit of Article 21 and laid down the three-fold test of constitutionality including within its ambit the legality, i.e. a legislation having the legal authority; the necessity, namely, to pursue a legitimate aim; and proportionality, i.e. adopting means proportionate to that aim; which Page No.# 15/16 principles apply to any legislative measure impacting Constitutional rights including service regulations. 33. We have also taken note of the fact that the petitioners, who have challenged the constitutionality of Rule 5 of the Superior Secretariat Service Rules, 2019, were promoted thrice in their careers and many of them have retired. After the amended Rules, only such persons were promoted to the post of Superintendent from Senior Administrative Assistant Grade without their possessing Graduation Degree, for whom DPC was held before the Notification of the impugned legislation. The requirement of a Degree of Graduation for being promoted to the higher post of Superintendent, which is the sole feeder cadre for being promoted to much higher posts in the State Administration is, in our estimation, reasonable and passes the muster of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 34. The claim of the petitioners of such prescription being exclusionary or having the potential of creating a new Class within a Class is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Rule 5 of the Rules of Assam Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 is neither disproportionate, nor excessive, nor based on any mala fide or extraneous consideration. The classification based on higher qualification, in this instance, is intelligible and bears the nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, namely, administrative efficiency and more qualified persons in the State Administration. 35. For the afore-noted reasons, the writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 5(5) of the Assam Secretariat Service Rules, 2019 fails. Page No.# 16/16 36. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant