GAHC010259282024 FR IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT W.P(C) NO. 6583/2024 Smti. Geeta Kakati Pathak, Aged about 56 years W/O Shri Mrinal Kr. Pathak, Resident of Barpeta Ambarihati, Ward No. 5, Near T.R.P Hall, P.O Barpeta, P.S. Barpeta, District, Barpeta, Assam ……..Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, General Administrative Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 2. The Selection Board for Selection of candidates for the post of Administrative Officer in the Office of the District Commissioner, Bajali Represented by its Chairman, Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, General Administrative Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 3. The District Commissioner, Bajali, P.O Pathsala, District-Bajali 4. Sri Rupam Thakuria, Sr. Assistant, Office of District Commissioner, Nalbari, P.O and Dist- Nalbari 5. Ramani Malakar, Supervisory Assistant, Office of District Commissioner, Nalbari. (Notice to be sent through District Commissioner, Nalbari), P.O and District-Nalbari; 6. Bhupesh Sarma, Supervisory Assistant, Office of District Commissioner, Bajali. (Notice to be sent through District Commissioner, Bajali), P.O and District: Bajali ……..Respondents W.P(C) NO. 1338/2024 Smti. Geeta Kakati Pathak, Aged about 56 years W/O Shri Mrinal Kr. Pathak, Resident of Barpeta Ambarihati, Ward No. 5, Near T.R.P Hall, P.O Barpeta, P.S. Barpeta, District, Barpeta, Assam ……..Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, General Administrative Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 2. The Selection Board for Selection of candidates for the post of Administrative Officer in the Office of the District Commissioner, Bajali Represented by its Chairman, Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, General Administrative Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 3. The District Commissioner, Bajali, P.O Pathsala, District-Bajali 4. Sri Rupam Thakuria, Sr. Assistant, Office of District Commissioner, Nalbari, P.O and Dist- Nalbari ……..Respondents – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioner :Mr. P.K Roy Choudhury, Advocate Advocate for the respondents :Mr. A Chakrabarty, Government Advocate Mr. A Phukan, SC, GAD Mr. R Islam, Advocate for respondent No. 4  Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A  Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 02.12.2025  Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No  Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner assailing the appointment of the private respondent No. 4 to the post of Administrative Officer under the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rule, 1967. Both the petitioner and the private respondent were serving as Senior Assistant in the district of Bajali. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for filling up of the post of Administrative Officer in the amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Bajali by Advertisement dated 17.07.2021, both the Petitioner and the private respondent along with other similarly situated persons submitted their candidatures. Their candidatures were duly considered and pursuant thereto, the Selection Board recommended the appointment of the private respondent for the post of Administrative Officer. In pursuance thereto, the competent authority in the government issued the appointment order dated 02.03.2024. 2. Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner challenging the recommendations of the selection body. Subsequently when the appointment order came to be issued, W.P(C) No. 6583 of 2024 was filed. Both the writ petitions therefore, are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 3. Mr. P.K. Roy Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner has assailed the recommendation and the consequential appointment to private respondent on the ground that the private respondent does not fulfill the eligibility criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 1967). It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner satisfies the criteria specified under the Rules but the private respondent does not. However, this was overlooked by the Selection Body and also by the appointing authority and therefore the selection and appointment of the private respondent is in conflict with the criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) of the Rules of 1967. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that the Rule 8 (i)(a) specifies experience of 15 years in any Deputy Commissioner's Establishment and experience of having worked in different branches in general and also the establishment branch in particular. Referring to the particulars available in the pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had more than 15 years of service and has the experience of working under different branches, including the establishment branch under the office of the Deputy Commissioner. However, the private respondent although has some experience of rendering services in different branches, however, he does not have the experience of rendering service in the establishment branch in particular. It is submitted that the minutes of the meeting which are enclosed to the writ petition does not take into consideration this fact. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is reflected that the petitioner has worked under the Personnel (Establishment) Branch with effect from 27.03.1987 to 31.07.1989, which is for 2 years and 4 months whereas insofar as the private respondent is concerned, he had rendered services under the Personnel Branch and Administration Branch. Referring to the particulars reflected in respect of the private respondent in the Minute, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the personnel branch works undertaken by the private respondent is shown to have been in respect of matters relating to accounts and establishment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this will not satisfy the criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) that the candidate must have rendered 15 years of service in various branches in general and in the establishment branch in particular. It is urged before this Court that experience in Personnel Branch and Administration branch cannot satisfy the criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) of having experience in the establishment branch. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that where the private respondent does not satisfy the criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a), it was incumbent on the selection committee of the body to consider him ineligible and instead recommend the writ petitioner for the post of Administrative Officer. The learned counsel also submits that the appointing authority has also failed to take into account the shortcomings in the selection committee and ought not to have been bound by the recommendations recommending the name of the private respondent when the private respondent does not satisfy the criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) of the Rules of 1967. Under such circumstances, the writ petitions be allowed. The impugned selection minutes be interfered with and the impugned order of appointment be also interfered with and set aside and the matters ought to be remanded back for a fresh decision and thereafter fresh appointment orders are called for. 4. The case of the petitioner has been contested by the state respondents as well as by the private respondent. The State respondents represented by the Government Advocate as well as the Standing Counsel, GAD submit that the due process prescribed under the Rules have been scrupulously followed and there is no infirmity in the selection process and consequently no interference is called for as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the private respondent, Mr. Islam also strenuously urges before the Court that the private respondent has satisfied all the norms and therefore fulfills the criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) of the Rules and therefore does not require interference. The case projected by the petitioner is incorrect and the private respondent has sufficient experience to his credit and fulfills all the criteria specified under the province of the Rules. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has relied on the judgment of Sri Bhubaneswar Sarma Vs. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2024(5) GLT 275. Relying on this Judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this particular Judgment has held that the criteria specified under the Rules that the number of years of service required to be rendered under Rule 8 (i)(a) is a valid criteria and must be followed. He therefore submits that where this Court had the occasion to examine the criteria specified under the Rules of 1967, it was incumbent on the Respondent authority to examine the qualifications in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Rules of Rule 8 (i)(a) of the 1967 Rules. The learned counsel has further referred to a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Ritu Bhatia Vs. Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution reported in (2019) 3 SCC 422. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner pressing the Judgments into service has held that where the period prescribed under the Rules is specific then the authorities cannot dilute the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Rules. It is therefore submitted that where the Rule 8 (i)(a) specifically provides experience in the Establishment Branch, the private respondent not having the requisite experience of serving under the Establishment branch under the Deputy Commissioner's Office, cannot be considered to be eligible notwithstanding the private respondent has fulfilled the criteria of 15 years of service working in various branches. He therefore submits that the impugned order be interfered with set aside and quashed. 7. Per contra, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the private respondent has placed reliance also on the judgment of Bhubaneswar Sarma (Supra) rendered by this Court to submit that the Court has held that where the Department has followed the Rules and has conducted the selection process, a writ Court will not exercise judicial review to examine the relative merits of the candidates. He has further referred to and relied on the other judgments. 8. The records of the selection process have also been placed before Court. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record carefully perused. Judgments cited have been carefully noted. Page 10 of 21 9. At the outset it is necessary to refer to the relevant Rules, i.e. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1967 prescribes as under. The relevant portion of the Rules are extracted below: “8(i) The post of Administrative Officer shall be filled up by selection from amongst persons who- (a) have served at least for 15 years in any Deputy Commissioner’s establishment and have working experience of different branches in general and in the establishment branch in particular, and (b) have possessed a Graduate Degree in any discipline from a recognized University in India 8(iii) The appointing Authority shall advertise the vacancies by itself or may instruct the Deputy Commissioner concerned to advertise the vacancies inviting application from suitable persons eligible for appointment in the post of Administrative Officer fulfilling the requirement of the post as per clause (i) above. The Appointing Authority shall obtain the Annual Confidential Reports for the last five consecutive years and relevant service particulars of the eligible candidates for recruitment to the cadre of Administrative Officer and place the Annual Confidential Reports along with the relevant service particulars of the candidates before Selection Board with the number of vacancies likely to occur during the year. The selection Board shall examine the A.C.R.s and service particulars of the candidates taking into the consideration of the respective merit of the candidates and prepare a list of names in order of preference for recruitment to the post. This list shall be forwarded to the Appointing Authority by the Selection Board. ” 10. Although the Rules prescribed that the eligibility should be 15 years of experience in any Deputy Commissioner's establishment and experience of having worked out under different branches in general and the Establishment branch in particular, during the course of the hearing, the learned counsel at the Bar appearing for the parties have accepted and agreed that presently under the Deputy Commissioner's establishment there is no specific establishment branch. The branches which are available are described in a notification which has been notified by notification No. DAN-27/2012/150 dated 11 May 2018. The various branches under the Deputy Commissioner’s establishment are as under: “1. Confidential (MCD) 2. Magistracy (DMG) 3. Administration (DAN) 4. Transformation & Development (DDP) 5. Planning including SDPL & DUDA (DPL) 6. Election (DEL) 7. Excise (DEX) 8. Nazarat & Stationery (DNZ/DFS) 9. Bakijai (DNB) 10 Census (DCN) 11. NRC 12. Personnel including Accounts (DPN/DPF) 13. Registration (DRD) 14. Land Records (DRKG) 15. Land Reforms (DRC) 16. Land Acquisition (DRAQ) 17. Land Revenue (DRTN) 18. Land Settlement (DRS), Encroachment (DRS/EC) 19. Disaster Management (DDM) 20 Fishery (DRF) 21. Food, Civil Supplies & Consumers Affairs (DMS) 22. District Treasury (DTM) 23. Zila Sainik Board (ZSW) 24 Home Guards & Civil Defence (MHG) 25 E-District Project & Public Facilitation Centre 26 E-Governance & I T Branch 27 Issue and Receipt Branch” 11. In so far as the Personnel branch is concerned, they are required to undertake the following works: “12 Personnel Branch The branch consists of the following sections: a) Personnel Section DPN b) Accounts Section DPF (a) Personnel Section: 1. Establishment matters of officers and staff. 2. Conduct and Discipline and other general condition of Government servants 3. Administration of i. Implementation of Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012. ii. The Assam Ministerial District Establishment Rule, 1967 and subsequent amendments iii. The Assam Financial Rules iv. The Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 v. The Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1969 vi. The Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 vii Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1960 viii. The Assam Revised Leave Rules, 1934 4. Assets and liabilities. 5. Service Books (b) Accounts Section: (1)Matters relating to pay and allowances including dareness allowance, travelling allowances, GIS, GPF etc. (2)Matters relating to audit and special audit etc. (3) Matters relating to Pay Committee. (4) Payment of Income Tax (5) Preparation of Budget, submission of requirement of funds for pay and allowances under head of account 2053, 2070, etc (c) Implementation of Acts, Rules and guidelines entrusted by the government from time to time relating to the branch.” 12. A perusal of these branches reflected above revealed that under the Personnel branch, it consists of two Sections namely the Personnel section and the Account section. Under the Personnel section, the Establishment matters of officers and staff are included. Therefore, the prescription under the Rules that services under various branches and establishment branch in particular will have to be understood in terms of the branches which are presently available under the District Establishment. From the notification extracted above, it is clear that there is no separate Establishment branch in the District Establishment. However there is an administrative section under the Personnel Branch. The Minutes which are enclosed to the pleadings as also is evident from the records placed revealed that the ACR grading as well as the experience in respect of relevant branch is reflected. In so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the following particulars are reflected during the selection process: S l N o Name ACR Gradings as forwarded by District Commissioner Experience of relevant branch as per Bio-Date submitted with the application forwarded by District Commissioner 1 Smti. Geeta Kakati Pathak, Supervisory Assistant, DC’s Office, Bajali 2017-18:V.Good 2018-19:- V.Good. 2019-20:-Good 2020-21:-Good 2021-22:-V.Good, Good, Good 2022-23:- V.Good Extract of Report received from DC, Bajali vide letter No. BJPE:16/2021/136/1721 is “Smti Geeta Kakati Pathak, Sr. Asstt. Was place under suspension vide DC’s order No. BPE/108/88/55-A, dtd 4/6/2003 for action beyond her official capacity loss of 2 Nos. of file of PG Cell bearing No. BPGC-4/98 and BPGC-3/2001 from her custody who reinstated in service vide DC Barpeta Order No. BPE-108/88/57, Dtd 3/7/2003. In this regard 1 DP case vide No. 2/05/06 was initiated against her withholding 1 increment Personnel (Estt.) Branch wef 27/03/1987 to 31/07/1989 i.e. 2yrs 4 months without cumulative effect vide this order No. BPE-15/2005/Pt-1/26, dtd 8/6/2007 which was revoked as per the order of the Commissioner, LAD, Guwahati Assam dated 11/12/2008 communicated vide Memo No. PA- 59/2007/68-A Dated 16/12/2008 and the order passed by the DC, Barpeta BPE-15/2005/Pt-1/72, dtd 15/2/2009. One TS case vide no. 126/2003 was also initiated against her in the Court of Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1 Barpeta and the Hon’ble Civil Judge, Barpeta directed her to deposit Rs. 300 only as fine to the court with a caution not to repeat such disobeying to the Court in future and to furnish a bond to this effect. The aforesaid order was quashed by the order dated 04/06/2007 passed in CRP No. 219/2006 by Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. However, now no DP case is pending against Smti Geeta Kakati Pathak, Sr. Asstt, O/o the Circle Officer, Chenga revenue Circle, Chenga.” 13. In so far as the private respondent is concerned, the following particulars are reflected: S l N o Name ACR Gradings as forwarded by District Commissioner Experience of relevant branch as per Bio-Date submitted with the application forwarded by District Commissioner 4 Shri Rupam Thakuria, Senior District Administrati ve Assistant DC’s Office, Nalbari 2017-18:V.Good, V.Good 2018-19:-V.Good, V.Good 2019-20:- V. Good 2020-21:-Excellent 2021-22:-V.Good 2022-23:- Grade-A 1. Personnel Branch (Works relating to Acctts & Establishment) wef 16/06/2003 to 08/12/2009 i.e. 6 yrs 6months 2. Administration Branch wef 10.06.2015 to 24/02/2021 i.e 5 yrs 8 months. 14. Finally the Selection Committee upon reviewing the track record of the applicants and after due deliberation and discussion recommended as under “The Selection Committee reviewed the track record of the applicants and after threadbare discussion considering the merit on the basis of weightage of the ACR gradings, length of service rendered in the establishment branch in particular, pending DP/Court case and the past track records of the candidates as submitted by District Commissioner, Bajali recommended the name of Shri Rupam Thakuria, Senior District Administrative Assistant, DC’s Office, Nalbari for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer in the Amalgamated Establishment of District Commissioner, Bajali.” 15. In terms of this recommendation forwarded, the Department of General Administration issued the appointment order dated 02.03.2024. 16. Upon examination of the particulars which are reflected in the records, it is seen that both the candidates have sufficient experience of working in various departments. The petitioner appears to have rendered more service in the personnel establishment branch, whereas the Private Respondent No. 4 also is shown to have rendered service in personnel branch works relating to accounts and establishment as also in the Administration branch. The gradings reflected in the ACRs for the years under consideration are also noted. The State has also filed their affidavit to substantiate its contentions that the works which are carried out by the private respondent in the personnel department are required to work closely in both accounts and establishment sections. 17. The only challenge in the writ petition is that the Private respondent does not fulfill the criteria specified under Rule 8(i)(a) of having rendered services under the establishment branch in particular. During the arguments and the pleadings available before the Court, it is clear that under the Deputy Commissioner's establishment there is no “establishment branch” in particular. However, the personnel branch has establishment section amongst other sections in which the incumbents are required to render their services and gain necessary experience. Therefore, where the establishment concern does not have the establishment branch as specified under the Rules, the services rendered by the incumbents and the experience gained by rendering their services in various branches including that of the personal branch under which “establishment section” is also one of the sections, the strict application of the criteria under Rule 8(i)(a) cannot be applied under the present circumstances. The fact that the candidates have rendered their services and have gained experiences under various branches and which also includes the establishment section will have to be considered to be substantial compliance of the criteria specified under Rule 8(i)(a). The strict compliance of the eligibility criteria under Rule 8(i)(a) will have to be understood in terms of the branches which are now available or maintained under the Deputy Commission establishment. That apart by the advertisement dated 17th July 2021 which invited applications for the Administrative Officer from Amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Bajali, the criteria prescribed was 15 years in any of the Deputy Commissioners establishment and should fulfill eligibility conditions and have experience as per the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service (Amendment) Rules 2009. The Rules which are quoted above are the Rules which were brought in the Rule book pursuant to the amendment in 2009. The petitioner also does not dispute the position on facts that presently under the District Commissioner's establishment, there is no specific “establishment branch” available. Under such circumstances, it must be held that both the candidates have fulfilled the eligibility criteria specified under the Rules to a substantial extent which has been considered to be sufficient by the competent authorities. 18 The law governing the judicial Review under Article 226 of Selection Procedures is well anointed by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. The judgment of Bhubaneswar Sarma (Supra) rendered by this Court was in respect effect of the selection made to the same post of Revenue Sheristadar on the basis of assessments made on the ACRs. The Court upheld the said selection and also held that selections made on the basis of ACRs unless the same are assailed on the ground of violation of any specific Rule or on the ground of malice, the choices made by the competent authority ought not to be interfered with. This judgment subsequently came to be upheld by the Division Bench in W.A No. 211 of 2024 dated 13.11.2024. In. Ritu Bhatia (Supra), the question before the Court was the eligibility specified under the Rules which the litigant before the courts did not specifically fulfill and the experience rendered as a management training was sought to be interpreted to be sufficient experience required under the Rules therein. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the qualification specified under the rules are required to be scrupulously followed and selection of the candidates must be made by strictly adhering to the criteria specified on the Rules. However, in the facts of the present case as have been discussed, the Criteria specified was 15 years of experience in various branches under the Deputy Commissioner's establishment with emphasis on experience in the establishment branch in particular. However, presently under the Deputy Commissioners Establishment in respect of the advertisement and selection under consideration, admittedly there is no establishment branch. In the office Memorandum dated 15th May 2018 where the branches are specified under the Deputy Commissioner's Establishment Branch is not specified therein. Under such circumstances, the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee of accepting the services rendered by the incumbents including the private respondent in various branches as well as the services rendered under the Establishment section have been taken into consideration and considered to be compliance with the Rules. Therefore the judgment in Ritu Bhatia (Supra) on the facts of the present case does not come to the aid of the writ petition. 19. In the celebrated judgment of the Apex court rendered in Dalpat Abasahed Solunkee and Ors Vs Dr. B.S Mahajan and Ors, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305, the Apex Court clearly held that there has to be greater restraint in matters where matters relating to deciding the relative merits of candidates in the process of selection undertaken by the selection Committee. The apex Court held that a Court has no expertise in respect of matters which are within the domain of constituted selection committee and therefore ought not to embark on the aspect of deciding the relative merits of the candidates per se. In view of the law enunciated above, it is clear that the parameters of judicial review in respect of selections being made are ordinarily within a narrow campus as the same ought not to be generally interfered with unless there are glaring irregularities and/or malice is attributed to the candidate or the any member of the selection committee or even to the appointing authorities. 20. From the pleadings urged before this Court, it is clear that there is no malice alleged against the private respondent or the selection body or the appointing authority. Malice in law although need not be specifically urged, is also not made out in the facts of the case as the rigors of the Rules have been followed to the extent, the same are applicable in the present setup which the establishments of the Deputy Commissioners are currently being managed and currently operated. 21. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the selection and appointment of the private respondent No. 4. The records which have been placed before the Court have been duly examined and no grounds to interfere. The writ petitions are devoid of any merits and the same is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. 22. The relevant records which have been placed before the Court are returned to the Government Advocate, Mr. A Chakrabarty in Court. Court Master will hand over the records to the learned Government Advocate. JUDGE Sandipon