Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010002032025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/39/2025 ANITA SAIKIA W/O SRI PINKU MONI SAIKIA RESIDENT OF NEHRU PARK,NEAR JANAMBHUMI PRESS, P.S AND DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM 785001. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDING AND HN) DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ESTABLISHMENT B BRANCH) DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS (BUILDING ) DEPARTMENT ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD JORHAT ELECTRICAL DIVISION DIST JORHAT ASSAM 785001 6:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 7:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS (BUILDING AND HN) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 78100 Page No.# 2/4 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.B. Laskar, Advocate. : Mr. A.S. Tapadar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 15.09.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 2. The appellant, who has remained on the post of Electrician for approximately 28 years without getting any promotion, is aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned dated 20.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.483/2022, whereby only an observation has been recorded that the appellant and persons similarly circumstanced have been put to great disadvantage because of the post of Electrician not having been encadred and they not falling in any feeder cadre for promotion to higher posts, but refrained from giving any direction for notifying the Assam Technical Establishment Service Rules, which were formulated, approved by the Personnel and Finance Department but have never been notified. 3. It appears that the appellant joined the post of Electrician and has continued to serve on that post for a long time till today. Her experience and qualification, according to the appellant, gives her the entitlement to be promoted to the position of a Junior Engineer Page No.# 3/4 (Electrical) or Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 4. The major contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that when a draft service rule under the rubric “Assam Technician Establishment Service Rules, 2015” had been formulated and there were administrative and financial approval, it should have been notified. 5. The other contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that Rule 28 of the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 also provides for relaxation of the Rules in appropriate cases. The appellant having given her long standing service as Electrician since 1996 and also possessing the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical Engineering, the Rules ought to have been relaxed for considering her promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 6. The learned Single Judge, after having examined all the case laws which were cited, was of the view that since the post of Electrician is admittedly an ex-cadre post, in the absence of any Rules, promotion to the higher post could not have been given to the appellant. 7. The observations of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Administrative Service Officers Association & Anr. -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: (2000) 5 SCC 728 were also taken into account by the leaned Single Judge, wherein a direction was given to the Union Government to consider, in consultation with the State Government concerned, as required in the Cadre Rules and review the necessity of either to encadre the ex-cadre/temporary posts and take necessary steps in that regard. However, the learned Single Judge found that those directions were issued under the special facts of the case as certain posts in the State were Page No.# 4/4 earmarked to be manned by I.A.S. cadre and the Government had created some posts which were being continued for long, but not encadred and thereby, only I.A.S. cadre officers, could be appointed to those posts. The case of the appellant was found to be different. 8. It is trite that promotion to a higher rank can be considered only against Rules and also from the feeder cadre and such avenues would not be open to the appellant and other similarly situated, which posts are not encadred in the feeder cadre. 9. While not seriously opposing the concern shown by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that for the absence of any promotional avenue to the appellant, she was given 2(two) financial upgradation, which is akin to and in the nature of in situ promotion. 10. Taking these aspects into account, we do not find that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge needs any interference. 11. It can only be observed that if the Assam Technician Establishment Service Rules, 2015 have been formulated, the Government as a model employer may consider notifying the same to ease out the difficulties of the employees. 12. However, finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss it. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant