JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court assisted by Ms. D. Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. J. Singh, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 02.07.2025 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, whereby the respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant (SAA). It is the specific case of the petitioner that the criterion for promotion from the post of Junior Administrative Assistant to Senior Administrative Assistant is seniority-cum-merit and that the impugned order which has been passed is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the said criterion. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Typist against the sanctioned post in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon vide an appointment order dated 28.08.2017. Pursuant thereto, on 14.10.2020, a Notification was issued by the Registrar (Admin)-cum-In-charge, Centralized Recruitment that all LDAs, Copyists, Typists and Computer Typists possessing the minimum educational qualification shall be treated equally for the purpose of promotion to the post of UDA (now SAA) and a combined gradation list would be prepared. Subsequent thereto, on 16.09.2024, a Notification was further published whereby the nomenclature of 12 (twelve) posts in the District Judiciary were re-designated. It is pertinent herein to take note of that from a perusal of the Notification dated 16.09.2024 at serial No. 8, it would be seen that the UDA (Upper Division Assistant) was re-designated as Senior Administrative Assistant (SAA) and at serial No. 9, Lower Division Assistant / Typist / Copyist / Computer Typist were re-designated as Junior Administrative Assistant (JAA). In pursuance to the said Notification dated 16.09.2024, a gradation list was prepared whereby the petitioner was shown at serial No. 25 whereas the respondent No. 6 was shown at serial No. 27. In pursuance to the said Notification dated 16.09.2024, a gradation list was prepared whereby the petitioner was shown at serial No. 25 whereas the respondent No. 6 was shown at serial No. 27. It is further pertinent to take note of that the petitioner was appointed on 24.08.2017 whereas the respondent No. 6 was appointed on 25.10.2017. Subsequent thereto, a selection proceedings was initiated for filling up the post of Senior Administrative Assistant (SAA). Pursuant to a resolution adopted on 24.06.2025, the respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant vide an order dated 02.07.2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings. 4. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 14.08.2025 after perusing the materials on record, more particularly the resolution dated 24.06.2025 stayed the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 and the said interim order which was passed have been extended till the disposal of the writ petition vide an order dated 25.09.2025. The records further reveal that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 4 as well as by the respondent No. 6. Replies thereagainst have been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. From a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, the decision to promote the respondent No. 6 was supported on the ground that after scrutinizing the materials by the selection board, the petitioner was not found conceptually sound and considering the nature of the work, the respondent No. 6 was found to be more suitable. The respondent No. 6 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition thereby supporting the decision to promote him as well as the impugned order dated 02.07.2025. 6. The petitioner thereupon has filed affidavits-in-reply to both the affidavits-in-opposition reiterating the petitioner's stand in the writ petition and denying to the contents of the affidavits-in-opposition. 7. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, whose submissions were in terms with their pleadings and for the sake of brevity, this Court is not repeating the same. 8. 7. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, whose submissions were in terms with their pleadings and for the sake of brevity, this Court is not repeating the same. 8. From a perusal of the materials on record as well as the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the point for consideration which arises in the instant proceedings is, as to whether, the Selection Committee while evaluating the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent No. 6, had duly considered the principle of the criteria of the seniority-cum-merit as per the settled principles of law. 9. Before dealing with the facts, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah & Others Vs. K. Addanki Babu & Others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 wherein the Supreme Court explained the difference between the principles of merit-cum-seniority vis-à-vis seniority- cum-merit. The Supreme Court observed that when it comes to the principle of seniority-cum-merit, the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority alone, subject to having the minimum requisite merit and suitability of the candidate amongst the eligible candidates. The Supreme Court categorically observed that the criterion of seniority-cum merit postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for the efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority, and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. It was further observed that for assessing the minimum necessary merit, the Competent Authority can lay down the minimum standards that are required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service records, and interview and prescribing a minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Supreme Court further emphasized in the said judgment that while taking into consideration the principle of merit-cum-seniority, the requirement is of making a comparison of assessment of merit. 10. The Supreme Court further emphasized in the said judgment that while taking into consideration the principle of merit-cum-seniority, the requirement is of making a comparison of assessment of merit. 10. This Court also finds it very pertinent to observe that from the proposition so laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra), it makes it abundantly clear that where the criteria of promotion is the principle of seniority-cum-merit, marks can only be prescribed for assessment of the minimum qualifying requirement and as such, when a promotion is to be given to the eligible senior most candidate on the basis of individual marks, such promotion would be contrary to the principle of seniority-cum-merit. 11. In the backdrop of the above principles, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the resolution dated 24.06.2025 and the manner in which the Selection Committee proceeded to adjudge the evaluation of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent No. 6. The relevant portion of the said resolution being pertinent to the issue is reproduced herein under: “ ITEM No. 2 Discussion on filling up of one (1) no. of clear vacant post of Senior Administrative Assistant in this Establishment. RESOLUTION As the post of Senior Administrative Assistant has fallen vacant due to promotion of Sri Himadri Shekhar Borah vide Resolution 21-05-2025, in terms of Gradation List dated 30-09-2024, the eligible staffs, namely, Abhijit Paul and Saurabh Gupta are in the zone of consideration for the vacant post of Senior Administrative Assistant as per Gradation List dated 30-09-2024. The concerned ACRs for the last five years, gradation list and the service books of staffs, namely, Abhijit Paul and Saurabh Gupta have been gone through and the Selection Board has already interacted with them one by one. For the purpose of assessing the merit and suitability of the above staffs for promotion to the aforesaid post, the Selection Board has scrutinized and evaluated the materials placed on record. Mr. Abhijit Paul is the senior-most amongst the short-listed candidates for the post of Senior Administrative Assistant. Having interacted with Mr. For the purpose of assessing the merit and suitability of the above staffs for promotion to the aforesaid post, the Selection Board has scrutinized and evaluated the materials placed on record. Mr. Abhijit Paul is the senior-most amongst the short-listed candidates for the post of Senior Administrative Assistant. Having interacted with Mr. Abhijit Paul, it is found that though he is a graduate and he enjoys a good personal image and that there is nothing adverse about his integrity yet he is not conceptually sound and considering the nature of work he will undertake as Senior Administrative Assistant in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Nagaon, his keenness and diligence, as is required, is found wanting. His grading in ACR for last five years shows that he was graded Very Good for two years and Good for three years. On an overall consideration of the matter, this Selection Board is of the considered view and resolves accordingly that Mr. Abhijit Paul is found not fit to be promoted for the vacant post of Senior Administrative Assistant, o/o District & Sessions Judge, Nagaon. He may be considered later on acquiring better credentials. Mr. Saurabh Gupta is the other short-listed candidate for the post of Senior Administrative Assistant. As a corollary, Mr. Saurabh Gupta’s candidature for the promotion to Senior Administrative Assistant is considered. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, so appointed on 25-10-2017 as LDA has been discharging his duties as such. Nothing adverse is found against Mr. Saurabh Gupta in his ACR. His ACR for the last five years shows that he was graded Very Good for three years and Good for two years. He is M.Sc. Pass. His basic knowledge, keenness and diligence, as is required, is found to be very satisfactory. The Selection Board has found him to be a fit candidate for the post of Senior Administrative Assistant, o/o the District & Sessions Judge, Nagaon. Accordingly, the Selection Board unanimously resolves to recommend promotion of Mr. Saurabh Gupta to the post of the SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT , o/o the District & Sessions Judge, Nagaon in the usual pay scale plus grade pay, if any, with effect from the date he assumes charge of his Court/office.” 12. Accordingly, the Selection Board unanimously resolves to recommend promotion of Mr. Saurabh Gupta to the post of the SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT , o/o the District & Sessions Judge, Nagaon in the usual pay scale plus grade pay, if any, with effect from the date he assumes charge of his Court/office.” 12. From a perusal of the above quoted resolution, it would be apparent that the Selection Committee even did not consider of fixing the minimum benchmark which should be done for adjudging the minimum merit insofar as the same is requisite for efficiency of the administration. From a perusal of the above resolution, it would further show that the Selection Committee proceeded with the comparison of merit vis-à-vis the petitioner with the respondent No. 6, which is a concept permissible when the criterion is merit-cum-seniority and not seniority-cum-merit. 13. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the resolution so adopted on 24.06.2025 by the Selection Committee to select the respondent No. 6 on applying the criterion of seniority-cum-merit is contrary to the settled principles of law as regards the criterion of seniority-cum-merit. Consequently, the promotion which has been made to the respondent No. 6 is in violation to Rule 6(4) of the Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 is required to be interfered with. 14. The instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 02.07.2025 by which the respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant by the respondent No. 4 is set aside and quashed. (ii) The respondent No. 4 is directed to fill up the post of Senior Administrative Assistant by applying the criteria of seniority-cum-merit, and by taking into account the observations made herein above. The same be done forthwith and preferably within 2 (two) months from today. (iii) The photocopy of the records so produced are kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.