Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010289162019 2026:GAU-AS:5401 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9284/2019 NRIPEN CHANDRA ROY S/O- LT. JATIN CHANDRA ROY, R/O- VILL- LENGTISINGAPARA, P.O. SRIJANGRAM, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783384 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. THROUGH THE COMM. AND SECY., TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT., JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAJALGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTAD ASSAM 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 4:THE SECRETARY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT - KOKRAJHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. J GHOSH,MS S SENGUPTA,MS J BORAH,MS. K L R YANTHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, GAD Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned standing counsel, GAD appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. B. Bora, learned standing counsel, BTC and Ms. S. Konwar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him notionally to the post of Administrative Officer, in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Chirang at Kajalgaon, w.e.f. a date prior to his superannuation and thereafter, to revise his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning the scale of pay authorized to the post of Administrative Officer. 3. The petitioner in pursuance to an advertisement dated 15-07-2009, had submitted his candidature for recruitment against the vacant post of Administrative Officer, as available in the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Chirang at Kajalgaon. The applications as submitted in the matter by the candidates including the petitioner, herein, was forwarded to the Government in the General Administration Department (GAD) by the Deputy Commissioner, Chirang, i.e. the respondent No. 2. On receipt of such applications and processing of the same, the said applications were returned to the respondent No. 2, by the Government in the General Administration Department (GAD) with a request to submit a revised proposal along with documents as Page No.# 3/9 mentioned, therein. It is seen that thereafter, the respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 20-11-2014, had submitted a revised proposal for recruitment against the post of Administrative Officer. In the said communication dated 20-11-2014, it was projected that 04 (four) candidates who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15-07- 2009 had submitted their “No-Objection” in favour of the petitioner, herein. The petitioner in the said communication was also projected to be a suitable candidate for being recruited against the post of Administrative Officer. However, the said proposal was not taken to its logical conclusion. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Head Assistant and had retired from his services w.e.f. 31-01-2015 on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner after more than 04 (four) years from the date of his superannuation, had preferred on 16-09-2019, a representation before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, GAD, praying for his notional promotion to the post of Administrative Officer. The present writ petition was, thereafter, instituted before this Court on 22-11-2019. 4. Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts as noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was the most suitable candidate for being considered for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer as advertised vide advertisement dated 15-07-2009. He submits that on account of a lapse occasioning on the part of the authorities of the General Administration Department, the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer and accordingly, a right vested in the petitioner for having his case duly considered for such recruitment came to be violated. Mr. Biswas, Page No.# 4/9 learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that a perusal of the revised proposal as submitted in the matter by the respondent No. 2, would reveal that amongst the candidates applying for the post of Administrative Officer, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15-07-2009, the petitioner was the most suitable, however, only on account of the fact that the selection as mandated was not carried out by the Government in the General Administration Department, an order appointing the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer was not issued in the matter. 5. In the above premises, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by reckoning the recommendations made in his favour by the respondent No. 2, a direction be issued upon the respondent authority to deem the petitioner to have been appointed to the post of Administrative Officer, from a date prior to the date of his superannuation, with further direction to the respondent authorities to revise the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner by reckoning the scale of pay as would now be required to be authorized to him against the post of Administrative Officer. 6. Per contra, Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the selection for the post of Administrative Officer, is to be made by the Government in the General Administration (B) Department. He submits that the said aspect of the matter was so disclosed in the advertisement dated 15-07-2009. Mr. Phukan submits that the projections made by the respondent No. 2 in the communication dated 20-11-2014, while submitting the revised proposal for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer, would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, the said aspect of the matter was required to be so considered by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Mr. Phukan, has further Page No.# 5/9 submitted that the petitioner had retired from his services w.e.f. 31-01-2015, however, it is found that the petitioner had not raised any grievance with regard to non-consideration of his case for such recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer, during the period after submission of the revised proposal till the date on which the petitioner had retired from service, on reaching the age of superannuation. Mr. Phukan submits that it is only after around 04 (four) years, after his superannuation, that the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities by way of filing a representation dated 16-09-2019. He submits that cessation of the employer-employee relationship having occasioned in respect of the petitioner on 31-01-2015, the case of the petitioner either for appointment against the post of Administrative Officer, given the scheme of selection involved, would not mandate a consideration, inasmuch as, the petitioner after having retired from his services not being a Government servant would not be entitled to be considered by the selection committee for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer. Accordingly, Mr. Phukan submits that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 8. The Rule 8 of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967, lays down the procedure for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer. In terms of the provisions of Rule 8(i) the post of Administrative Officer shall be filled up by selection from amongst persons who have served at least for 15 (fifteen) years in any Deputy Commissioner’s establishment and have working experience of different branches in Page No.# 6/9 general and in the establishment branch in particular. Such candidate is also required to possess a Graduate Degree in any discipline from a recognized University in India. The Selection Committee for the purpose of carrying out the selection for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer has been set out in the provisions of Rule 8(ii). The provisions of Rule 8(iii) would reveal that the appointing authority in respect of the post of Administrative Officer is the Government in the General Administrative Department. 9. Having noticed the provisions of the Rule 8 of the Rules of 1967, this Court finds that the said rules were invoked for the purpose of issuance of the advertisement dated 15-07-2009, which was so issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chirang. Although the applications, including that submitted by the petitioner, were received in pursuance to the said advertisement dated 15-07-2009, the selection as mandated for recruitment against the post of Administrative Officer as advertised vide advertisement dated 15-07-2009 is not found to have been carried out in the matter. Such selection was not carried out till the date the petitioner was in service, i.e. till 31-01-2015. 10. The post of Administrative Officer in terms of the recruitment rules holding the field being a selection post and such selection being limited to the persons serving in any Deputy Commissioners establishment, the petitioner having superannuated from his services w.e.f. 31-01-2015, cannot be deemed to be a serving employee in any Deputy Commissioners establishment. Accordingly, it would not be permissible to direct the respondent authorities to carry out a selection process in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15-07-2009, at this stage and also include the petitioner, therein. The petitioner, as on date is clearly ineligible for being considered for recruitment against the post of Page No.# 7/9 Administrative Officer. Accordingly, no direction would be permissible to be issued by this Court to the respondent authorities for holding a selection for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15-07-2009. 11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the prayer made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities to appoint him to the post of Administrative Officer in the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Chirang from a date prior to the date of his superannuation. The said prayer made by the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance from this Court, inasmuch as, the post of Administrative Officer, being a selection post, the recruitment against the same would only be permissible after holding a due process of selection. The selection admittedly not having been held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15-07- 2009, the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a selected candidate and accordingly, no direction can be issued by this Court for appointing the petitioner against the post of Administrative Officer from a date prior to the date of his superannuation. 12. The provisions of Sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1967 mandates that the Selection Board upon examining the ACRs and the service particulars of the candidates taking into consideration the respective merit of the candidates shall prepare a list of names in order of preference for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer. The said list shall, thereafter, be forwarded to the appointing authority by the Selection Board. Sub-Rule (iv) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1967, further mandates that the list finally approved by the appointing authority shall be the select list for the purpose of appointment against the post of Administrative Officer. In the case on hand, the list of Page No.# 8/9 candidates in the order of preference having not been prepared by the selection committee, there would arise no question of a select list being prepared, thereon. Accordingly, no right is found to have been vested in the petitioner to claim appointment against the post of Administrative Officer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15-07- 2009. The petitioner in support of his contentions has relied upon the recommendation made in his favour by the respondent No. 2 in a communication dated 20-11-2014, wherein the petitioner has been projected to be the suitable candidate for recruitment against the post of Administrative Officer as advertised in the matter. The said recommendations in the light of the scheme of recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer, as prescribed in the provisions of the Rules of 1967, would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, the merit of the intending candidate for recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer is required to be so assessed by the Selection Committee, which assessment is clearly absent in the case on hand. This Court further notices that the petitioner although was in service till 31-01-2015, he had never raised any grievance with regard to the delay occasioning in taking the process of recruitment initiated vide advertisement dated 15-07-2009, to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, after his superannuation from service, the petitioner cannot be permitted to maintain a claim for appointment against the post of Administrative Officer only on account of the fact that he had submitted an application for recruitment to the said post in pursuance to the advertisement in question. 13. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the claim made by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, stands rejected. Page No.# 9/9 14. Accordingly, the present the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant