HAREN KUMAR HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
LAWS(GAU)-2018-8-133
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 30,2018

Haren Kumar Hazarika (Dr.) Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.M.BUJOR BARUA,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.8 and Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. Although the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and 9 to 11 had been served as indicated in various orders of the Registry, but none had preferred to appear before the Court. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for its final consideration. It is stated by Mr. N. Sarma that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No.5 died.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant District Education Officer (Non Formal Education) by a notification dated 26.02.1992, under Regulation -3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation and Function) Regulation, 1951 and thereafter as an Assistant Inspector of Schools as per notification dated 19.05.1992. His services were regularized by the notification dated 29.11.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed to the cadre of Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer/Deputy Director under the Assam Education Service by the notification dated 06.04.2005 and he was posted as a District Elementary Education Officer in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam.
(3.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the minutes of the Selection Board held on 06.08.2013 for promotion amongst others, to the cadre of Joint Director under the Assam Education Service. As per the said minutes, the respondent Nos. 3 to 11 herein were promoted as Joint Directors while the petitioner was not so recommended. From a perusal of the minutes of the Selection Board held on 06.08.2013, it is discernible that the recommendations were made more or less in the order of seniority. From the gradation list available before the Selection Board, the first four candidates were initially not recommended as certain proceedings were pending against them. Thereafter, Serial No.5 to 8, 10 to 11 and 14 to 15 were recommended. In total nine vacancies were under consideration and accordingly, initially six were recommended by keeping another three under the process of sealed cover and thereafter another three persons were recommended. Accordingly, in total, including the incumbents kept under sealed cover, twelve were recommended. But in all such recommendations, it is taken note that it was done in the order of seniority as per the gradation list available before the Selection Board.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.