S.N. Phukan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is by six Senior Translators of this High Court against the High Court and the Stated of Assam. At the time of hearing, the Gauhati High Court Employees Association joined as Intervener.
(2.) ALL the Petitioners as stated in the petition are academically highly qualified the eligibility criteria for the post being Graduation with distinction or Honours, Master Degree or Degree in Law from any recognized University. In the petition it has been mentioned that for appointment to the post of lower Division Assistant, which post is classed as Class -III under the Gauhati High Court (Appointment, Conduct and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1967, for short the Rules, minimum qualification required is Graduation from any recognized University. The main grievance of the Petitioners is that inspite of rendering during service for a period extending from 10 to 15 years, neither they have been confirmed as Senior Grade Translators nor they have been given the status of Gazetted Officers, thereby putting hurdle in their promotional avenue. According to the Petitioner's an ordinary Lower Division Assistant with lesser qualification and experience can climb the ladder of promotional channel to the post of Deputy Register and so also in the case of Stenographers, but this privilege has been denied to the Petitioners. After Rule Nisi was issued on 19.8.88 an additional affidavit was filed by the Petitioner, where in it was started that though in the letter of initial appointment the expression 'probation' was not used, but considering the circumstances, it may be deemed that the Petitioner were appointed on probation and after completion of the period of propagation the Petitioners have required the right to be confirmed. Regarding the provision for test before confirmation it has been alleged that this Rule is absolute as it has not been adhered to in case of employees of the High Court.
(3.) AN affidavit has been filed by the Register (Administration) on behalf of the High Court. No counter has been filed on behalf of the State of Assam. This affidavit is not specifically on the points urged in the petition. It has been stated in this affidavit that Translators "opted to remain as Ex -cadre", bit what is Ex -cadre has not been explained and we shall state this in the appropriate place that the term Ex -cadre is not found in the Rules. In the writ Petition, it has been alleged that the post of Translate -cum -In -Charge, paper Book section for Agartela Bench of this Court was given the status of Gazetted, which was denied to the Petitioners. In the counter it has been stated that the Translator -cum -in -charge, paper Book section has to do supervisory work but it was not the case in respect of the Petitioners herein. The point which also requires our consideration is whether under the Rules, Gazetted status can be given unless the Rules are amended but it has not been dealt with in counter affidavit. We shall deal with this affidavit in detail at the appropriate place.;