Administrative clarification required to correct numbering under Article 229 and remove unsustainable seniority clause; persuasive authority for service rule amendments
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/7086/2024 of JAHIRUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS |
| CNR | GAHC010279812024 |
| Date of Registration | 30-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | Ashutosh Kumar, C.J. |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Ashutosh Kumar, C.J. & Arun Dev Choudhury, J. |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive authority |
| Type of Law | Service law; rule-making under Article 229 of the Constitution |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The power under Article 229 must result in correctly numbered sub-rules; an amendment to an existing sub-rule should be designated as a sub-paragraph to avoid confusion. Rule 7(4) as framed compels Court Officers appointed from an inferior feeder cadre to maintain seniority in that inferior cadre, even though the appointment is to a substantive Class II(C) post after selection. Service jurisprudence recognises inter se seniority only among officers of the same cadre. No provision allows reversion to an inferior class, rendering the existing seniority requirement unsustainable. The administrative side must amend Rule 7(4) to correct its numbering and remove or adjust the seniority clause. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | WP(C) 2755/2024 (recognising promotion rights of Court Officers to Assistant Registrar) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, an Administrative Officer (Judicial) (Class II(C)), was selected and appointed as Court Officer (Class II(C)). Rule 7(4) allows appointment from Senior Judicial Assistants (Class III(A)) but requires maintenance of seniority in original cadres. No rule provides for reversion to inferior posts. Judges’ Committee noted numbering and seniority flaws and suggested amendment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; administrative rule-making bodies |
| Follows | WP(C) 2755/2024 (promotion of Court Officers to Assistant Registrar) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Administrative rules made under Article 229 must be correctly numbered; amendments to sub-rules should take the form of sub-paragraphs, not standalone sub-rules.
- Rule 7(4)’s requirement that Court Officers appointed from Senior Judicial Assistants maintain seniority in Class III(A) is jurisprudentially unsustainable when the substantive post is Class II(C).
- Inter se seniority can only be maintained among officers of the same cadre; no provision exists for reverting a substantive appointee to an inferior cadre.
- Service rule committees and High Court administrative sides should review and amend deficient provisions before judicial consideration.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Examined Article 229 rule-making power: amendments must be properly numbered to avoid confusion with original sub-rules.
- Analysed Schedule-I classification: Court Officer and Administrative Officer (Judicial) in Class II(C); Senior Judicial Assistant in Class III(A).
- Applied service jurisprudence: inter se seniority only among same-cadre posts; no rule for reversion from substantive Class II(C) to Class III(A).
- Referred to Judges’ Committee observations: Rule 7(4) contains numbering and seniority defects; amendment needed.
- Noted WP(C) 2755/2024: affirmed promotion rights of Court Officers to Assistant Registrar regardless of Rule 7(4)’s seniority clause.
- Directed administrative side to amend Rule 7(4) for correct numbering and meaningful seniority provision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Rule 7(4) was improperly numbered; should be a sub-paragraph under existing sub-Rule 4.
- Feeder post of Senior Judicial Assistant (Class III(A)) is inferior; requiring maintenance of seniority there is unsustainable.
- Inter se seniority must be among Class II(C) officers only.
Respondent
No substantive opposing arguments recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an Administrative Officer (Judicial) in Class II(C), applied and was selected for one of two substantive Court Officer posts (Class II(C)) under Rule 7(4). The impugned rule permits feeder appointments from Senior Judicial Assistants (Class III(A)) but mandates maintenance of seniority in original, inferior cadres. A Judges’ Committee and a prior WP(C) 2755/2024 highlighted anomalies in numbering and seniority treatment. The petitioner challenged the rule’s constitutional and jurisprudential validity.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 7(4), Gauhati High Court (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967: provides feeder options and seniority maintenance for Court Officers.
- Article 229, Constitution of India: empowers High Court to make rules for staff, conditions, and conduct; requires proper exercise and numbering.
- Schedule-I to the 1967 Rules: classifies posts into Class II(C) and Class III(A) with identical pay scales among Class II(C) posts.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed administrative side to undertake rule-making corrections and amendments before further judicial challenges.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – WP(C) 2755/2024 on promotion rights of Court Officers.