- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State Of Assam And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The post of Officer on Special Duty (OSD) in the rank of Joint Secretary within the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat was created in November 1983. P.N. Hazarika, then Deputy Secretary, was promoted to the new post, which became vacant in 1985 when Hazarika advanced to Secretary of the Secretariat.
An advertisement dated 18-6-1985 invited applications for the vacant OSD position. Required qualifications were: (i) an advocate of a High Court or pleader of a district court with at least seven years of practice, or (ii) a Judicial Officer qualified to be appointed as a District or Additional District Judge, with preference for experience in legislative procedure and drafting.
The appellant, at that time a Judicial Magistrate Grade III on deputation to the Assam Legal Service as Deputy Secretary & Legal Remembrancer (Grade III), applied, sat for a written test and viva voce, and was appointed OSD on 17-9-1985. The post was redesignated as Joint Secretary on 30-9-1986.
Respondent 5 filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court challenging the appellant’s selection. By judgment dated 3-8-1988, the High Court set aside the appointment for lack of requisite qualifications. The present appeal challenges that High Court decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant satisfied the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement dated 18-6-1985 for appointment as Officer on Special Duty.
- Whether the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 1986—promulgated after the appellant’s appointment—could retrospectively validate or regularise that appointment under Rule 38.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Having completed eight years as Judicial Magistrate Grade III, he was eligible for promotion to Grade II and therefore “qualified to be appointed” as District or Additional District Judge, satisfying the second limb of the advertised qualification.
- The Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 1986 list, in Schedule III, eligibility for direct recruitment to Joint Secretary as including persons qualified for Assam Judicial Service Grades I & II and Assam Legal Service Grades II & III. Because he was holding a Grade III post in the Assam Legal Service on deputation, those rules confirmed his eligibility.
- By virtue of Rule 38 of the 1986 Rules, all actions taken prior to the Rules coming into force are deemed to have been taken under the Rules, thereby curing any defect.
Respondents' Arguments
- The appellant did not hold a Grade II or higher judicial post and, under the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 1967, could not be considered “qualified to be appointed” as District or Additional District Judge at the time of application.
- The 1986 Rules were enacted after the appointment and cannot retrospectively alter qualifications in the 1985 advertisement; moreover, the contentious qualification clause was allegedly inserted under the appellant’s influence.
- Rule 38 cannot validate an appointment that was unlawful at its inception.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 1967. District and Additional District Judge positions are Grade I. Promotions to Grade I require the candidate already to be in Grade II. The appellant held only a Grade III post; thus, he was not “qualified to be appointed” to Grade I positions as demanded by the advertisement. His eight years of service merely made him eligible to be considered for promotion to Grade II, not Grade I.
The Court next considered the appellant’s reliance on the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 1986. These Rules came into force on 28-10-1986, after the appellant’s appointment on 17-9-1985. Subsequent rule-making cannot retroactively confer eligibility. Rule 38 operates only on actions lawfully taken; it cannot validate an appointment that was void ab initio.
Accordingly, the High Court correctly concluded that the appellant lacked the prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment. The Court also noted that the appellant has since reverted to the Assam Judicial Service in Grade III and been promoted to Grade II, but this subsequent career progression is irrelevant to the legality of the 1985 appointment.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed with Costs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Gauhati High Court’s order invalidating the appellant’s appointment as Officer on Special Duty. The immediate consequence is that the appellant cannot claim the OSD/Joint Secretary position. The decision turns on straightforward application of existing service rules and does not articulate new legal principles or precedents.
Sujata V. Manohar, J.— This appeal is from a judgment and order dated 3-8-1988 of the High Court of Guwahati setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Officer on Special Duty in the Secretariat of the Assam Legislative Assembly pursuant to an advertisement dated 18-6-1985.
2. The post of an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) in the rank of Joint Secretary in the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat was created in November 1983. One P.N Hazarika who was serving as Deputy Secretary in the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat was promoted to the post of OSD so created. The post, however, fell vacant in 1985 when Hazarika was promoted as the Secretary of the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
3. On 18-6-1985 an advertisement was issued by the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat inviting applications for the post of OSD in the rank of Joint Secretary. The following qualifications were prescribed for this post in the advertisement:
“Candidate must be an advocate of a High Court or a pleader of a district court who has practised as such for at least 7 years or a Judicial Officer qualified to be appointed as a District or Additional District Judge. Preference will be given to those who possess practical experience of legislative procedure, drafting of bills, rules, regulations etc.”
The appellant applied for the said post pursuant to this advertisement. A qualifying examination and viva voce were held. The appellant was selected and appointed to the post of OSD on 17-9-1985. The post of OSD was redesignated as the post of Joint Secretary on 30-9-1986.
4. Respondent 5 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Guwahati challenging the selection and appointment of the appellant to the post of OSD and asking for various other reliefs. This writ petition to the extent that it challenged the appointment of the appellant, has been allowed by the High Court. It has set aside the appointment of the appellant as OSD on the ground that the appellant did not possess the necessary qualifications for the post.
5. The appellant joined judicial service of the State of Assam as a Judicial Magistrate Grade III. He had completed 8 years of service as Judicial Magistrate Grade III when he was sent on deputation to the Assam Legal Service as Deputy Secretary and Legal Remembrancer which is a Grade III post in the Assam Legal Service. The appellant was holding the post of Deputy Secretary and Legal Remembrancer in the Assam Legal Service with a lien on his post as Judicial Magistrate Grade III in the Assam Judicial Service, when he applied for the post of OSD. The qualifications which are set out above for the post of OSD require that the applicant must be a Judicial Officer qualified to be appointed as a District or Additional District Judge or he should be an advocate of a High Court or a pleader of a district court who has practised as such for at least 7 years. The appellant had not practised as an advocate or pleader for 7 years. We have to examine whether he was a Judicial Officer qualified to be appointed as a District Judge or Additional District Judge. The appellant was holding the substantive post of Judicial Magistrate Grade III in the Assam Judicial Service and was on deputation in a Grade III post in the Assam Legal Service. Under the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 1967, the posts of District Judge and Additional District Judge are Grade I posts in the Assam Judicial Service. Under Rule 5 sub-rule (4)(a) appointment to a post in Grade I shall be made either by promotion from Grade II or by direct recruitment from the Bar on the recommendation of the High Court. Under sub-rule (4)(b) appointment to a post in Grade II shall be by promotion from Grade III or by direct recruitment from the Bar on the recommendation of the High Court. Under Rule 6 appointments to posts in Grades I and II by promotion from the next grade below shall be on merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. The appellant who held the post of Judicial Magistrate which is a Grade III post was, therefore, eligible for appointment to a Grade II post provided he met the requisite criteria for promotion. He was not eligible for appointment to Grade I post of District Judge or Additional District Judge. He had first to secure promotion to a Grade II post before he could become eligible for promotion to a Grade I post. The appellant, therefore, was not a Judicial Officer qualified to be appointed as a District or Additional District Judge. It is the case of the appellant that since he had put in 8 years of service in Grade III he was eligible for promotion to Grade II and thereafter to Grade I. We fail to see how this helps the appellant. In order that he should be qualified to be appointed as a District or Additional District Judge he should be holding at least a post in Grade II.
6. It is next contended by the appellant that in 1986 the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules came into effect. Under these Rules qualifications were prescribed, inter alia, for the post of Joint Secretary in the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat. In Schedule III of these Rules the minimum qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Joint Secretary are seven years' standing practice at the Bar or “person qualified to be appointed to the Assam Judicial Service Grade I and Grade II and the Assam Legal Service Grade II and Grade III”. The appellant contends that since he was holding a Grade III post in the Assam Legal Service on deputation, he had the necessary qualification for being appointed as Joint Secretary. The Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 1986, however, came into force only on 28-10-1986, much after the appointment of the appellant. We fail to see how the qualifications prescribed subsequently can help the appellant. The respondents have also contended that these qualifications were inserted by the appellant himself in the Draft Rules in order to validate his own appointment. Be that as it may, the subsequent Rules cannot affect the qualifications prescribed for the post of OSD under the advertisement of 18-6-1985. The appellant was appointed pursuant to this advertisement. He had to meet the qualifications prescribed. The appellant has drawn our attention to Rule 38 of the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 1986, under which all orders made or actions taken before these Rules came into force shall be deemed to have been made or taken as if these were made or taken under these Rules. Rule 38 can apply only to orders lawfully made or action lawfully taken before these Rules came into force. It cannot validate an action which was not lawful at inception.
7. The High Court has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant did not possess the prescribed qualifications at the time when he was appointed in 1985 as Officer on Special Duty. We are informed that the appellant has since been reverted to Assam Judicial Service in a Grade III post and has thereafter also been promoted to a Grade II post.
8. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Alert