Monalisha Bhattacharyya vs The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (Apdcl) And Anr

Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010161372022

2026:GAU-AS:15596
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5473/2022
MONALISHA BHATTACHARYYA
WIFE OF SRI PRANJAL KAUSHIK,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 88,
NARAYAN BHAWAN,
CHATRAKAR, UZANBAZAR,
GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781001.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) AND
ANR
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJULEE BHAWAN,
PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001, ASSAM.
2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)
THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR A CHETIA,MS N NEWME,MR. A BORO,MR
A CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL,


B E F O R E
Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Page No.# 2/8
Advocate for the petitioners: Shri A. Chakraborty

Advocates for the respondents: Shri KP Pathak, SC-APDCL

Date on which judgment is reserved : 29.09.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 14.10.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : NA

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes


JUDGMENT & ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging a communication dated
01.06.2022 issued by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has
been directed to undergo course in Human Resource (in short, HR) in order to
remove irregularities which has been noticed in her appointment.
2. The facts, as projected by the petitioner, in brief, are that an
advertisement was published on 15.05.2011 for direct recruitment to the post of
Assistant Manager (HR). The advertisement had prescribed the eligibility criteria
as Master of Business Administration /Post Graduate Diploma in Management
(HR). The petitioner claims to be eligible for the said post by having secured a
full two-years degree in Master of Business Administration (Finance and
Marketing) along with Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Human
Resource) and an additional qualification of LLB and had applied for the said
post. The petitioner was accordingly found to be eligible and accordingly, she
was appointed vide an order dated 12.03.2012. She had joined in the said post
and was granted promotions from time to time. She was also given to hold the
charge of Assistant General Manager (HR) and is presently holding the post of

Page No.# 3/8
Deputy General Manager (HR). The petitioner claims to be eligible for regular
promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager (HR). However, as no action
was taken for such promotion, the petitioner had submitted a representation.
However, the respondent authorities, vide the impugned communication dated
01.06.2022 had directed the petitioner to undergo course of HR which was
mentioned in the eligibility criteria of the advertisement to remove irregularities
noticed in her initial appointment.
3. It is contended that such action is wholly unauthorized and illegal
inasmuch as, at no point of time in the service career of 10 years, the issue was
ever raised or the petitioner was intimated regarding any irregularity in her
appointment for not meeting the eligibility criteria in terms of the advertisement
dated 15.05.2011. It is also contended that all her documents were duly verified
by the respondent authorities before declaring her to be eligible and finding her
to be suitable for the appointment which was accordingly done.
4. I have heard Shri A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have
also heard Shri KP Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL.
5. Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
after her appointment as Assistant Manager (HR), vide order dated 12.03.2012,
she was confirmed in the service in the year 2014 and vide an order dated
17.05.2016 she was allowed to hold the charge of AGM (HR). She was
thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (HR) on 27.08.2018 giving
effect from 16.03.2016. She was also given charge of the post of Deputy
General Manager on 25.01.2019. He submits that as per the Regulations holding
the field, there is a requirement of 5 years service in the post of Deputy

Page No.# 4/8
Manager (HR) to be eligible for being promoted as AGM (HR). The petitioner
having completed the said period of 5 years as Deputy Manager (HR) had
accordingly submitted the representation. As no action was taken, she had also
submitted an application dated 30.09.2021under the RTI Act. On 03.11.2021,
the petitioner was informed that the matter was placed before the Board.
Thereafter, vide the impugned communication, the Resolution of the Board
dated 16.02.2022 was communicated whereby the petitioner was directed to
undergo course in HR to regularize her initial appointment. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility
criteria as well as the qualification stipulated in the advertisement dated
15.05.2016. He has submitted that while the requirement was MBA or PGDM
(HR), the petitioner had both the Degree and Diploma and her PGDM was in
HR.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that while her
claim to be given promotion to the post of AGM (HR) was legitimate, the Board
vide the impugned communication had gone to an aspect which was not even
the subject matter. It is submitted that the Board could not have gone back to
the initial appointment of the petitioner which was made in the year 2012 with
regard to certain qualification regarding HR.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this
Court to certain response obtained under the RTI Act dated 06.11.2021. By
referring to the same, he has submitted that in the list of officers in the HR
Department of the APDCL, there are 9 officers above the petitioner and out of
those 9 officers, 8 officers are Bachelor of Engineering Degree holders without
any Degree or Diploma in HR. He has submitted that when such officers are

Page No.# 5/8
posted in the HR Department, the stand taken qua petitioner is absolutely
unreasonable and arbitrary. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to
Clause (B) of the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited Human Resource
Service Rules, 2019, as per which, two third of the vacancies of the post of AGM
(HR) are to be filled up from Deputy Manager (HR) completing 5 years of
continuous service and one third are to be filled up by direct recruitment. It is
submitted that irrespective of such prescription, incumbents holding Bachelor of
Engineering Degree without any HR Degree or Diploma are also appointed in
the HR Department and are working, as demonstrated from the response
obtained under the RTI Act. He has also informed this Court that the cadre
strength in the post of AGM (HR) is 6 and 5 vacancies still exist. He has also
informed this Court that there was an interim direction for reconsideration of the
case of the petitioner which however was again rejected by the Board in its
meeting held on 23.02.2026.
8. Per contra, Shri K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, has
submitted that the initial entry of the petitioner in service was irregular. He has
drawn the attention of this Court to the advertisement pursuant to which the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager. He submits that the
advertisement is of the year 2011 before the Rules of the Company had come
into force. As per Sl. No.3 of the advertisement concerning eligibility, the learned
Standing Counsel has submitted that there is a requirement of MBA/PGDM
(Human Resource). He has clarified that the MBA has to be in Human Resource
and the PGDM of the petitioner, though is in Human Resource, is for one year.
He has also highlighted that in the Sl. No.6 regarding qualification, two years of
such course with specialization in Human Resource has been specified. He has
submitted that the Board, vide its impugned resolution dated 01.06.2022 has

Page No.# 6/8
neither rejected the representation of the petitioner outright nor cancelled her
initial appointment and has only directed her to undergo the course in the
Human Resource which was a requirement in the advertisement of the year
2011. As regards the direction of this Court to reconsider the case of the
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that such reconsideration
was made in a meeting held on 02.02.2026 and at Sl. No. 57 of the Resolution,
such reconsideration has resulted in the same decision directing the petitioner
to undergo course in HR. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the
aforesaid decision may not be held to be unreasonable and therefore the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed
before this Court have been carefully examined.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment
drive for the post of Assistant Manager (HR) pursuant to the advertisement
dated 15.05.2011. A look at the advertisement would reveal that the eligibility
was stated to be MBA/PGDM (Human Resource). Under Sl. No.6, there is a
qualification which mentions about two years full-time PG course with
specialization of Human Resource. It is also stipulated that a degree in law will
be considered as an additional qualification. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner was an MBA and her PGDM was in Human Resource, which however
was for one year. The petitioner also has the additional qualification of LLB,
which the advertisement itself stipulates to be an additional qualification. The
petitioner has also completed the minimum length of years in the post of
Deputy Manager, which is 5 years to be considered for promotion to the next
higher post of Assistant General Manager (HR).

Page No.# 7/8
11. In the opinion of this Court, the consideration of the case of the petitioner
by going back to the aspect of her initial appointment of not having an HR
Degree or Diploma of two years would not be reasonable for more than one
count. The initial appointment of the petitioner was never questioned by the
authorities and rather they had consciously appointed her and also subsequently
given her promotion. It is also not the case that the petitioner is otherwise not
qualified. The petitioner admittedly is an MBA having a PGDM in HR, which
however is for one year. The petitioner, as mentioned above, also has the
additional qualification of LLB, which the advertisement itself stipulates to be an
additional qualification. The petitioner has also completed the minimum length
of 5 years in the feeder post.
12. The other aspect is that there are a number of officers in the HR
Department, who are Engineering graduates (BE). The petitioner has
demonstrated all these facts by referring to the response dated 06.011.2021
obtained by invoking the RTI Act and these facts are not disputed. It clearly
appears from the response that in the list of officers, against question No.5,
except one, all 8 officers above the petitioner are BE and are serving in the HR
Department. This Court also finds force in the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, as per which two-thirds of the posts of AGM
(HR) are to be filled up from the post of DM (HR) and one-third by direct
recruitment. It is clear that the officers manning the HR Department are not
necessarily required to be having a Degree / Diploma in HR, as one-third of
such officers are direct recruits and it appears that engineering graduates not
having HR Degree / Diploma are manning the HR Department. On the other
hand, the petitioner possesses Diploma in HR, albeit for one year and has been
serving the organization for more than 14 years and also promoted in the

Page No.# 8/8
meantime. This Court has also taken note of the position that 5 posts of AGM
(HR) are still vacant in the cadre strength, which is 6. This Court is unable to
agree with the findings arrived at by the Board in holding the petitioner to be
ineligible for being promoted to the aforesaid higher post. The reconsideration
exercise done by the Board on 02.02.2026, which has also been placed before
this Court, appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary and would also not be in
the interest of public service.
13. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned communication dated 01.06.2022 as well as the subsequent
reconsideration communication dated 02.02.2026 are set aside. The petitioner is
accordingly directed to be considered and given promotion to the post of AGM
(HR).
14. The aforesaid direction be undertaken and completed within a period of
45 days from today.
15. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed, in the manner, indicated
above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant