Nava Kumar Deka vs The State Of Assam And 10 Ors

Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010152492025

2026:GAU-AS:12628
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3987/2025
NAVA KUMAR DEKA
S/O LATE SARAT CHANDRA DEKA, R/O VILL- CHANBARIKHUTI
(BARIMUKH), P.O.- BARIMUKH, P.S.- MUSHALPUR, DIST- BAKSA (BTAD),
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE (B) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
4:THE COMMISSIONER
LOWER ASSAM DIVISION
PAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-1
ASSAM
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
DIST- NALBARI

Page No.# 2/12
ASSAM
PIN-781335
6:SMT. MRIDUSMITA DAS
SENIOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
7:SMT. MEHMOODA BEGUM
SENIOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
8:DEBENDRA DEKA
SENIOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
9:TAPASH JYOTI MISHRA
SENIOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
10:JITUMANI KALITA
SENIOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
11:PRAKASH SUTRADHAR
SENIOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
NALBARI
DIST- NALBARI

Page No.# 3/12
ASSAM
PIN-78133
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. R M DEKA, (FOR R-6),N GAUTAM, (FOR R-
6),T KASHYAP, (FOR R-6),MR. K N CHOUDHURY (FOR R-6),MRS. R DEVI(R-9 TO 11),MR. A R
TAHBILDAR (R-9 TO 11),SC, FINANCE

:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE


Date on which judgment is reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.09.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes

JUDGEMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
C. K. S. Baruah, learned State Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5; Mr. R.
Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, for respondent No. 3;
Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel for respondent No. 6; and Mr. A. R. Tahbildar,
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 to 11.

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.06.2025,
passed by the District Commissioner, Nalbari, whereby 6 (six) Junior District

Page No.# 4/12
Administrative Assistants (in short, “Jr.DAA”) have been promoted to the post of
Senior District Administrative Assistant (in short, “Sr.DAA”) under the Rule 6(3)
(5) of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967, on the
ground that the said promotion has been made in violation of the provisions of
the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in
Services and Posts) Act, 1978. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the
respondent authorities to consider his case for promotion to the post of Sr.DAA
with retrospective effect from the date on which the private respondent has
been promoted.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as a Peon
(Grade-IV) in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, under the
Assam Public Services (Appointment of Family Members of Persons Killed by
Extremists/Terrorists) Rules, 1992, vide order dated 28.02.2012, pursuant to the
order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4608/2010. Subsequently, pursuant to
the orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 7009/2015 and WP(C) No.
815/2013, the petitioner was appointed to a Grade-III post of Junior Assistant,
now redesignated as Jr.DAA, vide order dated 21.07.2018. He joined the said
post on 01.08.2018.

4. A draft gradation list of Grade-III staff under the amalgamated
establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, was published on
16.08.2024, which stated to have been finalized in respect of the posts of
Sr.DAA and Jr.DAA, wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 59.
The total sanctioned strength of the cadre of Sr.DAA in the establishment of the
Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, is stated to be 41 and the post of Sr.DAA is

Page No.# 5/12
required to be filled up by way of promotion from the cadre of Jr.DAA.

5. The petitioner contends that, under Section 4 of the Assam Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts)
Act, 1978, 7% of the posts are reserved for candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Caste category, 10% for Scheduled Tribes (Plains) and 5% for
Scheduled Tribes (Hills). As per Section 5 of the said Act, the establishment
having vacancy should be filled up by promotion in the same manner by
maintaining roster register to that effect. It further provides that every
establishment shall maintain such roster register and violation of such provision
entails penalty.

6. According to the petitioner, as per the roster register provided in the
th nd th
Schedule to the aforesaid Act, every 8 , 22 and 36 posts in the cadre are
reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and so on and so
forth. Since the total cadre strength of Sr.DAA in the establishment of the
Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, is 41, the petitioner contends that 3 (three)
posts in the said cadre are required to be filled up from amongst candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Caste category.

7. It is further contended that under the Assam Ministerial District
Establishment Service Rules, 1967, as amended in 2015, a Jr.DAA, having
completed 4 (four) years of continuous service, is eligible for promotion to the
post of Sr.DAA on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. According to the petitioner,
notwithstanding the availability of eligible candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Caste category, the District Commissioner, Nalbari, by the impugned

Page No.# 6/12
order, promoted 6 (six) Jr.DAAs to the post of Sr.DAA without giving due effect
to the reservation prescribed for the Scheduled Caste category.

8. Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that out of
the 39 employees reflected in the relevant gradation position, Shri Ashok Das
and Shri Bubul Kalita, whose names appear at Sl. Nos. 5 and 6 respectively,
have subsequently been promoted to the cadre of Supervisory Assistant.
Similarly, Shri Gagan Sarma and Shri Homeswar Deka, whose names appear at
Sl. Nos. 4 and 8 respectively, have already retired from service. Shri
Bhubaneswar Sarma has also retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation, whereas Shri Ramani Malakar has been promoted to the post
of Administrative Officer. Thus, altogether 6 (six) vacancies had arisen in the
th
cadre of Sr.DAA. He submits that since 8 sloth in the roster register has fallen
vacant, the petitioner, being the eligible Scheduled Caste candidate, is entitled
to be considered for promotion to the post of Sr.DAA.

9. Mr. Goswami further submits that as per the roster register provided in the
th nd th
Schedule to the Act of 1978, the 8 , 22 and 36 roster posts are reserved for
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Thus, having regard to
the total cadre strength of 41 posts in the cadre of Sr.DAA and the statutory
reservation of 7% in favour of Scheduled Castes, 3 (three) posts are required to
be reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.

10. He submits that only one Scheduled Caste candidate, namely, Shri Gopal
Harijan, whose name appears at Sl. No. 24 in the gradation list, has been

Page No.# 7/12
promoted to the post of Sr.DAA, whereas, as per the applicable reservation
policy and roster, the remaining 2 (two) reserved posts are also required to be
filled up by eligible candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category.
Therefore, non-filling up of the reserved posts and the consequent non-
consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sr.DAA are in
violation of the provisions of the Act of 1978. Accordingly, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sr.DAA by giving
due effect to the provisions of the Act of 1978 and the applicable Rules and by
following the prescribed reservation policy and roster.

11. In support of his submission, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the
petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , reported in (2006) 6 SCC 430 , to
project that in the event of any conflict between the percentage of reservation
and the roster, the former shall prevail.
12. Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned State Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5,
submits that Shri Ashok Kr. Das , who belongs to the Scheduled Caste
category, was promoted to the post of District Administrative Supervisory
Assistant vide Office Order dated 02.04.2025. Thereafter, Shri Prakash
Sutradhar , who also belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, was promoted
to the post of Senior District Administrative Assistant vide Office Order dated
09.06.2025.
13. Learned State Counsel further submits that although Shri Homeswar
Deka belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, he was not appointed as Junior
Assistant, now re-designated as Jr.DAA, against a post reserved for the

Page No.# 8/12
Scheduled Caste category. His appointment was made under the establishment
vide order dated 10.05.1995. Accordingly, when he was subsequently promoted
to the post of Senior Assistant, now re-designated as Sr.DAA, his promotion was
made against the Unreserved (UR) category , pursuant to the Minutes dated
08.06.2012, relating to the promotion order issued vide dated 13.07.2025.
Consequently, Sri Homeswar Deka was rightly adjusted against Roster Point
Sl. No. 21 , earmarked for the OBC/MOBC (UR) category, in terms of the roster
register prepared in the year 2014. Therefore, he submits that the contention of
the petitioner that the reservation roster was not duly followed is misconceived.
14. Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, submits that the
respondent No. 6 has been promoted as a general category in the vacant post
of Shri Homeswar Deka, who is a Scheduled Caste candidate and promoted on
st
its own merit and has retired on the 21 post in the roster point. Accordingly,
respondent No. 6 was promoted against the said vacancy as a general category
candidate and not against any post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.
Therefore, he submits that the promotion of respondent No. 6 is in consonance
with the applicable reservation policy and the roster maintained by the State
and as such, the petitioner cannot claim the post in which the respondent No. 6
has been promoted as the same is not a post reserved for the Scheduled Caste
candidate.

15. In support of his submissions, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 6, has relied on a judgment of Hon’le Supreme Court in the case
of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission &
Ors. , reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785 , to project that if the number of
Scheduled Caste candidate who by their own merit got selected to open

Page No.# 9/12
competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved
for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for Scheduled
Castes candidates has been filled and the entire reservation quota would be
intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition
category.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the other respondents, namely, Mr. R.
Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, and Mr. A. R.
Tahbildar, learned counsel appearing for proforma respondent Nos. 7 to 11,
have adopted the submissions advanced and the stand taken by Mr. C. K. S.
Baruah, learned State Counsel, and Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel for
respondent No. 6.

17. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the materials available on record.

18. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community who was initially
appointed to a Grade-IV post and was thereafter appointed to a Grade-III post
of Junior Assistant, now re-designated as Junior DAA, pursuant to the orders
passed by this Court in the earlier round of writ proceedings. The Assam
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services
and Posts) Act, 1978, inter alia, provides 7% reservation for candidate
belonging to Scheduled Castes and the establishment having vacancy should be
filled up by promotion by maintaining roster to that effect. In the present case,
the roster register maintained in respect of the Grade-III employees under the
amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, indicates a

Page No.# 10/12
cadre strength of 42 posts, of which roster points at Sl. Nos. 8, 22 and 36 are
earmarked for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category.

19. As per the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967,
the post of Sr.DAA is to be filled up from amongst the Jr.DAAs having four years
of continuous service in the feeder grade, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.

20. It is not in dispute that by the impugned promotion order, six Jr.DAAs were
promoted to the post of Sr.DAA under Rule 6(3)(5) of the Assam Ministerial
District Establishment Service Rules, 1967. However, the material on record
indicates that against the cadre strength of 42 posts, only 1 (one) Jr.DAA
belonging to the Scheduled Caste category has been promoted to the post of
Sr.DAA, whereas 3 (three) posts in the cadre are earmarked for the Scheduled
Caste category under the applicable roster.

21. As regards the respondent No. 6, it is noticed that she has been promoted
st
in the 21 sloth/post reserved for OBC/MOBC and not to the post reserved for
Scheduled Caste category. The said vacancy arose upon the retirement of Shri
Homeswar Deka, who, though belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, had
not been appointed against a post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category
and, as stated by the respondents, had subsequently been promoted on his own
merit against an unreserved post. Therefore, the mere fact that the post
occupied by respondent No. 6 had earlier been held by a Scheduled Caste
candidate cannot be said to be a post reserved for the Scheduled Caste
category. In other words, the promotion of respondent No. 6 cannot be said to
have been made against a post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.

Page No.# 11/12

22. On perusal of the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the view that the law laid down in the said authorities
are well settled propositions of law which require no consideration as the same
are not relevant at all in the facts and circumstances of the present lis.

23. In the conspectus above, this Court finds that the respondent authorities
have not followed the reservation policy as provided under the Assam Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts)
Act, 1978, and the roster register maintained to that effect, as only 1 (one)
candidate from Scheduled Caste appears to have been promoted out of 42
cadre strength, whereas 3 (three) posts are reserved for Scheduled Caste
candidate. The petitioner, being a senior-most Scheduled Caste candidate in the
grade of Junior DAA and is eligible in terms of the recruitment rules, was
required to have his case considered in accordance with the applicable
reservation policy and roster.

24. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Sr.DAA in
accordance with the provisions of the applicable Rules, the Assam Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts)
Act, 1978, and the roster maintained thereof.

25. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of
the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior DAA with effect from
09.06.2025 in accordance with law and the applicable reservation roster and to

Page No.# 12/12
pass appropriate orders thereon. In the event the petitioner is found entitled to
such promotion, the consequential benefits shall also be extended to him in
accordance with law.

26. The exercise, as directed hereinabove, shall be completed as expeditiously
as possible, but not later than the outer limit of 3 (three) months from today.

27. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Lipak Rime, Private Secretary