K. Kani vs The Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and Another

Ranjan Gogol, J.—Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents.

The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Librarian in the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court by an order dated 11th August, 1988. A post of Librarian in the said Bench of the High Court fell vacant with effect from 1.9.1999 and to fill up the same, an advertisement was issued on 28.9.1999. In terms of the aforesaid advertisement, a candidate, seeking appointment to the post of Librarian, was required to have a degree in law with degree/diploma in Library Science. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the aforesaid qualification. A contention has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that by practice the post of Librarian is a promotional post and the aforesaid position has been affirmed in a judgment of this Court in the case of Laishram Randhoni Devi Vs. Gauhati High Court and Others, . Under the rules in force, the qualifications for the post of Librarian are prescribed and the said qualifications are at par with those which have been embodied in the advertisement dated 28.9.1999. Therefore even if this court holds that the post of Librarian is a promotional post, the petitioner is not likely to get any assistance from any such finding as she admittedly does not fulfil the requisite qualifications.

Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit filed by the Registrar General would indicate that several representations filed by the petitioner seeking promotion or for appropriate advancement in her career is pending before the authority. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of Rule 63A of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 which confers on the Hon''ble the Chief Justice the power to relax the age or qualifications for appointment to the services of the High Court in appropriate cases according to his discretion. On the said basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to dispose of the pending representations of the petitioner. The aforesaid suggested course of action is not opposed by Mr. Pathak, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Registry of the High Court. Consequently, this writ petition stands closed and the representations of the petitioner which are stated to be pending be finalised by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The writ petition shall stand closed in terms of the above directions.