Judgment · High Court · 2012

eing disposed of by this common order. I have heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, le arned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.2362/2012. I have also he ard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.1924 /2012 and WP (C) No.2481/2012. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assist ed by Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No.5 and 6 in the said two writ petitions has also been heard. While in WP(C) No.2362/2012, the petitioner, senior most Addl. Chief Eng ineer/Composite Department, has made a grievance in respect of giving charge of the post of Chief Engineer to four of his juniors, in WP(C) No.1924/2012, the g rievance of the petitioner is in respect of the constitution of the selection co mmittee, which according to him, has been constituted in violation of the Assam Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 1978. The grievance raised in WP(C) No.2481/201 2 is in respect of fixation of seniority between the petitioner and the Responde nts No.5 and 6. According to the petitioner, he is senior to the said two respo ndents, but in the gradation list, their positions have not been assigned correc tly. According to the petitioner, the position of the said two posts should hav e been down below in the gradation list as they have been promoted as reserved c ategory candidates with consequential seniority. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior Addl. Advocate General, Assam, by referring t o the notification dated 5.8.2011 issued by the Government of Assam in the Admin istrative Reforms & Training Department submits that irrespective of bifurcation of the aforesaid two wings from the Composite PWD, so far as the management of the cadre is concerned, they will be in common cadre constituted by the officers named in the notification. He further submits that pursuant to such status of C ommon Cadre Controlling Authority, the seniority, promotion, filling up of vacan cies, mobility between the two wings after bifurcation of the Public Works Depar tment will vest on the said Common Cadre Controlling Authority. By the said not ification, a suggestion has also been made to suitably amend the Assam Engineeri ng (PWD) Service Rules, 1978 and the Assam Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1990. On the other hand, Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, by referring to the minutes of the meeting enclosed to the written instructions furnished to him by letter dated 8.6.2012, submits that although the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.2362/2012, is senior in the Composite Department, but after the bifurca tion from the Composite Public Works Department, he is no longer under the contr ol of the PWD, but after bifurcation of PWD into two wings, Building & National Highway Division. However, as noted above, Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Addl. Ad vocate General disputes the same by placing reliance on the aforesaid notificati on dated 5.8.2011. Rule 32 A of the Assam Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 1978, as amended up-to 3 1st March, 2006 provides for placing the matters specified therein to the Chief Secretary of the State. As per the said provision, the Chief Secretary can be a pprised of all important decisions of various departments. Rule 32 A (b) provid es that the Chief Secretary as the head of the administrative machinery of the S tate is responsible and concerned with the entire State administration. His medi ation shall be sought for as far as practicable in all cases where there is diff erence of opinion between the Secretaries. Referring to the above provisions, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior Addl. Advocate General, Assam submits that the matter be referred to the Chief Secretary of the State for an appropriate decision in the matter. While the notification dated 5.8.2011 provides that irrespective of bifurcation of the two wings from the Com posite PWD, they will be under the Common Cadre Control Authority and the said a uthority will determine the seniority/gradation, promotion etc. of the officers Standing Counsel, PWD, of both the wings, but on the other hand, as submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned in view of the bifurcation of PWD into two wings , there is no question of any common cadre and that there will be no transfer fr om one wing to another. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing fo r the petitioner in WP(C) No.2481/2012 and WP(C) No.1924/2012 that the seniority dispute raised in the writ petition requires resolution and that the selection to the post of Chief Engineer should be held as per the provisions of the afores aid Rules of 1978, which also provides for composition of the selection committe e. It is submitted that the composition of the selection committee by the State Government impugned in this proceeding is contrary to the selection committee co ntemplated in the said Rules of 1978. Taking note of all the above aspects of the matters and having regard to the div ergent views expressed by both the wings of the Composite PWD, I feel it appropr iate to accept the submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned senior Addl. Advocate Ge neral, Assam by way of referring the matter to the Chief Secretary of the State for proper resolution of all the disputes raised in this proceeding and referred to above. In view of the above, the matter is referred back to the Chief Secretary of the State for appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a month. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in one of the co unter affidavits filed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Gov. of Assam in t he Public Works Department, it is stated that the constitution of the selection committee is not proper. At this stage, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the Respondents No.5 and 6 submits that the question of backlog quota should also find place in the decis ion. The said submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Needless to say that the Chief Secretary, while deciding the issues involved sha ll also take into account the said aspect of the matter. With the above direction, all the writ petitions are disposed of.