WP(C) 333/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.POTSANGBAM [1] Heard Mr. B.K.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the p etitioners and Mr. M.Khataniar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respo ndents. [2] The challenge in this writ petition is against the minutes of t he Selection Committee meeting dated 7.2.2002 (Annexure-E) wherein the Chairman of the Selection Committee i.e., the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Assam, took the view that the guidelines framed by the Government of India, for recruitment under DIET in E.T. Branch of the Education Department have not been accepted by the State of Assam and as such, the decision of the Se lection Committee meeting was kept pending till avenue for promotion was facilit ated. Mr. B.K.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has d rawn my attention to a communication dated 14.9.2000 (Annexure-B) issued by the Director, SCERT, to the Commissioner and Secretary (Education Department) Govern ment of Assam, stating therein that the two writ petitioners being qualified fo r promotion, could be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer in E.T. B ranch of DIET. By another order dated 19.11.2001 (Annexure-C), the Government o f Assam was pleased to constitute a Selection Committee for consideration of pro motion to the post of Lecturer in E.T.Branch of DIET from amongst the qualified technicians in E.T.Branch and this constitution of the Selection Committee was done with clearance and approval of the Department of Personnel (B) and 7.2.2002 was fixed as the date for Selection Committee meeting. [3] On 7.2.2002, the Selection Committee meeting was held in the of fice chamber of the Principal Secretary (Education), with him, as Chairman of th e Committee and the Principal Secretary (Education) was of the opinion that th e guidelines issued by the Government of India for recruitment and cadre ma nagement of the staff under DIET have not been accepted by the State of Assam fo r implementation and therefore, it was not feasible to resort to the guidelines for promotion of the petitioners. The decision of the Selection Committee meet ing was kept pending till the avenue for promotion was facilitated. [4] The aforesaid minutes of the Selection Committee meeting was cha llenged in this writ petition on the ground that the Selection Committee, which was duly constituted by the Government after consulting the Department of Perso nnel, was simply to assess the suitability of the candidates and recommend name s to the Government, if any of the candidates was found suitable, for promotion to the post of Lecturer and applicability and acceptability of the guidelines is sued by the Government of India in this regard, was not the issue before the Sel ection Committee and therefore, the Selection Committee had exceeded its jurisdi ction. Secondly, Mr. B.K.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petit ioners, had drawn my attention to the guidelines issued by the Government of Ind ia in the year 1989, which still holds the field, wherein chapter-wise arrangeme nt has been made on different subjects and topics. For the purpose of recruitme nt, the guidelines have provided at page 97, Annex-12 under the caption Guideli nes Regarding Requirement Procedures, Eligibility Criteria and Cadre Management . Broadly speaking, the guidelines under the aforesaid caption provide that dire ct recruitment is one source of recruitment and promotion within DIET system is another source of recruitment. The procedures for direct recruitment through ope n advertisement is laid down in clause No.3.1.1 whereas the provision for promot ion stipulates that a Selection Committee is to be constituted to consider promo tion to the next higher post, on the basis of merit, and clause 5.6 lays down th e eligibility criteria for a candidate. In the guidelines, clear provisions have been laid down as to how promotion is to be made, as to how Selection Committee is to be constituted and also for determination of the eligibility criteria. [5] On 11.9.2008 and 20.4.2010, this Court directed the Government r espondents to file an affidavit clarifying its position as to whether the guide lines issued by the Government of India is followed in the matter of recruitment /promotion in DIET. This was necessitated because of the stand taken by the then Principal Secretary (Education) in the Selection Committee meeting held on 7.2. 2002. The Commissioner/ Secretary (Education), Government of Assam has filed an affidavit on 21.7.2010 wherein in para no.4 of the affidavit, a categorical sta tement has been made on oath that the Government of India guidelines is followe d as regards the educational qualifications and in other matters like age, the S tate government instructions are followed. It is further stated in the affidavit that at present, there are no rules for promotion of Lecturers of DIET to the n ext higher post/rank. Selective acceptance and application of the guidelines acc ording to the whims and desires of the authority, is not applicable in law. At t his stage, Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the rules for promotion to the post of Lecturers has now been finalized by the Government but the same is yet to be published in the official gazette. It i s not in dispute that in the absence of publication of the rules framed by the S tate Government in the gazette, the same is not enforceable. We are concerned w ith the promotion of the petitioners to the next higher post and therefore, the rules or guidelines which were prevalent at the time of occurring the vacancy wo uld be the relevant rules/guidelines, which would govern the promotion to the ne xt higher post and not the subsequent rules framed by the State Government and this proposition of law has long been settled by the Apex Court and followed inv ariably by this Court. [6] That apart, the entire scheme of the DIET is, admittedly, funded by the Government of India and as such, the Government of India has every righ t to ensure that the schemes/guidelines framed by them with regard to the DIET a re religiously and truthfully implemented by the State Government in terms of th e guidelines and any deviation from the guidelines in the matter of recruitment/ promotion, may have the consequence of blocking further flow of fund. [7] In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, one can conclud e that there is a clear provision in the guidelines for constitution of a Select ion Committee for the purpose of assessing the merit of the candidates for prom otion from a lower post to a higher post and the petitioners, having held the p ost of Technicians with all the requisite qualifications for promotion to the po st of Lecturers, are definitely entitled to be considered for promotion by a Sel ection Committee in terms of the guidelines. The minutes of the Selection Commit tee meeting held on 7.2.2002 is, therefore, not in consonance with the guideline s issued by the Government of India and the opinion expressed by the then Princi pal Secretary (Education), Government of Assam, is contrary to law and the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned proceeding dated 7.2.2002 is hereb y quashed. [8] In the light of the discussions made hereinabove and the finding s recorded by this Court, the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (El ementary), Government of Assam, is directed to constitute a Selection Committee or a Special Selection Committee for the purpose of considering promotion of t he petitioners from the post of Technicians to the post of Lecturer in DIET with in a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this o rder and the Committee so constituted, as directed by this Court, shall make it s recommendation within a period of one month from the date of the constitution. [9] With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petiti on stands allowed.