JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. UK Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Also heard Mr. A Chakraborthy, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly noted. The petitioner was appointed on a monthly fixed pay of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred) only w.e.f. 01.12.1992 vide Order No.64 dated 17.11.1992 (Annexure-A). He was thereafter temporarily appointed as Sweeper and attached to the District Judge’s Office at Lakhimpur on a fixed monthly pay of Rs.1560/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred and sixty) only vide Order dated 22.5.2000 (Annexure-B) with immediate effect. The factual position is that the petitioner’s wages were enhanced from time to time and he was assigned with several duties by separate orders and is working till date. 3. That vide advertisement dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure-H), the respondent No.3 invited applications from intending candidates for filling up of four posts of peon in the pay scale of Rs.4560-15,000/- per month under the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post was Class-VIII pass. It was also indicated that the preference would be given to the candidates having experience under the Judicial Department. The petitioner responded to the Advertisement and accordingly, a call letter was issued to him by assigning him Roll No.388 vide Calling letter dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure-1). However, after the selection process was over, the respondent No.3 vide order No. 117/13 dated 05.10.2013 published a panel list of successful candidates for appointment against the four posts of peon by placing ten names in the said list. The petitioner did not find himself amongst the list of candidates who were empanelled and being aggrieved, he filed WP(C) No.9 of 2014 which is said to be pending as on date. It may be noted that amongst the ten empanelled candidates in the order dated 05.10.2013, four persons have been appointed as peon in so far as the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur is concerned. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that appointments have however been directed to be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that appointments have however been directed to be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 4. The respondent No.3 thereafter vide Advertisement No. 61 dated 24.4.2015 (Annexure-L) advertised another two posts of peon under the same establishment prescribing Class-X/HSLC towards the educational qualification amongst other criterias. The petitioner admittedly has studied only up to Class-IX. Being aggrieved with the said prescription, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 5. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. N Borah, the learned counsel submits that as per the earlier Advertisement dated 26.03.2013, the educational qualification for the post was prescribed as upto Class-VIII standard and therefore, the subsequent Advertisement could not have been issued prescribing the educational qualification of Class-X pass for the same post. Mr. N Borah by referring to the Advertisement issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup dated 12.04.2013, the Advertisement issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat dated 14.2.2015 as well as the Advertisement dated 24.3.2015 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon wherein the educational qualification prescribed for the post of peon are all Class-VIII pass. He also refers to the Advertisement issued by the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari for the post of office peon issued on 01.05.2015 (Annexure-P) which prescribes the minimum educational qualification of Class-VIII pass for the post of office peon. According to him when the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge as well as the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner in other district have prescribed the educational qualification of Class-VIII pass for the post of peon, the establishment of the respondent No.3 could not have made a prescription with a higher qualification. He submits that the same establishment having provided the educational qualification of Class-VIII for appointment to the post in the year 2013, the same could not have been raised to Class-X pass in the year 2015 and such prescription has been made only to deny the petitioner from participating in the selection process. 5. Mr. N Borah further submits that in terms of the Assam District Courts Employees Service Rules, 2014 (Rules of 2014) which although is yet to be finalized, the educational qualification for the post of peon has been prescribed as Class-VIII pass. 5. Mr. N Borah further submits that in terms of the Assam District Courts Employees Service Rules, 2014 (Rules of 2014) which although is yet to be finalized, the educational qualification for the post of peon has been prescribed as Class-VIII pass. He submits that although the Rules may be at the draft stage, there is no reason as to why the same cannot be adopted to fill up the post in question and moreover, when all other similar establishments have been prescribing similar educational qualification. Mr. N Borah further refers to the Notification dated 30.9.2015 issued by the Registrar General of this Court which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to his reply affidavit to contend that a candidate for appointment to the post of Grade-IV/Group-D in the service of the Gauhati High Court and its outlying Benches must possess the educational qualification of Class-VIII standard and those who have passed HSLC or above would be ineligible to apply for the said post. He submits that the reason for such prescription has clearly been provided in the Notification itself which states that whenever applications are invited for filing up of vacancy in Grade-IV, a large number of applicants including the highly qualified candidates due to unemployment problem apply for such post. While such highly educated persons ultimately do not prefer to perform the menial works which is a part of the work of Grade-IV, there are large number of school drop outs who do not even reach up-to the level of HSLC. While the highly educated persons have the opportunity to get the clerical or other better jobs, the lesser qualified persons stand at the disadvantageous position to apply for such post. To address such situation, the criteria so far as education is concerned has been laid down by the said notification. He therefore submits that while such is the prescription in respect of the higher judiciary, there is no justification in the prescription of Class-X standard as has been mentioned in the impugned Advertisement. 6. Mr. To address such situation, the criteria so far as education is concerned has been laid down by the said notification. He therefore submits that while such is the prescription in respect of the higher judiciary, there is no justification in the prescription of Class-X standard as has been mentioned in the impugned Advertisement. 6. Mr. N Borah further submits that in fact a communication has been made by the Registry of this Court to all concerned in the subordinate judiciary to the effect that the service of those employees who have completed 10 years or more years of service as on 14.08.2015 are to be regularized as a onetime measure by their respective appointing authority in order of their seniority in the establishment concerned subject to availability of vacancy in the Grade-IV post vide communication dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure-2 to the reply affidavit). He submits that while the petitioner has been denied from participating due to the stipulation in the impugned Advertisement, the respondents on the other hand have also denied his regularization despite the instructions dated 31.08.2015. He thus submits that the impugned Advertisement dated 24.04.2015 be interfered with by prescribing the qualification of Class-VIII standard as contained in the draft Rules of 2014 and as has been stipulated in various other establishment of the subordinate Court. On such interference, the past experience of the writ petitioner should also be taken into account to give him preference in the selection process considering the fact that the petitioner has been assigned to singly perform various duties and asked to render his services even on declared holidays. 7. Although the respondent No.1 has not filed affidavit-in-opposition, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 19.5.2016. Representing the said respondents, Mr. UK Nair refers to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition. He submits that as per the Assam District Judge and Sessions Judge Establishment (Ministerial Services) Rules, 1987 (Rules of 1987), promotion to the next higher grade from Grade-IV to Grade-III can be made from amongst the Grade-IV staff under the establishment who possess the educational qualification of HSLC or equivalent and that there is 10% reservation for such category. Furthermore, he submits that under the establishment of subordinate Court in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the educational qualification of HSLC pass has been prescribed. Furthermore, he submits that under the establishment of subordinate Court in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the educational qualification of HSLC pass has been prescribed. He therefore submits that considering this aspect, the Selection Committee for recruitment of peon in the establishment under the respondent No.3 unanimously decided to prescribe the qualification of HSLC or its equivalent. He also submits that although there is no uniformity in so far as the educational qualification prescription is concerned in other establishments which are under High Court as well restriction imposed upon, there is no bar for the establishment of the respondent No.3 in prescribing the educational qualification higher than class-VIII pass. He submits that in fact, the minimum qualification prescribed is also HSLC for the post of peon–I in the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and in so far as the Rules of 2014 is concerned, the same are yet to be finalized and under the facts and circumstances, the prescription of Class-X pass for the post of peon requires no interference. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have also perused the materials available on record. From what can be seen, the point to be considered is as to whether the educational qualification of HSLC pass as stipulated in the Advertisement on 24.04.2015 can be considered to be an appropriate qualification for the post of peon. Respondent No.3 in the previous recruitment process as was advertised on 26.03.2013 for filling up of four post of peon under the same establishment had prescribed the minimum educational qualification of class-VIII pass. There are no notified recruitment rules or service rules which provides the educational qualification for the post of peon in the establishments of the subordinate judiciary in the State. Although the State Government vide notification dated 26.10.1987 had notified the Rules of 1987, the said Rules only provides for the recruitment of LDA and above. As noticed earlier, the Rules of 2014 although covers the post of Grade-IV employees including the post of peon, the same has not been finalized. 9. Although the State Government vide notification dated 26.10.1987 had notified the Rules of 1987, the said Rules only provides for the recruitment of LDA and above. As noticed earlier, the Rules of 2014 although covers the post of Grade-IV employees including the post of peon, the same has not been finalized. 9. It is true that the Selection Committee may have the liberty to fix the minimum educational qualification for the post in the absence of notified Rules but however one cannot lose sight of the fact that before the Advertisement prescribing HSLC as educational qualification for the post of peon was issued on 24.04.2015, similar Advertisement was issued on 26.03.2013 for the same post prescribing Class-VIII pass as the educational qualification. Considering the reasons assigned by the respondents concerned including the stand that the Rules of 1987 is required to be taken into consideration, the fact remains that the same could very well have been the considered at the time when the earlier Advertisement was issued on 26.03.2013. As can be seen, the establishment of various District and Sessions Judge in the State on the other hand have been uniformly prescribing the qualification of Class-VIII for the post of peon and in fact, the same was also the case with the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, North Lakhimur as on 26.03.2013. The reason for prescribing such minimum qualification as can be seen from the Notification dated 30.09.2015 issued by the Registry of this Court in so far the Principal Seat as well as the outlying Benches are concerned cannot be ignored as well. Although the Rules of 2014 are yet to be finalized, it can be seen that the stipulation of Class-VIII for the post of peon has clearly been provided. In the absence of a notified Rues for the post of peon, the Rules of 2014 although yet to be finalized can very well be taken into consideration and applied. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 justifying the prescription of HSLC in the Advertisement cannot be accepted. The respondents concerned apparently have failed to take into consideration these aspects while fixing the criteria and publishing the Advertisement. The qualification of HSLC no doubt may not be too high a qualification for the post of peon but nevertheless some semblance of uniformity is required to be maintained. The respondents concerned apparently have failed to take into consideration these aspects while fixing the criteria and publishing the Advertisement. The qualification of HSLC no doubt may not be too high a qualification for the post of peon but nevertheless some semblance of uniformity is required to be maintained. With regard to non-consideration of the writ petitioner by the respondents for regularization of his service, the same in my considered opinion is an issue which needs to be considered separately and not in the instant proceedings and therefore, the same is left open. 10. Having opined thus and under the given facts and circumstances, the educational qualification of Class-10 pass/HSLC for the post of peon as stipulated in the Advertisement dated 24.04.2015 is only untenable and the same is accordingly interfered with. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall now issue a corrigendum to the Advertisement order No. 61 dated 24.04.2015 by providing the educational qualification of Class-VIII pass against the column “required qualification” within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As recruitment for the two posts of peon has been stalled for the last more than two years, the process of selection shall now be carried out expeditiously and completed preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of the corrigendum. 11. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been rendering his service since he was appointed on 17.11.1992 only on casual basis, due preference shall be given to his experience in work as has been mentioned in the Advertisement dated 24.04.2015. The interim order passed on 22.05. 2015 shall stand merged with this order. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No cost.