JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. - The extraordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by the petitioners who have put to challenge a process of promotion to the ranks of Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent as published vide an order dated 11.04.2018. 2. The principal ground of challenge in the aforesaid recruitment process is that the Rules holding the field, viz, The Assam Nursing Service Rules, 1991 (for short 1991 Rules) have been totally overlooked by which grave prejudice and legal injury have been caused to the petitioners. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is an association of the graduate nurses of Assam, namely, All Assam Graduate Nurses' Association (for short Association) and the petitioner no. 2 is the General Secretary of the petitioner no. 1-Association. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that to be eligible to be recruited as Staff Nurse, which is the entry cadre under the aforesaid 1991 Rules, two streams are available, namely, B.Sc. Nursing and GNM. Since the academic qualification of the graduate nurses is higher, higher grade pay is provided to them. However, once they merge into the cadre of Staff Nurse, candidates from both the streams become eligible for promotion to the next higher posts of Ward Sister/Tutor/Public Health Nurse Tutor depending on the criteria provided in the 1991 Rules. It may be mentioned that while Staff Nurses, who come from the stream of GNM can be promoted only to the post of Ward Sister which is essentially meant for services to be rendered in the hospitals in the clinical side, those Staff Nurses, who had entered into the service being graduate nurses have the option to be promoted in any of the three available options of Ward Sister/Tutor/Public Health Nurse Tutor. The members of the petitioners Association are holding the posts in the said cadre of Tutor/Public Health Nurse Tutor. 5. A promotional exercise to the next higher cadre of Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent was carried on and as per Rule 22 of the 1991 Rules, a common Gradation List has to be prepared from the Ward Sister/Tutor/Public Health Nurse Tutor and the promotion has to be made to the three posts of Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent. A promotional exercise to the next higher cadre of Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent was carried on and as per Rule 22 of the 1991 Rules, a common Gradation List has to be prepared from the Ward Sister/Tutor/Public Health Nurse Tutor and the promotion has to be made to the three posts of Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent. However, it appears that two Gradation Lists were prepared on the broad category of Tutors and Ward Sisters. In the ensuing promotions made, all the posts were filled-up by candidates who were working as Ward Sisters and none of the members of the petitioners Association, who were working as Tutors/Public Health Nurse Tutors have been considered for promotion. The reason behind appears to be creation of two gradation lists and consideration of the candidates belonging to the gradation list of Ward Sisters only. 6. I have heard Shri UK Nair, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri DP Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department. Shri R De, learned counsel is present for the private respondent nos. 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60 and 61. 7. At this stage, Shri Nair, learned Senior Counsel has referred to an order dated 25.11.2019 whereby this Court had held the service upon the private respondents is complete in view of the paper publications made in 'The Assam Tribune' and the 'Assamiya Pratidin' in its respective issues dated 14.11.2019. Such publication was directed to be made by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2919. 8. The learned Senior Counsel by referring to the 1991 Rules, more specifically, Rule 22 thereof, has submitted that the condition precedent of having one gradation list has been admittedly violated which is apparent from the pleaded case of the respondent-Department. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 04.02.2020 filed by the respondent no. 4, Mr. Nair has submitted that in paragraph 9 thereof, there is a clear admission that two gradation lists were prepared; one gradation list consisting of the nursing personnel serving in the academic side and the other consisting of nursing personnel serving in the clinical/administrative side. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 04.02.2020 filed by the respondent no. 4, Mr. Nair has submitted that in paragraph 9 thereof, there is a clear admission that two gradation lists were prepared; one gradation list consisting of the nursing personnel serving in the academic side and the other consisting of nursing personnel serving in the clinical/administrative side. It has further been submitted that the pleadings in the affidavitin-opposition are wholly inconsistent with the minutes of the Promotion Committee meeting dated 11.12.2017. It is submitted that though the minutes pertaining to Assistant Nursing Superintendent which is relevant to the present case appears to be in order, the consequential action taken to publish the impugned order dated 11.04.2018 is not at all consistent with the said minutes and rather, the same appears to be in accordance with the pleaded case of the respondents. It is submitted that when the basis of the promotional exercise was not in accordance with law, such consequential action is liable to be interfered with. 9. Shri Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, however, submits that the object in publishing the order dated 11.04.2018 was to look into the needs of those Ward Sisters working in the clinical side whose promotional avenues was restricted, whereas candidates like that of the members of the petitioners Association have the avenue of being promoted both in the clinical side as well as in the academic side. 10. Shri R De, learned counsel for the private respondents as indicated above, submits that there is no allegation against his clients of not being qualified to hold the higher post and the allegation is a general one which involves the compliance of the Rules of 1991 and, therefore, the promotion may not be interfered with. He further submits that in pursuance to the order dated 11.04.2018, his clients had duly joined their respective posts and out of 30 respondents, whom he represents, 10 of them have already been retired. 11. The rival submissions of the learned counsel of the parties have been duly considered and the pleadings and materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 12. The issue is not with regard to having the eligibility to be promoted to the next higher posts of Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent but the conditions precedent, which were required to be met before initiating such promotional exercise. 12. The issue is not with regard to having the eligibility to be promoted to the next higher posts of Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent but the conditions precedent, which were required to be met before initiating such promotional exercise. It is the admitted fact that two Gradation Lists were prepared instead of one as contemplated by Rule 22 of 1991 Rules and it is from the Gradation List of Ward Sisters alone that the candidates were considered and promoted to the 71 numbers of vacancies in the said posts. Such non-fulfilment of the basic requirement has not only deprived the members of the petitioners Association from a fair consideration but appears to be in utter violation of the Rules holding the fields. 13. This Court also finds force in the submission of Shri Nair, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the minutes of the meeting dated 11.12.2017 is not consistent with the pleaded case of the respondents as found in the affidavit-in-opposition dated 04.02.2020. While the notings made in the said minutes appears to be in consonance with the 1991 Rules, the action taken does not appear to be in terms of the said minutes wherein a contrary view has been expressed in the affidavit-in-opposition. Further, it is strange to note that while the averments in the affidavit-in-opposition are based on the said minutes and essentially being the matters of records, those have been verified to be true to the knowledge of the deponent. No doubt, the deponent was a part of the Promotion Committee, the minutes being a part of the records, the averments could not have been verified as being true to the knowledge, more so when there appears to be clear consistencies between the pleaded case and the said minutes. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not have any other option but to interfere with the impugned exercise which had culminated in the impugned order dated 11.04.2018. Accordingly, the entire promotional exercise pertaining to Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent undertaken on the basis of two Gradation Lists culminating in the order dated 11.04.2018 is interfered with and set aside. Consequently, the Department has to carry out a fresh promotion exercise by strictly adhering to the provisions of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, the entire promotional exercise pertaining to Assistant Matron/Assistant Nursing Superintendent/Deputy Nursing Superintendent undertaken on the basis of two Gradation Lists culminating in the order dated 11.04.2018 is interfered with and set aside. Consequently, the Department has to carry out a fresh promotion exercise by strictly adhering to the provisions of the 1991 Act. At this stage, it is observed that since the private respondents, who are beneficiary of a faulty promotional exercise and are serving in a higher posts, no recovery should be made from them. The same direction would also be applicable to those of the private respondents, who have retired on superannuation in the meantime. The fresh promotional exercise may be carried out and completed within a time bound frame, preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.