ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Issue notice making it returnable on 11.09.2025. 2. Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and accepts notice. 3. As the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are duly represented, extra copies of the writ petition be served upon them during the course of the day. 4. As regards the Respondent No.7, this court directs the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners to serve an extra copy upon Mr. H. K. Das, the learned standing counsel of the Gauhati High Court so that the service could be effected upon the Respondent No.7 through the Respondent No.5 in whose establishment the Respondent No.7 is presently working and the Registry is further directed to submit a report in regard thereto. 5. As regards the Respondent No.8, this Court is not inclined to issue notice. 6. The case of the petitioners herein is that in view of the vacancy arisen in respect to two posts of Senior Administrative Assistant in the Establishment of the Respondent No.5, the six Petitioners along with three others were called for an interview to be held on 31.07.2025 at 3:30 P.M. 7. Pursuant thereto, on 01.08.2025, on the basis of a resolution adopted by the Selection Committee of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Establishment, Hailakandi, one Smti Supriya Chakraborty and the Respondent No.7 herein were promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant in the said establishment. The petitioners herein have not assailed the promotion of Smti. Supriya Chakraborty on the ground that she is the senior most amongst the Junior Administrative Assistants and was rightfully promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant. 8. The grievance of the Petitioners herein is that the Respondent No.7 who is the junior most amongst the candidates who were asked to participate in the interview on 31.07.2025 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that in terms with Rule 6(3) of the Assam Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987, (for short, ‘the Rules of 1987), the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum- merit and as such, the learned counsel submitted that the seniority would have primacy subject to having the minimum eligibility. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that in terms with Rule 6(3) of the Assam Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987, (for short, ‘the Rules of 1987), the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum- merit and as such, the learned counsel submitted that the seniority would have primacy subject to having the minimum eligibility. 9. The instant writ petition was taken up by this Court on 20.08.2025 and this Court directed Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel for the Gauhati High Court to obtain the scanned copy of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 31.07.2025 on the basis of which the Respondent No.7 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel has placed before this Court the various Minutes of the Meetings of the selection committee held on 24.07.2025, 25.07.2025 as well as 31.07.2025. The learned Standing counsel have also placed before this Court the marks which were given by the interviewer and the cumulative marks obtained by each of the candidate who participated in the said interview process. 10. From the Minutes of the Meeting of the selection committee held on 24.07.2025, it is seen that the selection committee taking into account the vacancy having arisen in respect to two posts of the Senior Administrative Assistant directed the Head Administrative Officer of the Establishment to prepare a select list of eligible candidates amongst the staff in the Establishment who are fit for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant as per Rule and to submit the list along with the Service Books and ACRs of the eligible candidates before the selection committee in the next date fixed for the meeting, i.e. on 25.07.2025. 11. On 25.07.2025, a resolution was adopted by the selection committee wherein it was resolved that on 31.07.2025 at 3:30 P.M., interview of the eligible candidates would be held. The Resolution No.2 in the said Minutes of the Meeting being relevant is reproduced herein under. “ Resolution No.2: It is further resolved that each interviewer will assign marks out of total 10 for ACR and total 10 for interview. It is also resolved that the total qualifying marks shall be 30% of the total marks i.e. 60.” 12. The Resolution No.2 in the said Minutes of the Meeting being relevant is reproduced herein under. “ Resolution No.2: It is further resolved that each interviewer will assign marks out of total 10 for ACR and total 10 for interview. It is also resolved that the total qualifying marks shall be 30% of the total marks i.e. 60.” 12. From the above quoted Resolution No.2, it would be seen that it was resolved that each interviewer will assign marks out of 10 for ACR and 10 for interview. It was also resolved that the total qualifying marks shall be 30% of the total marks, i.e. 60, meaning thereby that for a candidate to qualify, he or she has to secure 18 marks out of 60. 13. This Court further takes note of that the interview process was carried out by the selection committee and it is seen that out of the nine candidates who were eligible to be considered for promotion, only eight have participated in the selection proceedings. The Petitioner No.4 did not participate in the said selection proceedings. Be that as it may, the marks which have been given by the selection committee, on the basis of the resolution adopted on 25.07.2025 is provided to this Court by the learned standing counsel of the Gauhati High Court. The marks so obtained in the interview and the ACR (combined) for the two vacant posts of the Senior Administrative Assistant are mentioned herein under. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :::::::::::: HAILAKANDI TOTAL MARKS OBTAINED BY CANDIDATES IN INTERVIEW AND ACR (COMBINED) FOR 2 (TWO) VACANT POSTS OF SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Sl. No. Name Total Marks Given by (Interviewer 1 + Interviewer 2 + Interviewer 3) out of 30 in ACR Total Marks Given by (Interviewer 1 + Interviewer 2 + Interviewer 3) out of 30 in Interview Total Marks Obtained (Marks obtained in interview + Marks Obtained in ACR for last 5 years) out of 60 1 Smti Supriya Chakraborty, J.A.A. 18 28 46 2 Smti. Dulana Barman, J.A.A. 15 14 29 3 Shri Rajdip Sarma, J.A.A. 27 18 45 4 Shri Rajesh Pandey, J.A.A. 21 20 41 5 Sri K. Rajib Kumar Singha, J.A.A. - - - 6 Sri Tamojit Barman, J.A.A. 27 18 45 7 Sri Sukanta Das, J.A.A. 18 12 30 8 Sri Qusar Ahmed Laskar, J.A.A. 21 20 41 9 Sri Sandip Chakraborty, J.A.A 30 18 48 14. From the above quoted evaluation sheet so prepared by the selection committee of the Respondent No.5, it transpires that all the candidates except the Petitioner No.4 who did not participate secured more than 18 marks and therefore had the minimum qualifying marks. 15. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the impugned Minutes of the Meeting dated 31.07.2025. From a perusal of the impugned Minutes dated 31.07.2025, it is seen that the selection committee had selected Smti. Supriya Chakraborty as well as the Respondent No.7 on the basis of having secured the highest marks. 16. This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of, B. V. Sivaiah and Others Vs. K. Addanki Babu and Others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 wherein the Supreme Court in unambiguous terms explained the concept of seniority- cum-merit. Paragraph No.18 of the said judgment, being relevant is reproduced herein under. “ 18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of “seniority-cum-merit” in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of performance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.” 17. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta Vs. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta Vs. The High Court of Gujarat and Others reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 972 , wherein the Supreme Court while distinguishing the principles of merit-cum-seniority as well as seniority-cum-merit held that when a promotion is based upon the criteria of seniority-cum-merit, the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority alone subject to having the minimum requisite merit and suitability of the candidate amongst the eligible persons. 18. In the instant case, it would be seen that the selection committee while promoting the Respondent No.7 have adopted a criteria which is contrary to the Rules of 1987 inasmuch as when the minimum qualifying marks have been fixed as 30% out of 60 marks, which would be 18 marks, the Respondent No.5 had promoted the Respondent No.7 merely on the basis of merit. 19. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 by which the Respondent No.7 has been promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant is required to be stayed till the next date. 20. Accordingly, the Order No.58 dated 01.08.2025 by which the Respondent No.7 was promoted to the post of Senior Administrative Assistant as well as all consequential orders passed on the basis thereof which relates to respondent No.7 are stayed till the next date. 21. The scanned copy of the records so produced by Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel is kept on record and marked with the letter X. 22. List accordingly.