JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and Mr. Hridip Kumar Das, learned standing counsel, Gauhati High Court, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3, 4 & 5. 2. The challenge in the present intra-Court appeal is to a judgment & order, dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)363/2024, dismissing the same and thereby, rejecting the challenge to the advertisement, dated 10.01.2024, issued by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, for recruitment against the post of Chief Administrative Officer. 3. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, vide advertisement, dated 10.01.2024, invited applications for filling-up of a vacant post of Chief Administrative Officer available in his establishment. The advertisement mandated the intending candidate to have the experience of serving as a Sheristader of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, or, as a Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge’s establishment, continuously, for a period of at least 5(five) years. 4. The challenge of the appellant, herein, to the advertisement, dated 10.01.2024, was on the ground that the same did not mandate possession by the intending candidate of a graduate qualification for being eligible to apply against the post of Chief Administrative Officer. 5. The appellant, herein, had further projected that similar advertisements issued for recruitment against the post of Sheristader(now rechristened as Chief Administrative Officer) in various District & Sessions Judges’ establishments in the State of Assam, had mandated that the intending candidate must possess a graduate qualification in addition to other requisite criteria mandated for recruitment to the post of Chief Administrative Officer. 6. At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellant, herein, was, at the relevant point of time, serving as a Sheristader in the establishment of the Assistant District & Sessions Judge, equivalent to the establishment of the Civil Judge(Sr. Division). 7. The recruitment to the post of Sheristader(now rechristened as Chief Administrative Officer) in the establishment of a District & Sessions Judge, is governed by the provisions of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987. 8. Division). 7. The recruitment to the post of Sheristader(now rechristened as Chief Administrative Officer) in the establishment of a District & Sessions Judge, is governed by the provisions of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987. 8. Rule 6(1) of the said Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, lays down the manner of recruitment to the post of Sheristader in a District & Sessions Judge’s establishment. Rule 6 of the said Rule of 1987, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 6. Recruitment to the service shall be made by the appointing authority according to the procedure laid down below- (1) Sheristadar of District & Sessions Judge - By selection from amongst the persons who must have served continuously as Sheristadar of Additional District & Sessions Judge or as Head Assistant.” 9. A perusal of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, would go to reveal that the post of Sheristader(Chief Administrative Officer) is required to be so recruited from amongst the persons who had served continuously as Sheristader in the establishment of Additional District & Sessions Judge, and/or, as a Head Assistant in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge for a period of at least 5(five) years. 10. Admittedly, the appellant, herein, was not holding the post of, either, the Sheristader(Chief Administrative Officer) in the establishment of Additional District & Sessions Judge, and/or, the post of Head Assistant, in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the appellant, herein, cannot be held to be a person fulfilling the eligibility criteria as mandated in the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, for recruitment to the post of Chief Administrative Officer in the establishment of a District & Sessions Judge. 11. The learned Single Judge upon considering the issues arising in the matter and after noticing the provisions of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, relevant to the purpose, had drawn the following conclusions: “ 6. 11. The learned Single Judge upon considering the issues arising in the matter and after noticing the provisions of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, relevant to the purpose, had drawn the following conclusions: “ 6. From a perusal of the above-quoted Rules, it would be seen that for the post of Sheristadar in the District & Sessions Judge which is now re-designated as the post of the Chief Administrative Officer, the feeder cadre to the said posts are those persons, who have served continuously as Sheristadar of the Additional District & Sessions Judge or as Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge Establishment at least for 5(five) years. The petitioner admittedly is not a Sheristadar of the Additional District & Sessions Judge or had worked as a Head Assistant in the District & Sessions Judge Establishment for five years. The petitioner presently as averred in the writ petition is a Sheristadar of the Assistant District & Sessions Judge, which is equivalent to the office of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and, as such, the promotional post of the petitioner would at best be the post of Head Assistant and Sheristadar of the Additional District & Sessions Judge. 7. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein is not a ‘person aggrieved’ to challenge the advertisement dated 10.01.2024. 8. Furthermore, this Court had duly taken note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kumari Vs. the State of Haryana, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 114 , wherein the Supreme Court while taking into consideration that the Draft Rules in the case before the Supreme Court though prepared in the year 1983, but lying in nascent stage since then observed that it was not open to the High Court to invoke the provisions of the Draft Rules. In the present case before this Court, the Draft Rules were made in the year 2018 and till date even after a period of 7(seven) years, the State Government had not made it. Under such circumstances, to apply the provisions of the Draft Rules, which the petitioner, insist would be proper. 9. In the present case before this Court, the Draft Rules were made in the year 2018 and till date even after a period of 7(seven) years, the State Government had not made it. Under such circumstances, to apply the provisions of the Draft Rules, which the petitioner, insist would be proper. 9. Before concluding, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of another submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in respect to other advertisements issued by the other District & Sessions Judges for the post of Sheristadar of the District & Sessions Page No.# 6/6 Judges Establishment, which is re-designated as the post of Chief Administrative Officer, the educational qualification of graduate had been mentioned. It is the opinion of this Court the said aspect does not touch on the present lis, for which, this Court would not like to opine in that regard. 10. Considering the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.” 12. A perusal of the conclusions as drawn by the learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 25.02.2025, in WP(c)363/2024, would go to reveal that that the learned Single Judge, had, for the purpose, by noticing the provisions of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, more particularly, the rule pertaining to the recruitment of Sheristader(Chief Administrative Officer); held that the appellant, herein, not having rendered continuous service against the post of Sheristader in the establishment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, or, against the post of Head Assistant in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, cannot be held to be a ‘person aggrieved’, to make a challenge to the advertisement, dated 10.01.2024. 13. The said conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated 25.02.2025, in WP(c)363/2024, being one so drawn, relying upon the provisions of the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment(Ministerial) Service Rule, 1987, holding the field and also by appreciating the service particulars of the appellant, herein; the same cannot be said to be erroneous. 14. Further, given the admitted position that the appellant, herein, was only serving as a Sheristader in the establishment of the Assistant District & Sessions Judge, he was not eligible for applying against the post of Chief Administrative Officer as advertised vide the advertisement, dated 10.01.2024. 15. 14. Further, given the admitted position that the appellant, herein, was only serving as a Sheristader in the establishment of the Assistant District & Sessions Judge, he was not eligible for applying against the post of Chief Administrative Officer as advertised vide the advertisement, dated 10.01.2024. 15. We, therefore, do not find the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated 25.02.2025, in WP(c)363/2024, to be perverse mandating an interference of the same in the present intra-Court appeal. 16. In view thereof, we are also not persuaded by the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, herein, to take a different view in the matter than that was so taken by the learned Single Judge in the matter. 17. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions; the judgment & order, dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)363/2024, would not mandate any interference from this Court. 18. In view of the above; we are of the considered view that the present intra-Court appeal is bereft of any merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.