W.P.(C)(SH) No. 285/2009 Page 1 of 15 - Gauhati High Court

Although the respondents have also taken the plea that the particulartraining course undertaken by the petitioner does not conform to therequirement of the said Rules, but there is only vague and indefinitestand in the counter affidavit to the effect. There is no definite standthat the petitioner is required to undergo further training. In thisconnection, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to AnnexureA/5 letter dated 09.04.2010 annexed to the additional affidavit so as tocontend that the initial duration of 10 weeks trainingwassubsequently enhanced to 36 weeks, but now it has been reduced to 4weeks. He has further submitted that when the petitioner hadundertaken the said training course, there was no requirement ofundertaking 36 weeks training course and the said duration cannot beapplied retrospectively.16. From the above discussions, what has emerged is that thepetitioner conforms to the requirement of the 2006 rules forconsideration for promotion to the grade of SI (VM). The stand of therespondents in their impugned communication and the counteraffidavit is somewhat vague. Admittedly the requirement of 18 yeas ofcontinuous service has been done away with and now as per the newrequirement rules of 2006, the requirement is 10 years of continuousW.P.(C)(SH) No. 285/2009 Page 14 of 15