Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Pranjit Banik, Son Of Parimal Banik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By The Legal Remembrancer And Secretary To The Government Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Ms. T. Wapangla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.1; Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4; Mr. J. Payeng, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.5. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.6 inspite of service having been effected upon the respondent No.6.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved in the present proceedings by the Gradation List of the staff for the year 2024 in the Office of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon and it is under such circumstances, the said Gradation List has been put to challenge.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The brief facts of the instant case as it appear from the materials on the record is that an advertisement was issued on 13.11.2018 by the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In-charge of Centralised Recruitment, Gauhati High Court for filling up of various posts of LDA/Copyist/Typist in the District Judiciary of Assam. The numbers of posts were duly mentioned in the said advertisement against each district. For the purpose of the present case, i
Seniority in public service should be established by appointment order dates, not joining dates, especially if administrative errors caused discrepancies.
The seniority for promotions in government services must be based on the order of appointment, not merely on merit lists, ensuring compliance with eligibility criteria.
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
Candidates wrongfully excluded from appointments are entitled to notional seniority from the date they should have been appointed, correcting delays caused by administrative latches.
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
