SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 712

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kardak Ete, J.
Diptiman Bathari Son Of Sri Daityalal Bathari And Ors. – Petitioners 
Versus
The N C Hills Autonomous Council Haflong Represented By The Principal Secretary And Ors. – Respondents 
Review. Pet. 149 of 2024
Decided On : 17-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, Mr. S Das, Ms S.S.Bora
For the Respondent: Sc, Nchac, Mr. P. N. Sharma, Sc, Ms. R. M. Borah, Sc

A court may exercise its power of review upon the discovery of new, material evidence that was unavailable despite due diligence, if such evidence establishes that an appointment met constitutional selection standards, thereby demonstrating a legal entitlement to remuneration that would have altered the previous decision.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 114 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review of Judgment - Discovery of new and material evidence - Where crucial evidence demonstrating the legality of an appointment process could not be placed before the court earlier despite due diligence, such material constitutes sufficient reason for review of a judgment as it may alter the final outcome. (Paras 21-22)

(B) Service Law - Public Employment - Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Requirement of open selection - Appointments made following proper advertisement and competitive selection processes satisfy constitutional requirements; once such validity is established, employees are entitled to consideration for service benefits and remuneration. (Paras 11, 14, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the release of salaries and regularization of their employment, which was initially denied on the grounds that their appointments were not made through a due process of legal selection. Upon filing a review, the petitioners produced additional official records—including evidence of a public advertisement and a selection process—asserting that these documents were not accessible or known at the time of the initial hearing despite due diligence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the newly produced evidence proved that the appointments were indeed preceded by a formal selection process. Consequently, the previous conclusion that the appointments were completely devoid of due process was found to be a misconception of fact. The court held that the discovery of such material evidence justifies the exercise of its power of review to ensure justice is served.

Issues: The central issues were whether the late discovery of evidence proving a due selection process constitutes a sufficient ground for a review of the previous judgment, and whether the demonstrated compliance with constitutional selection requirements entitles the employees to salary benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: A court is empowered to review its order when there is a discovery of new and important evidentiary material that was not available to the party at the time of the original decision despite reasonable effort. Establishing that a public appointment process complied with constitutional equality principles renders the appointment legal, thereby warranting judicial intervention for the protection of service benefits and entitled remuneration.

Result: Review petition allowed; previous order modified; authorities directed to consider the case for salary payment according to law.

Table of Content
1. overview of initial appointment facts and case procedural history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding discovery of evidence for review. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. assessment of appointment validity against due selection process. (Para 5 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. principles governing judicial review and discovery of new evidence. (Para 21 , 22)
5. final direction for administrative reconsideration of salary. (Para 23 , 24)

ORDER :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. M. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3; and Mr. P. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9. None appears for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 despite service of notice.

2. This is an application praying for review of the order dated 02.08.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 1335/2018, by which the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that no direction could be issued for payment of salary to the petitioners, as their appointments were not made by following the due process of selection in terms of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

3 Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is that the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao, Haflong vide order dated 28.08.2013 appointed the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 temporarily as Graduate Assistant Teachers from the date of their joining in the Scale of Pay of Rs. 5,200/- to Rs. 20,200/- under Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 3,300/- per month with other allowances as admissible under the Rules and posted them at Public English High School, Harangajao and Tuolpui High School, respectively, on regular basis against the vacant posts. Similarly, petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were appointed by the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao, Haflong on 28.08.2013 temporarily as Assistant Teachers in the Intermediate Scale of Pay of Rs. 5,200/- to Rs. 20,200/- under Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,500/- per month with other allowances as admissible under the Rules and posted them at Kharthong M.E. School, Harangajao and Tlangsang M.E. School, Harangajao, respectively, against the vacant sanctioned posts. The petitioner No. 5 was appointed temporarily as a Grade-IV staff at Thakur M.E. School on regular basis from the date of his joining in the Scale of Pay of Rs. 1,660/- to Rs. 15,000/- under Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month against the vacant sanctioned post vide and order dated 28.08.2013. All the appointments were made on the basis of the discussion held on 09.05.2007 in the Office Chamber of the Chief Executive Member of the then N.C. Hills Autonomous Council, Haflong now known as Dima Hasao.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that despite their appointments and joining, they did not receive any salary. Being aggrieved, they have filed the writ petition on 05.03.2018, being WP(C) No. 1335/2018, praying, inter alia, for a direction to the respondents to release their salaries from the date of their respective joining and to regularize their services granting all such service benefits. The petitioners had relied upon their representation dated 08.12.2016 submitted before the Chief Executive Member, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council, Haflong, Dima Hasao, the letter of the Principal Secretary, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council, Haflong dated 06.01.2017 written to the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao, Haflong, and the Resolution No. 15 of the Executive Committee meeting of the N.C. Hills Autonomous Council held on 08.03.2017 pertaining to non-payment of the salaries of the petitioners, wherein the Executive Committee of the N.C. Hills Autonomous Council, Haflong resolved that the Principal Secretary shall take necessary action in consultation with the Additional Director of Education (Hills) and the Inspector of Schools by removing the difficulties and obstacles for payment of their salaries. It was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top