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) 810

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Kiran Khaklary S/o Santosh Khaklay – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 5688 of 2019, WP (C) No. 7171 of 2017, WP (C) No. 7686 of 2017
Decided On : 29-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : R. Sarma, A. Narzari, R.S. Chauhan

For employees recruited through a formal selection process, inter se seniority must be determined strictly according to merit rank as specified by governing service guidelines, rather than by the date of joining. Administrative departures from this merit-based mandate violate established legal norms.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority - Determination of inter se seniority for fixed pay employees appointed through a selection process - Government guidelines explicitly mandate that seniority be determined based on the merit list prepared by the selection board - Any attempt by authorities to shift the criteria to date of joining is in violation of established guidelines and binding judicial precedents. (Paras 14, 18, 19)

(B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Non-compliance with judicial mandates - Authorities reversed a seniority list that was prepared in accordance with court directions and merit-based guidelines without valid legal reasoning - Such administrative actions that deviate from previously settled legal mandates and guidelines are liable to be set aside. (Paras 16, 17, 23)

Facts of the case:
Employees were engaged on a fixed pay basis following a standard selection process conducted by a competent selection body. Governing guidelines stated that for such employees, inter se seniority must be determined based on their performance in the recruitment merit list. Following earlier judicial intervention, authorities had prepared a seniority list based on merit, but subsequently withdrew it to formulate a list based on the date of joining, resulting in the current challenge to the revised seniority and subsequent promotions.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the authorities are strictly bound by the guidelines stipulating that the merit list from the selection process is the only valid criterion for determining seniority. The administrative decision to prioritize the date of joining was found to be in direct contradiction to the guidelines and the previous court order requiring adherence to those specific stipulations.

Issues: The central issue was whether the inter se seniority of fixed pay employees recruited through a unified selection process should be determined by their merit rank or by their respective dates of joining the service.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recruitment is conducted through a formal selection process, the merit rank obtained therein serves as the objective and equitable indicator for seniority. Authorities cannot bypass mandatory guidelines or ignore previous court directions by unilaterally substituting merit-based seniority with date-of-joining criteria.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside and earlier seniority list restored with consequential directions for regularization and promotion based on the correct seniority positions.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of consolidated seniority dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. examination of seniority guidelines and previous court directions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. seniority of fixed pay appointees must be determined by merit list. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. final directions for seniority correction and retrospective regularization. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. R Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 5688/2019 and for the respondent No. 6 in WP(C) No. 7171/2017 and WP(C) No. 7686/2017. Also heard Mr. R S Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 7171/2017 and WP(C) No. 7686/2017, as well as the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No. 5688/2019. Also heard Ms. BC Moshahary, Learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for the State respondents in all the above noted three writ petitions.

2. The issues, involved in the above noted three writ Petitions, being inter-related, the said three writ petitions were taken up, analogously, for final consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and is being disposed of by the present judgment & Order.

WP(C) No. 7171/2017

3. In WP(C)/7171/2017, the petitioner has presented a challenge to an order dated 08.11.2017, issued by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, Chirang, Kajalgaon, determining the seniority of the petitioner i.e. Sri. Biswanath Wary, herein, below that of the respondent No. 6 i.e. Sri. Kiran Khaklary. The petitioner has also assailed the gradation list, so published dated 08.11.2017, basing on the said order dated 08.11.2017.

WP(C)/7686/2019

4. In WP(C)/7686/2017, the petitioner has presented a challenge to an order dated 08.11.2017, issued by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, Chirang, Kajalgaon, determining the seniority of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Mina Barman, herein, below that of the respondent No. 6 i.e. Sri. Kiran Khaklary. The petitioner has also assailed the gradation list, so published dated 08.11.2017, basing on the said order dated 08.11.2017.

WP(C)/5688/2019

5. The writ petition being WP(C)/5688/2019, has been instituted by Sri. Kiran Khaklary and Sri. Baburam Basumatary, inter alia, assailing an order dated 02.08.2018, issued by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, Chirang, Kajalgaon, withdrawing and setting aside the gradation list dated 08.03.2018. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 07.03.2019, wherein, the seniority of the petitioners had been assigned seniority below the respondent No. 7 & 8 (i.e. the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7171/2017 and WP(C) No. 7686/2019).

6. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the facts, requisite for adjudication of the issues, arising in the above noted 3 (Three) writ petitions, is noticed from WP(C)/5688/2019 and the parties to the proceeding are also described, basing on their position, in WP(C)/5688/2019.

7. As projected by the parties to the proceedings in WP(C) No. 5688/2019, the Member Secretary, Central Selection Board, BTC, had, on 05.03.2008, issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up of vacant posts of Junior Assistant/Lower Division Assistant, lying vacant in various establishments, under the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). The petitioners, as well as the respondent No. 7 & 8, having satisfied the eligibility criterias, as set out in the said advertisement, proceeded to submit their respective applications, in pursuance to the said advertisement. Thereafter, the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos. 7 & 8, had participated in a Selection Process, and on conclusion of the said selection process, the petitioners along with respondent No. 7 & 8, came to be engaged as Junior Assistant/Lower Division Assistant, however, on a fixed pay basis of Rs. 5200/-, (Rupees Five Thousand Two Hundred) only, vide issuance of an order dated 2

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