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) 902

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, CJ, ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Sri Sudip Bhattacharjee, Son of Ashok Bhattacharjee - 
Versus 
The State of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam – Respondent 
(1) WP(C) NO.143 OF 2026, WP(C) NO.7408 OF 2023, WP(C) NO.693 OF 2025, WP(C) NO.1865 OF 2026, WP(C) NO.2071 OF 2026, WP(C) NO.2071 OF 2026
Decided On : 23-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. B. Bhuyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R. Das, Advocate for BTC, Mr. R. Borpujari, Mr. D. Thaosen, Standing Counsel

State regulations that exclude candidates from public employment based on regional residency or source of nomination violate the constitutional right to equality, as such classifications lack a rational nexus and state authorities lack the legislative power to impose residency-based restrictions on government recruitment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 - Public employment - Equality of opportunity - Writ petition challenging recruitment rules - Exclusion of candidates from specific regional administrative divisions - State rules introduced a classification based on source of nomination for mandatory training - Such classification must meet the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. (Paras 26, 27, 28)

(B) Service Law - Discrimination - Article 16 prohibits discrimination in public employment based on place of birth or residence - Legislative authority - Only the national parliament, through specific law, can prescribe residency requirements for state-level employment - State-level rules attempting to restrict eligibility based on residency or regional nomination are constitutionally invalid. (Paras 29, 31, 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, having completed a mandatory training course required for government service, were excluded from a one-time recruitment drive through an amendment to the service rules. This exclusion applied solely to candidates nominated by specific regional bodies within the state, despite the participants holding professional qualifications identical to those deemed eligible. The petitioners asserted that the rule was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated fundamental constitutional rights regarding equality of opportunity in state service.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the impugned rule created a class of candidates based on their regional residence/nomination, which bore no rational connection to the goal of the recruitment. Since all candidates underwent the same training and were equally qualified, the exclusion was held to be discriminatory and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment in public employment.

Issues: Whether the exclusion of candidates from a recruitment process based on their nomination by specific regional autonomous councils violates the fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination in state employment.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification in recruitment rules must satisfy the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. When the essential qualifications and job requirements are identical, excluding a group based on their place of residence or the authority that nominated them for training is constitutionally prohibited. Discriminatory criteria based on residency for public employment are beyond the competence of state-level rule-making and violate constitutional mandates.

Result: Petitions allowed; the impugned amendment and the recruitment exclusion were declared unconstitutional and struck down.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading to the writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. discriminatory treatment under articles 14, 15, and 16. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. defense of administrative autonomy and one-time remedial measures. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. application of intelligible differentia and rational nexus tests. (Para 26 , 27)
5. prohibition of discrimination based on place of birth or residence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. striking down unconstitutional rules and upholding equal opportunity. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, CJ.

These set of writ petitions have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.143/2026; Mr. S. Borgohain, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.693/2025; Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Lotha, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.1865/2026; Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.2071/2026; Mr. T. Deuri, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.2026/2026; Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned Advocate for BTC; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department; Mr. D. Thaosen, learned Standing Counsel, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council.

3. The petitioners, all of whom have undergone the Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (hereinafter to be referred as “RCCC”) training from the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre of the Government of Assam, under Revenue and Disaster Management Department in various sessions from 2017 to 2024, have questioned the validity of Rule 5(1A) of the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which amends the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service Rules, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2023”), thereby allowing only pre-trained RCCC candidates to appear for recruitment to the entry level post of Land Records Assistant (equivalent to Lot Mandal), as a one-time measure , but explicitly excluding the candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Council areas , like , Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Counci l , N.C. Hills Autonomous Counci l , etc., on the ground of the same being arbitrary, violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and that the amendment, in effect, causes discrimination based on residence or places of birth, despite some of them being non-tribals and not claiming any tribal priority rights.

4. The Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) is a 6(six) months’ training course imparted by the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, which, this Court has been informed, is presently the only Training Institute in the State of Assam for providing training to the aspirants for the posts of Revenue officials and Recorders. This Training Course has been designed with an objective to train the candidates with the duties of Recorders and passing of this Course was considered to be a necessary/pre-requisite for appointment to the posts of Lot Mandals in different districts of Assam.

The petitioners were nominated for training by the respective Autonomous Councils, depending upon their places of residence.

5. It would be relevant here in this context to state that the Government of Assam framed the Rules of 2023, which stood notified on 27.03.2023 and came in to force with effect from 01.04.2023.

6. Prior to the enactment of the Rules of 2023, referred to above, Lot Mandals were appointed by the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys, Assam, as per district-wise vacancies and for all such recruitments, the candidates were required to have a pass certificate of the Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) training.

The Rules of 2023, therefore, centralized the recruitment process as also created the career path fo

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