1. Writ petitioners challenge seniority list; claim seniority over private respondents appointed via subsequent advertisement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1845
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Dipesh Sharma And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam To Be Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, The Department Of Industries, Commerce And Public Enterprise And Ors. – Respondents
Wp(C)/4876 Of 2023, Wp(C)/2357 Of 2022
Decided On : 25-08-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K A Mazumder, Mr. J Laskar,Ms. A Das,Mr E Ahmed
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Borah GA, Assam, Ms. G. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. H. I. Choudhury
For the Petitioner: Mr. K A Mazumder, Mr. J Laskar,Ms. A Das,Mr E Ahmed
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Borah GA, Assam, Ms. G. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. H. I. Choudhury
Seniority for candidates appointed on the same date is determined by their position in the merit list as per specific service rules, overriding general office memorandums or the date of the initial advertisement, provided a combined select list was published.
Headnote:(A) Seniority - Fixation of Inter-se Seniority - Combined Select List - Where candidates are appointed on the same date and a combined select list is published, seniority is determined by the merit position regardless of whether they applied to different advertisements. (Para 26, 27)
(B) Service Rules vs. Office Memorandums - Applicability - Specific service rules prevail over general Office Memorandums (OM) when the OM explicitly states it applies only in the absence of specific rules. (Para 24, 25)
(C) Cadre Entry - Seniority - A person cannot claim seniority prior to the date of being born into the cadre. (Para 28)
Issues: Whether the petitioners, having applied to an earlier advertisement, should be ranked senior to private respondents who applied to a later advertisement but secured higher marks in a combined select list.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners assert seniority based on earlier advertisement; respondents rely on combined select list and higher marks. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Combined select list published; no separate list for earlier advertisement. Seniority determined by merit list under applicable rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Where multiple persons appointed on same date, seniority determined by position in merit list as per Rule 11. (Para 21 , 27 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; pending applications dismissed. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. How is seniority determined when multiple candidates are appointed on the same date under the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967?
Seniority is determined by position in the merit list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner or competent authority. (Para 20 , 21 , 26 , 27 )
7. Does an earlier advertisement confer automatic seniority over candidates selected via a later advertisement?
No, unless a separate select list is published. A combined select list merges both selection processes, and seniority follows merit. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
8. What is the effect of a combined select list on inter-se seniority of candidates from different recruitment drives?
A combined select list indicates a single batch; seniority is based on merit list position, not the date of the advertisement. (Para 23 , 26 , 27 )
9. Can a candidate claim seniority from a date before they were born into the cadre?
No, seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to the candidate's appointment and joining the cadre. (Para 12 , 28 )
10. What is the applicable service rule for determining seniority for Junior Assistant posts under DICC?
The Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 apply, as the post falls under Lower Division Assistant category. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. J. Laskar learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.Borah, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents, Ms. G. Goswami, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondents No. 4 and 5 assisted by Mr.H. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners and the respondents are same. WP(C) No. 2357/2022 has been filed by the petitioners, praying for setting aside and quashing the final gradation list issued on 14.03.2022, whereby the Private Respondents No. 3 and 4 are shown to be senior to the writ petitioners. WP(C) No. 4876/2023 has been filed by the petitioners, praying for a direction for setting aside the impugned seniority-cum-merit list dated 31.07.2020 issued by Respondent No. 3 and praying for a further direction to the State Respondents for fixation of the seniority of the petitioners vis-à-vis the Private Respondents as per the staff pattern dated 01.04.2019 which was prepared by the Respondent No. 3. Both these writ petitions were listed before the Court and were taken up for hearing and disposed of together.
3. The facts essential for deciding the lis between the parties are that both the petitioners and the private respondents submitted their candidature for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant in the Office of the District Industries Commerce Centre, Cachar, Silchar. While the writ petitioners submitted their candidatures in response to the advertisement dated 17.01.2016, whereas the Private Respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted their candidature pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.02.2016. The writ petitioners were declared successful in the written examination as well as in the viva-voce. Similarly, the Private Respondents No. 3 and 4 were also declared successful in the written test and the viva-voce conducted by the State Respondents. Thereafter, by a notice dated 26th February, 2016, the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Cachar Silchar published the roll numbers of the petitioners and the Respondent No. 4 as the candidates who had been selected by the concerned Selection Committee for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, their roll numbers were published with reference to the dates of written test and the practical and oral test, which were shown to have been held on 10.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 respectively. Similarly, insofar as the private respondents were concerned, their roll numbers were published by the said notice with reference to the dates of written test and the practical and oral test, which were shown to have been held on 20.02.2016 and 26.06.2016 respectively. All these four candidates were thereafter appointed as Junior Assistant in the establishment of District Industries and Commerce Centers, Cachar, Silchar by separate appointment orders dated 29th February, 2016. All the appointment orders were issued on the same date. The writ Petitioner No. 2 belongs to OBC category, whereas Writ Petitioner No. 1 belongs to the General Category. Similarly, the Private Respondent No. 4 in WP(C)/4876/2023 was appointed as a General Category whereas the Private Respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition was appointed in the ST(H) category. The merit-cum-seniority of these candidates was also published by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Center, Cachar, Silchar, showing the total marks obtained by each of the candidates. The Private Respondent No. 4 and 5 were placed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, whereas the Writ Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were placed at Serial Nos. 4 and 3 respectively. While the writ Petitioner No. 1 was shown to have secured total marks of 69.65, Writ Petitioner No. 2 had secured a total of 81.65 marks. The total marks secured by the Private Respondents No. 4 and 5 in WP(C) No. 4876/2023 were 87.77 and 83.95 respectively.
4. According to the writ petitioners by a communication dated 30.03.2019,
