JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The issue in the present writ petition concerns the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondents No. 7 and 8, in the cadre of Warrant Officer (Personal Assistant) following their re-mustering in the said cadre w.e.f. 19.02.2008. While the two private respondents were re-mustered from the cadre of Havildar/Clerk, the petitioner was re-mustered from the cadre of Rifleman/Operator Radio and Line (ORL), which was a cadre lower in hierarchy than that of the Havildar cadre. As such, at that point of time, the two private respondents were assigned higher seniority than the petitioner in the cadre of Warrant Officer (PA), which was as per Paragraph – 5 of the Assam Rifles Record Office Instruction (ROI) No. 04/2002.

2. The basis of the claim of the writ petitioner to seniority over the private respondents was on his being retrospectively upgraded to the cadre of Havildar (ORL) w.e.f. 09.11.2002, vide order dated 29.05.2017, which was passed in compliance to the common judgment and order of this Court dated 10.03.2017, in a batch of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 322 of 2015, WP(C) No. 49 of 2016, WP(C) No. 295 of 2015 and WP(C) No. 321 of 2015. It is the case of the petitioner therefore, that while the petitioner has been treated to be a Havildar on and from 09.11.2002, the two private respondents were appointed to the said cadre only on 28.11.2005 and 09.01.2006 respectively, and as such, he should be placed at a higher position than the private respondents.

3. Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner to assert his vested right had filed representations dated 05.10.2017, 08.10.2018 and 21.10.2019, seeking to be placed above the private respondents in the gradation list of Warrant Officer (PA), but the prayer was rejected by the authorities, by the impugned letters dated 28.02.2019, 18.06.2019, 10.10.2019 and 21.11.2019, which he contends is in violation of ROI 4/2002, Para – 5. It is further submitted that, the claim for due seniority had been rejected by the respondents, even though his superior/controlling authorities had recommended the same. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to DO letters dated 08.10.2018, 18.10.2018, 25.10.2018 and 08.05.2019 (Annexures – 8, 8A, 8B and 14 respectively), to support this contention. As such he submits, from the clear facts that have been placed, the petitioner has been deprived of his rightful seniority, inasmuch as, the situation cannot be that the private respondents who were not yet borne in service in that grade, be considered senior. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment dated 19.11.2019, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 8833-8835 of 2019 (K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors.) and other two connected matters.

4. Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC for the respondents has submitted that the case of the petitioner was examined on the representations so made, and that the respondents had already granted financial benefits of such upgradation of Havildar (ORL) w.e.f. 09.11.2002 to 07.03.2008, to him, but however, the representation was rejected as the claim for retrospective seniority was devoid of merit. In this context, the learned counsel has referred to the SOP, with regard to Re-musteration of Personnel from one category to another, which outlines the procedure regarding Re-mustering of Personnel from one category to another, an