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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15500

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ashutosh Kumar, CJ, Arun Dev Choudhury, J
Sudip Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
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.2026 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.J. Mukherjee, S. Borgohain, B.D. Das, J. Lotha, A.K. Baruah, T. Deuri
For the Respondents: B. Bhuyan, R. Das, R. Borpujari, D. Thaosen

Classification of candidates for state employment based on their regional nomination or place of residence within the state, where such criteria lack a rational nexus to the recruitment objective, violates the constitutional guarantee of equality and the express prohibition against discrimination based on residence or place of birth.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 - Validity of amendment to service rules - Discrimination in public employment based on place of residence - Subordinate service rules amended to allow one-time remedial recruitment for pre-trained candidates - Amendment specifically excluded candidates nominated by territorial autonomous councils - Such exclusion fails the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus - Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination based on residence or place of birth - Classification based on region for nominees of autonomous bodies who are otherwise residents of the same state is constitutionally impermissible. (Paras 14, 15, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners who had undergone a specific vocational training course under the state government, intended for revenue officials, were excluded from a one-time special recruitment process for entry-level government positions. The amendment to the service rules, which introduced this one-time measure for trained candidates, explicitly barred those who were nominated to the training course by regional autonomous territorial councils. The petitioners challenged this exclusion as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, arguing that their regional nomination does not justify their exclusion from state-level employment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the exclusion of candidates based on their source of nomination (regional autonomous bodies) creates a classification that lacks any rational nexus to the objective of the amendment, which was to absorb already trained personnel. The court held that such regional-based discrimination in state employment violates the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity and the specific mandate against discrimination based on residence or place of birth.

Issues: Whether the exclusion of candidates nominated by territorial autonomous councils from a one-time state recruitment process violates the right to equality and the prohibition against discrimination in public employment based on place of residence.

Ratio Decidendi: For a classification to be valid under the Constitution, it must satisfy the twin tests of an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Excluding petitioners from state recruitment solely based on their nomination by autonomous territorial councils fails these tests, as they remain residents of the state and possess the same training proficiency as the included candidates. Discrimination in public employment based strictly on residence or local origin is unconstitutional.

Result: Amendment to the service rules to the extent of the exclusion is struck down as unconstitutional; writ petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of administrative history and recruitment qualification disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. violation of constitutional equality and non-discrimination mandates. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. state defense for the exclusionary one-time remedial measure. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus failed. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. unconstitutional discrimination based on residence under article 16. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. striking down of the exclusionary amendment and rules. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

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 Council, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council, etc., on the ground of the same being arbitrary,

4. 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.

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 for the subordi

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