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) 15784

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

State rules in public recruitment that discriminate against citizens based on their specific place of residence or source of nomination within the state are arbitrary and violate constitutional guarantees of equality, unless such requirements are established by valid Parliamentary law.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 - Assam Land Records Subordinate Service Rules, 2023 - Rule 5(1A) - Exclusion of candidates from recruitment based on source of nomination for training - Validity of classification - Petitioners challenged exclusion of candidates nominated by autonomous councils from one-time recruitment measure, contending it as discriminatory and lacking rational nexus - State defended exclusion on grounds of administrative autonomy of regions - Court held classification based on place of residence and source of nomination violates Articles 14 and 16 - Classification must satisfy twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus - Exclusion failed both tests as it did not serve objective of utilizing proficient trained candidates. (Paras 3, 14, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 39, 40)

(B) Service Law - Recruitment - Constitutional validity of service rules - State cannot discriminate against citizens in employment based on place of residence within the country - Parliament alone possesses the power to prescribe residence as a condition for employment under specific law - State rules imposing such requirements are unconstitutional. (Paras 31, 33, 34, 36, 40)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, having successfully completed mandatory training for the position of revenue officials, challenged an amendment to service rules that created a one-time recruitment opportunity for similarly trained candidates. The amendment excluded from participation those candidates who had been nominated for training by autonomous territorial councils, despite those individuals being residents of the same state and having completed identical training.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the exclusion imposed by the amendment to be arbitrary and lacking any rational nexus with the stated objective of employing proficient candidates. It emphasized that residents of the state, regardless of the territorial council under which they reside, cannot be discriminated against in matters of public employment solely due to their place of residence or the authority that nominated them for training.

Issues: Whether the exclusion of candidates nominated by autonomous territorial councils from a one-time recruitment process, based solely on their geographic or council-based nomination, violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination in public employment.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification in public employment based on the place of residence or source of nomination fails the tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Without explicit legislative backing under Article 16(3), a rule imposing residence-based restrictions is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights to equality of opportunity in state employment.

Result: Amendment rule struck down as unconstitutional and writ petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. the exclusionary criteria in the recruitment rules for the land records assistant post. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 12 , 13)
2. violation of constitutional equality and non-discrimination provisions regarding employment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. state defense of administrative classification based on sixth schedule area recruitment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. application of intelligible differentia and rational nexus tests in service rule amendments. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. constitutional prohibition against discrimination in public employment based on residence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
6. striking down discriminatory rule provisions and directing inclusion for recruitment. (Para 40 , 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

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