Jyotshna Muchahary And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Anr

Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010003712026

2026:GAU-AS:16407
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/851/2026
JYOTSHNA MUCHAHARY AND ANR
WIFE OF- DIPEN DAIMARY,
RESIDENT OF- VILL- P.O.-JALAGAON, P.S.-SIMLA, DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM
-781373.
2: GUNAJIT DAS
SON OF- SIDDHI RAMDAS

RESIDENT OF- VILL- JALAHALIGURI
P.O.-JALAHGHAT
DIST - BAKSA
ASSAM- 781327
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,DISPUR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M),ASSAM
-781006.
2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
GAUHATI HIGH COURT.
3:THE REGISTRAR (ADMIN)- CUM - IN CHARGE
CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
4:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAKSA
ASSAM-781372.
5:THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Page No.# 2/17
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAKSA
ASSAM-781372
6:SRI KAPIL DAS
JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAKSA
ASSAM-781372.
7:SRI DHARMENDRA DAS
JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAKSA
ASSAM -781372.
8:SRI MINTU TALUKDAR
JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAKSA
ASSAM -781372.
9:SRI HITESH KALITA
JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAKSA
ASSAM- 78137
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Borah, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate
: Ms. S. Sarma, Standing Counsel
· Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 05.11.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of

Page No.# 3/17
the Operative Part of the Judgment : NA

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Mr.
K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate
appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Ms. S. Sarma, the
learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent
Nos. 2 to 5.
2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9.
3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the final
gradation list of the Ministerial Staff, i.e., Junior Administrative
Assistants (hereinafter referred to as “JAA”) in the Office of the
District and Sessions Judge, Baksa at Mushalpur dated 21.11.2024.
BRIEF FACTS
4. The brief facts of the instant case as emerge from the
materials on record are that on 07.09.2015, an Advertisement was
issued by the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In-Charge,
Centralized Recruitment for filling up 397 posts of Computer Typist
in various districts of the State of Assam. For the district of Baksa,

Page No.# 4/17
9 posts were to be filled up. The Petitioners participated pursuant
to the said Advertisement dated 07.09.2015.
5. Pursuant to the said selection, a Notification was issued on
08.06.2017 wherein the Petitioners were selected for the posts of
Computer Typist. The Petitioner No. 1 was at Serial No. 1 amongst
the candidates under the Unreserved category and the Petitioner
No. 2 was at Serial No. 1 amongst the candidates selected under
the OBC category.
6. Subsequent thereto, another Advertisement was issued on
28.08.2017 for filling up various posts of LDA (Bench
Assistant)/LDA-cum-Typist/Copyist in the District Court of Baksa. A
select list was issued on 29.11.2017 wherein the private
Respondents were selected.
7. On 06.01.2018, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as
Computer Typists. On the same date, vide another order dated
06.01.2018, the private Respondents were also appointed. Both
the Petitioners and the private Respondents joined the
establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Baksa on
06.01.2018.
8. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that vide Notification

Page No.# 5/17
dated 16.09.2024, the posts of LDA / Typist / Copyist / Computer
Typist were re-designated as Junior Administrative Assistant (JAA).
Pursuant thereto, a draft gradation list was published on
28.10.2024. Both the Petitioners filed objections to the said draft
gradation list.
9. Subsequent thereto, in the Minutes of the Meeting held on
23.10.2024 in the office chamber of the District and Sessions
Judge, Baksa, it was resolved that the inter se seniority between
the LDA (Bench Assistant)/LDA-cum-Typist/Copyist and Computer
Typist would be decided on the basis of the marks obtained by
them in their respective selection processes. It was further
resolved that insofar as the LDA (Bench Assistant)/LDA-cum-
Typist/Copyist are concerned, the marks obtained in the viva voce
would not be counted, whereas insofar as the Computer Typists
are concerned, the marks obtained in the skill test would not be
counted for ascertaining their respective merit positions in the
select lists so that the inter se seniority between the Petitioners
and the private Respondents could be decided. It is further seen
from the said Minutes of the Meeting that insofar as those selected
pursuant to the select list dated 29.11.2017, i.e., the private
Respondents are concerned, the criteria set out in Serial No. (III)
of the Notification dated 14.10.2020 would be applied.

Page No.# 6/17
10. On the basis of the decision taken in the Minutes of the
Meeting dated 23.10.2024, the final gradation list was prepared on
21.11.2024 whereby the private Respondents were placed above
the Petitioners.
11. The Petitioners, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition before
this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.
505/2025. In the said writ proceeding, the final gradation list dated
21.11.2024 was challenged. However, during the course of the
proceedings, the Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.10.2024 were
produced by the Gauhati High Court. Under such circumstances,
this Court permitted the Petitioners to withdraw the writ petition
with liberty to assail the final gradation list as well as the Minutes
of the Meeting dated 23.10.2024 vide order dated 04.12.2025.
Accordingly, the Petitioners have again approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition on 07.01.2026.
12. This Court issued notice on 16.02.2026 and further observed
that any promotion made on the basis of the impugned gradation
list shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
13. The records reveal that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed
their affidavit-in-opposition thereby supporting the Minutes of the

Page No.# 7/17
Meeting dated 23.10.2024 as well as the final gradation list dated
21.11.2024.
14. The Petitioners also filed an affidavit-in-reply thereby
reiterating and reaffirming the statements made in the writ petition
and denying the various statements and averments made in the
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR
THE PARTIES
15. Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners referring to Rule 12 of the Assam District and Sessions
Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 (for short,
"the Rules of 1987") submitted that the service holders under the
Rules of 1987 are regulated by Rule 12 of the Rules of 1987. The
learned counsel submitted that a perusal of Rule 12(i) of the Rules
of 1987 would show that in the Lower Division Cadre, seniority
shall be determined according to the date of appointment, if the
person joins within 15 days of receipt of the order of appointment.
16. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that where
more than one person is appointed on the same date, their inter
se seniority shall be determined according to their positions in the

Page No.# 8/17
merit list prepared by the District and Sessions Judge as mentioned
in the Note below Clause (a) of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules
of 1987. The learned counsel further submitted that the proviso to
Rule 12(i) of the Rules of 1987 provides that those who have been
directly recruited would be senior to those who have been
promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant and those who
have been promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant would
be senior to those who have been promoted from Grade-IV to the
post of Lower Division Assistant. The learned counsel further
submitted that the said Rule is silent as to what course of action
should be taken wherein selections are carried out separately,
separate appointment orders are issued on the same date and the
persons joining on the same date.
17. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that this
vacuum is filled up by the Notification dated 14.10.2020 inasmuch
as Clause (III) thereof makes it clear that in such circumstances,
the date of birth should be taken into consideration. The learned
counsel further submitted that the impugned Minutes of the
Meeting are completely misconceived inasmuch as the Respondent
Authorities have adopted a criterion which is not only foreign to the
Rules of 1987 and the Notification dated 14.10.2020, but is also
contrary to the said Notification, inasmuch as Clause (III) of the

Page No.# 9/17
Notification duly takes care of the situation arising in the present
case.
18. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, submitted
that this is a fit case wherein this Court should interfere with the
impugned Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.10.2024 as well as the
final gradation list dated 21.11.2024 and issue appropriate
directions for recasting the final gradation list insofar as the cadre
of JAA in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Baksa is
concerned.
19. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati
High Court on the other hand submitted that the Petitioners herein
were appointed as Computer Typists, whereas the private
Respondents were appointed as LDA (Bench Assistant) / LDA-cum-
Typist / Copyist and therefore, the only manner in which their
seniority can be looked into is in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules of
1987, i.e., persons having appointment orders of the same date
and joining on the same date, their seniority have to be as per
their inter se merit in the selection processes.
20. The learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court
referring to Rule 12(i) of the Rules of 1987 further submitted that

Page No.# 10/17
the said provision mandates that inter se seniority shall be
determined according to the positions in the merit list and as such
taking into consideration that for the purpose of selection
processes for Computer Typists and for LDA(Bench Assistant)/LDA-
cum-Typist/Copyist are different insofar as the skill test and viva
voce are concerned, the Respondent Authorities in the Minutes of
the Meeting dated 23.10.2024 decided to take into consideration
only the marks obtained in the written examination and as such,
there appears to be no infirmity in the decision so taken. The
learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the Notification
dated 14.10.2020 has been duly applied insofar as the inter se
merit amongst the private Respondents are concerned.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
21. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties and have perused the materials on record.
22. From the materials on record, it is apparent that pursuant to a
selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 07.09.2015,
the Petitioners herein were selected and the select list was
published vide Notification dated 08.06.2017. It is also seen that
pursuant to another recruitment process initiated after publication

Page No.# 11/17
of the select list dated 08.06.2017, i.e., by way of an advertisement
dated 28.08.2017, the private Respondents were selected vide the
select list dated 29.11.2017.
23. It is of importance to note that the Petitioners herein were
appointed by a separate order dated 06.01.2018 and the private
Respondents were also appointed on the same date, i.e.,
06.01.2018 by a separate order.
24. The Notification dated 16.09.2024 issued under the Orders of
the Governor is of significant relevance as the posts of LDA / Typist
/ Copyist /Computer Typist were re-designated as Junior
Administrative Assistant (JAA). Under such circumstances, the
posts held by the Petitioners as well as the private Respondents
were all re-designated as Junior Administrative Assistant.
25. Rule 12(i) of the Rules of 1987 deals with the aspect of
seniority. Insofar as the Lower Division Cadre is concerned, Rule
12(i) of the Rules of 1987 mandates that seniority shall be
determined according to the date of appointment. In other words,
merely because of the fact that the Petitioners were selected
pursuant to a selection proceeding initiated in 2015 and that their
select list was published even before the Advertisement issued

Page No.# 12/17
pursuant to which the private Respondents participated and were
subsequently selected would have no relevance. The relevant
aspect would be only the date of appointment or the appointment
order.
26. In the instant case, the Petitioners as well as the private
Respondents were appointed by separate orders dated 06.01.2018.
27. A further perusal of Rule 12(i) of the Rules of 1987 would
show that when more than one person are appointed on the same
date, their inter se seniority shall be according to their positions in
the merit list prepared by the District and Sessions Judge as
mentioned in Note below Clause (a) of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 6 of
the Rules of 1987. In other words, what is conceived is when more
than one person is appointed on the same date either by a single
order or separate orders their inter se seniority would be as per
their position in the merit list prepared. It is of importance to note
that a perusal of the Note below Clause (a) of Rule 6(5) of the
Rules of 1987 speaks of one list to be prepared in the order of
merit which shall be valid for one year unless extended.
28. In the instant case, the Petitioners and the private
Respondents were appointed pursuant to two separate and distinct

Page No.# 13/17
selection processes in completely different disciplines, one being
Computer Typist and the other being LDA (Bench Assistant)/LDA-
cum-Typist/Copyist. The Petitioners and the private Respondents,
therefore, cannot be equated or considered to have been
appointed pursuant to a single select list or merit list. Therefore,
the question of adopting the procedure mentioned in Rule 12(i) of
the Rules of 1987 whereby the inter se seniority between the
appointees of the same date are based on their respective
positions in the select list would not arise in the present case.
29. Let this Court now refer to the Notification dated 14.10.2020
which appears to have been issued in exercise of the powers under
Article 235 of the Constitution. In terms with the said Notification,
aspects which were not contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules
of 1987 were sought to be filled up. The reasons for doing so
appears to be on account of the selections were held through a
Centralized Recruitment Cell of the Gauhati High Court rather than
the manner and procedure envisaged under the Rules of 1987. The
Notification dated 14.10.2020, being relevant, is reproduced
hereinunder:
“ THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
NOTIFICATION

Page No.# 14/17
th
No. HC.XXXVII-21/2017/271 /R.Cell Dated Guwahati 14 of October, 2020.
The Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to notify that all LDAs,
Copyists, Typists and Computer Typists working in the subordinate courts of
Assam, who possess the minimum educational qualification under the existing
rules, be treated as equivalent for the purpose of promotion to UDA,
irrespective of whether they were selected through the common/centralized
recruitment process or through the recruitment processes done earlier at the
district level.
The appointing authorities, in the subordinate Court
establishments of Assam, are hereby directed to prepare combined gradation
lists for LDA, Copyists, Typists and Computer Typists working in their
establishments, based on the following criteria:
(I) An employee who has joined the service earlier shall be placed above those
who have joined later.
(II) Inter-se seniority of the employees, who have joined together, shall be
determined by their merit position in the select list and
(III) In all other cases, the inter-se seniority of the employees shall be decided
based on their dates of birth. An employee who is senior in age shall also be
treated as senior in service.
Further, the outcome of the promotional processes which have
been completed till date, shall not be affected by this notification.

Page No.# 15/17
By Order,
(R. Baruah)
Registrar (Admin)-cum
In-Charge, Centralized Recruitment
Memo No. HC.XXXVII-21/2017/271A /R.Cell Dated 14.10.2020”
30. A perusal of the said Notification dated 14.10.2020 would
show that certain semblances of Rule 12(i) of the Rules of 1987
was retained in Clauses (I) and (II) of the Notification. Clause (III),
however, refers to a situation where Clauses (I) and (II) cannot be
applied, i.e., in respect to all other cases which in the opinion of
this Court would include exigencies where persons have been
appointed on the same date and have joined on the same date
pursuant to separate selection processes. In terms with Clause
(III) of the Notification, the date of birth assumes importance.
31. It is the opinion of this Court that taking into consideration
that the Petitioners and private Respondents were selected vide
separate selection proceedings and the criteria for selection being
different; the inter se seniority between the Petitioners and the
private Respondents have to be worked out in terms with Clause
(III) of the Notification dated 14.10.2020.
32. At this stage, this Court would also hasten to clarify that

Page No.# 16/17
insofar as the inter se seniority amongst the private Respondents
are concerned, as they were selected on the basis of a single merit
list, their inter se seniority has to be determined in terms of Rule
12(i) of the Rules of 1987 read with Clause (II) of the Notification
dated 14.10.2020.
33. This Court also finds it pertinent to observe that the modus
adopted by the members present at the Minutes of the Meeting
dated 23.10.2024 to ascertain the inter se seniority between the
Petitioners and the private Respondents is a concept completely
foreign to the Rules of 1987 as well as the Notification dated
14.10.2020. Under such circumstances, the Minutes of the Meeting
cannot be sustained in law.
34. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with
the following observations and directions:
(i) The impugned Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.10.2024 is
hereby set aside and quashed.
(ii) The final gradation list dated 21.11.2024 insofar as the
cadre of Junior Administrative Assistant of the establishment
of the District Judiciary, Baksa is concerned is also set aside
and quashed.

Page No.# 17/17
(iii) The Respondents herein, more particularly the
Respondent No. 4 is directed to recast the inter se seniority in
the cadre of Junior Administrative Assistant in the
establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Baksa in
terms of the observations made in the body of the present
judgment.
(iv) For the sake of clarity, this Court further reiterates that
insofar as the inter se seniority between the Petitioners and
the private Respondents are concerned, Clause (III) of the
Notification dated 14.10.2020 would apply. However, the inter
se seniority between the Petitioners as well as between the
private Respondents are concerned, Rule 12(i) of the Rules of
1987 read with Clause (II) of the Notification dated
14.10.2020 shall apply.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma
Date: 2026.11.10 06:25:24 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant