Adjudication affecting existing service benefits is unsustainable without impleading and hearing all necessary parties.

The private respondent (Parinita Borah) filed a writ petition [WP(C) 4041/2019] claiming seniority and entitlement to provincialisation as an Assistant Professor at Harhi College, alleging she was appointed in 2003, earlier than the appellant (Pratima Chetia), who was appointed in 2005

On 10.09.2021, a learned Single Judge allowed the petition, directing the State to provincialise the respondent and noting that if this affected existing provincialised incumbents, the authorities could pass appropriate orders after hearing them

Crucially, the appellant, whose provincialisation was granted in 2015, was not arrayed as a party to that proceeding

Pursuant to the 2021 judgment, the State issued an order on 20.02.2025 provincialising the respondent and withdrawing the appellant’s provincialisation

The appellant challenged this withdrawal in a subsequent writ [WP(C) 1200/2025], which was dismissed on the grounds that the administrative withdrawal could not be challenged without assailing the foundational 2021 judgment

The appellant then filed the present intra-court appeal against the 2021 judgment.

Whether an adjudication that contemplates the unsettling of an existing provincialisation could be rendered in the absence of the affected incumbents as party respondents

Whether the impugned judgment and subsequent withdrawal of service benefits violated the principles of natural justice

The court primarily relied on the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which dictates that no person shall be condemned unheard

It emphasized that in service matters involving competing entitlements, procedural fairness is a foundational requirement, and any person whose rights are likely to be adversely affected is a "necessary party" to the proceedings

The court also referenced the exercise of judicial review under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, noting that the legitimacy of judicial outcomes rests on both the correctness of conclusions and the fairness of the process

The Court observed that the 2021 judgment was not merely declaratory but carried the inherent potential to divest the appellant of a benefit (provincialisation) she had enjoyed since 2015

By failing to implead the appellant, the writ proceedings determined competing claims to seniority and eligibility in the absence of a necessary party whose rights were directly imperilled

The Court reasoned that even if the Single Judge found merit in the respondent’s claim, the adjudication was vitiated by a fundamental procedural infirmity

The Court held that an order seeking to remedy one alleged illegality (the respondent's non-provincialisation) cannot be sustained if it results in the infraction of basic principles of natural justice against another party

Consequently, the absence of the appellant from the array of parties struck at the root of procedural fairness, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable

The matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication after impleading the appellant and providing her an effective opportunity to be heard

The Court ordered that the status quo regarding the service of both the appellant and respondent be maintained until the final determination of the writ petition

The order dated 20.02.2025, which withdrew the appellant’s provincialisation, was made subject to the final outcome of the remanded writ petition

Writ Appeal No. 176/2025 was closed as withdrawn