Authorities must decide the pending seniority representation by a speaking order, without prejudging its merits.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Jailor on an ad hoc basis under Regulation 3F of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951, on 22 September 1994.

After appearing in a regularisation examination, he was appointed following regular selection on 22 December 2000. His seniority was reckoned from the latter date, placing some employees below him in service above him in the gradation list.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the Inspector General of Prisons to consider his seniority claim after hearing the parties.

Although a hearing was held and the petitioner and other employees signed a letter recording agreement with the authority’s advice, no speaking order setting out the terms or outcome was produced.

The petitioner later sought consideration of his representation dated 16 November 2024, which remained pending.

Whether the petitioner’s period of ad hoc service under Regulation 3F could be counted towards seniority following his regular appointment.

Whether the petitioner’s pending representation dated 16 November 2024 should be considered and disposed of by a speaking order.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue directions to public authorities.

The petitioner’s initial ad hoc appointment was made under Regulation 3F of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951.

The earlier order in WP(C) No. 4932/2012 required the Inspector General of Prisons to consider the seniority claim in light of the communication dated 17 November 2000 and after hearing the concerned parties.

The Court did not decide the substantive rule governing whether ad hoc service counted for seniority; the precedents cited by the parties were recorded but not applied to resolve that question.

The record showed that a hearing had taken place, but the joint letter relied upon by the State did not specify the terms of any settlement or explain how the seniority claim had been determined.

Nor was it followed by a speaking order, despite the earlier direction to consider the claim after hearing the parties.

Because the relief in the present petition was confined to disposal of the 2024 representation, the Court considered it unnecessary to decide whether the petitioner’s ad hoc service should count towards seniority.

It directed the respondent authorities to consider the grievances in the representation dated 16 November 2024 and dispose of it by a speaking order, in accordance with law, within one month of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.