Exclusion of Autonomous Council Nominees from Statewide Recruitment on Basis of Residence Is Unconstitutional

The petitioners are candidates who successfully completed the Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) training, a prerequisite for the post of Lot Mandal (now Land Records Assistant), between 2017 and 2024 at the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre.

Under the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service Rules, 2023, the recruitment process was centralized, making RCCC training a post-appointment requirement rather than a pre-requisite.

To accommodate approximately 400-700 previously trained but unappointed candidates, the State introduced Rule 5(1A) via the 2025 Amendment.

This "one-time measure" allowed pre-trained candidates to apply for 552 posts but explicitly excluded those nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Councils (e.g., BTC, N.C. Hills).

The petitioners, residents of these Council areas, challenged this exclusion as discriminatory.

1. Whether the exclusion of RCCC-trained candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Councils under Rule 5(1A) of the 2025 Amendment Rules is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 16.

2. Whether a classification based on the source of nomination/residence carries a rational nexus with the objective of the recruitment drive.

The court applied Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India.

The Court relied on the "twin tests" for valid classification: (i) Intelligible Differentia and (ii) Rational Nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination based on residence unless saved by a Parliamentary law under Article 16(3) as established in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Weightage or exclusion based solely on residence in state recruitment is unconstitutional as per Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.

The Court found that the petitioners, despite residing in Autonomous Council areas, remain residents of the State of Assam and underwent the same RCCC training as non-Council candidates.

The State’s justification—that Councils have separate administrative machineries—was rejected because the recruitment in question was for State cadre posts.

The Court reasoned that the objective of the amendment was to utilize a pool of pre-trained candidates to fill vacancies regardless of their nomination source; therefore, excluding Council-nominated candidates had no rational link to this goal.

The Court held that under Article 16(2) and 35(a), only Parliament—not a State Legislature or executive via Rules—can prescribe residence-based requirements for employment.

The exclusion was deemed "absolutely arbitrary" and a "blanket" restriction without justification of merit or administrative necessity.

The Court struck down the 2025 Amendment to Rule 5(1A) and the corresponding advertisement (No. DLR-11013(21)/50/2025/130) to the extent that they excluded candidates from Sixth Schedule/Autonomous Council areas and directed respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process.