Exclusion of Candidates From Recruitment Based Solely on Territorial Council Domicile Is Unconstitutional and Discriminatory.

The petitioners are residents of various Autonomous Council areas (including BTC and N.C. Hills) who completed the six-month Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) training at the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre between 2017 and 2024.

Historically, RCCC certification was a prerequisite for appointment as Lot Mandals.

In 2023, the State notified new Rules of 2023, which centralized recruitment for Land Records Assistants and made training post-appointment.

To accommodate approximately 400 pre-trained candidates who remained unemployed, the State introduced Rule 5(1A) via the 2025 Amendment, allowing them to appear for a special recruitment as a "one-time measure".

However, the amendment and the subsequent advertisement dated 14.03.2026 explicitly excluded candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Council areas (Sixth Schedule areas).

The petitioners challenged this exclusion as discriminatory.

1. Whether Rule 5(1A) of the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2025, and the consequential recruitment advertisement are unconstitutional for excluding candidates based on their residence or source of nomination from Autonomous Council areas?

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which requires any classification to satisfy the twin tests of "intelligible differentia" and "rational nexus".

Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination in State employment based on place of birth or residence.

Article 16(3) and Article 35(a) of the Constitution of India, which vest the power to prescribe residence-based requirements exclusively in Parliament, not State Legislatures.

Doctrine from A.V.S. Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, establishing that employment in one part of India must be open to citizens of all other parts.

Doctrine from Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, holding residence-based weightage in recruitment unconstitutional.

The Court found that the classification based on the "source of nomination" for training lacked a rational nexus with the objective of the amendment.

The purpose of Rule 5(1A) was to utilize pre-trained RCCC candidates; since the training provided at the government centre was identical for all candidates, excluding those from Autonomous Councils did not advance the State's objective.

The State’s defense—that Autonomous Councils have separate administrative machineries for "transferred subjects" like land revenue—was rejected because the petitioners remain residents of the State of Assam and the posts in question are State cadre posts.

The Court held that according to Article 16(2), no discrimination can be made based on residence unless protected by a Parliamentary law under Article 16(3).

As the exclusion was based on a State Rule, it was deemed "constitutionally suspect" and "absolutely arbitrary".

The Court held that the petitioners, if otherwise eligible, must be allowed to participate in the selection process for the 552 advertised posts; the writ petitions were allowed.