Gauhati HC Quashes Baksa Seniority List, Says Age Ranks Same-Day Computer Typists And LDA Staff Appointed Through Separate Selections

The petitioners were appointed as Computer Typists in the Baksa District Judiciary on 6 January 2018, following one recruitment process. The private respondents were appointed on the same date as LDA (Bench Assistant)/LDA-cum-Typist/Copyists, following a separate recruitment process.

In 2024, those posts were redesignated as Junior Administrative Assistant (JAA). After considering objections to a draft gradation list, the District Judge’s office adopted a method of comparing marks from the separate selection processes and issued a final gradation list placing the private respondents above the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the meeting minutes adopting that method and the resulting list.

Rule 12(i) of the Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 provides that seniority in the Lower Division Cadre is determined by date of appointment; where multiple persons are appointed on the same date, their inter se seniority is determined by their positions in the applicable merit list.

The Notification dated 14 October 2020, issued under Article 235 of the Constitution, provides that employees who join earlier rank higher; employees who join together are ranked by their merit positions in the select list; and, “[i]n all other cases,” seniority is determined by date of birth, with the older employee treated as senior.

The petitioners and private respondents had the same appointment and joining dates, but were selected through separate processes for different posts and were not ranked in a common merit list. Rule 12(i)’s same-date merit-list criterion therefore could not determine seniority between the two groups.

The Court held that this situation fell within “all other cases” under Clause (III) of the 2020 Notification, making date of birth the applicable criterion. The office’s approach of comparing selected examination marks was not contemplated by either Rule 12(i) or the Notification. By contrast, seniority within each group could be determined by the relevant merit list under Rule 12(i) read with Clause (II).

It directed the respondents, particularly the District and Sessions Judge, Baksa, to recast the seniority list: Clause (III) of the 14 October 2020 Notification governs seniority between the petitioners and private respondents, while Rule 12(i) read with Clause (II) governs seniority within each group. No order as to costs was made.