### Inter Se Seniority of Appointees Must Be Determined Strictly by Merit List Positions, Not Dates of Joining

The petitioners and respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were selected through a Central Selection Board (CSB) process and appointed as Junior Assistants on a fixed-pay basis in February 2011

On 05.09.2011, the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) issued guidelines stating that the inter-se seniority of fixed-pay employees must be determined based on the merit list prepared by the CSB

Despite this, the authorities regularized respondent Nos. 7 & 8 first.

In a previous round of litigation (WP(C) No. 2165/2012), the High Court directed the preparation of a fresh gradation list strictly per the 2011 guidelines

Consequently, an order dated 07.11.2017 was issued placing the petitioners above the respondents based on merit

This was challenged by the respondents, leading the General Manager to withdraw that list and issue a new one on 07.03.2019, which prioritized seniority based on the date of joining rather than merit

1. Whether the inter-se seniority of employees recruited through a selection board must be determined based on the date of joining or the merit position obtained in the selection process

2. Whether the respondent authorities' order dated 07.03.2019 violated the specific directions issued by the High Court in the earlier judgment dated 08.08.2017

administrative guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary, BTC, dated 05.09.2011 (specifically Clause II), which mandates that for fixed-pay employees appointed through a selection process, inter-se seniority must be determined by the merit list prepared by the Selection Board

The Court further relied on the principle of res judicata/binding precedent regarding its own previous order in WP(C) No. 2165/2012, which had already adjudicated that the 2011 guidelines were the sole criteria for determining this specific seniority

The Court reasoned that once the BTC authorities had established a specific policy in 2011—and that policy was judicially upheld and directed to be implemented by a Coordinate Bench in 2017—the authorities could not unilaterally deviate from it

The respondents' argument that the date of joining should govern seniority was rejected because judicial directions specifically mandated the use of the CSB merit list

The Court found that the 2017 gradation list correctly reflected the merit positions, whereas the 2019 list incorrectly relied on the joining date to place the respondents above the petitioners

The Court noted that any promotions granted to the respondents during the pendency of the dispute were deemed "temporary/adhoc" and could not infringe upon the petitioners' rightful seniority based on merit

It quashed the orders dated 02.08.2018 and 07.03.2019 and restored the merit-based gradation list dated 08.11.2017. The Court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioners with retrospective effect from 31.12.2011 (notionally for seniority purposes) and to consider them for promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant/Upper Division Assistant from the date the respondents were promoted. The promotions of respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were set aside to facilitate this reorganization of the cadre. Compliance was ordered within three months.