Inter se Seniority of Fixed Pay Appointees Must Be Determined Solely by Merit Selection Position

The Petitioners (Kiran Khaklary and Baburam Basumatary) and Private Respondents No. 7 & 8 (Biswanath Wary and Mina Barman) were selected through a Central Selection Board (CSB) process and appointed as Junior Assistants on a fixed-pay basis in February 2011

The Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) issued guidelines on 05.09.2011 stating that inter se seniority of such fixed-pay employees must be determined by their merit list position

Initially, the authorities regularized Respondents 7 & 8 ahead of the Petitioners, leading to a prior litigation where the High Court (in 2017) directed the preparation of a fresh gradation list based on the 05.09.2011 guidelines

Consequently, a list was issued on 08.11.2017 placing Petitioners higher based on merit

This was challenged by Respondents 7 & 8 in WP(C) 7171/2017, leading the authorities to withdraw the merit-based list and issue a new one on 07.03.2019 based on "date of joining," which pushed the Petitioners below the Respondents

1. Whether the inter se seniority of fixed-pay employees appointed through a selection board should be determined by merit position or by the date of joining.

2. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in deviating from the BTC guidelines dated 05.09.2011 and the specific court directions issued in the previous round of litigation.

The Court applied the administrative guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary, BTC, dated 05.09.2011, specifically Clause II, which mandates that for fixed-pay employees appointed via a selection process, inter se seniority shall be determined based on the merit list prepared by the Board

The Court further relied on the principle of Res Judicata or finality of judgments, noting that the specific method of seniority for these parties had already been adjudicated and directed by a Coordinate Bench of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 2165/2012 vide order dated 08.08.2017

The Court reasoned that the seniority dispute was already settled by the judicial order dated 08.08.2017, which commanded the authorities to follow the 05.09.2011 merit-based guidelines

The General Manager’s subsequent decision in 2019 to re-fix seniority based on the "date of joining" was a violation of both the BTC’s own policy and the Court's mandate

The Court rejected the contention of Respondents 7 & 8 that joining date should prevail, noting that for candidates selected in the same recruitment process, merit rank—not the incidental date of reporting for duty—is the established legal standard for seniority

Consequently, the seniority list dated 08.11.2017, which correctly reflected merit positions (placing Kiran Khaklary at Sl. No. 1 and Mina Barman at Sl. No. 2), was found to be the only legally sustainable list

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 authorities to: (i) regularize the Petitioners' services retrospectively from 31.12.2011 (notionally) to maintain seniority; (ii) consider Petitioners for promotion to Senior Assistant from the date the respondents were promoted; and (iii) set aside the promotions of Respondents 7 & 8 to the extent of re-adjusting them below the Petitioners in the seniority cadre. Compliance was ordered within three months.