[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1752/2025 on 20 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/28
GAHC010065142025
2026:GAU-AS:2625-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1752/2025
1.BISWAJIT DAS,
SON OF LATE DHIRAJ KUMAR DAS,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 20, NANDAN PATH, BISHNURABHA ROAD,
BHETAPARA, GUWAHATI, P.O -BELTOLA, P.S - HATIGAON, KAMRUP
METRO, PIN-781028, ASSAM.
2: KALYAN ARDAO,
SON OF KALIPADA ARDAO,
HAGJER NAGAR, APOLLO ROAD, TOWN RAZI, HAFLONG, PO- HAFLONG
PS- HAFLONG, DIST- DIMA HASAO, PIN 788819
3: ABHINAB SARMA,
SON OF DR. GOPAL SARMA, ,
RESIDENT OF BAGHORBORI, PANJABRI, GUWAHATI, P.O. PANJABARI,
P.S. DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781037.
4: FIROZ AHMED,
SON OF LATE FAIZ ALI,
RESIDENT OF DHIRENPARA, AMTOL, GUWAHATI, P.O. DHIRENPARA,
P.S. FATASHIL AMBARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781025.
5: RONI MD TAWSIF KAMAL,
SON OF ABDUL KHALIQUE,
RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. 1, GROUND FLOOR, SDO BUILDING,
PWD CAMPUS, CHANDMARI, P.O. AND P.S.- CHANDMARI, DIST- KAMRUP
METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781003.
6: ROKTIM GOGOI,
SON OF UMESH CHANDRA GOGOI,
RESIDENT OF JAMIRAH MOTTOCK GAON, P.O- JAMIRAH,
P.S- BARBARUAH, DISTRICT -DIBRUGARH, PIN-786001, ASSAM
7: DARIN BARUAH,
SON OF GOLOK CHANDRA BARUAH,
Page No.# 2/28
RESIDENT OF CHIRING CHAPORI, SANOTSHIMAA LANE,
KHATONIARPARA, P.O. DIBRUGARH, P.S. DIBRUGARH,
DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001.
8: NEHA BORAH,
DAUGHTER OF NABAJYOTI BORAH,
RESIDENT OF RONGDOI GOHAINTIKA GAON, JORHAT, ASSAM.
P. O. RONGDOI CHARIALI, P. S. JORHAT, PIN- 785101.
9: KISHOR KALITA
SON OF LATE GANESH KALITA,
VILLAGE - KATPUHA, P.O. ARIKUCHI, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM,
PIN 781339.
10: SHAYAN PAUL,
SON OF SRI SUDHANGSHU PAUL,
RESIDENT OF VILL AND P.O. AMBARKHANA, P.S. KARIMGANJ,
DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788712.
11: MRINAL BHUYAN,
S/O- MEGH NATH BHUYAN,
KALYAN NAGAR, P.O. NAHARKATIA, P.S. NAHARKATIA,
DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786610.
12: BHIMLAL KONWAR,
SON OF BABUL KONWAR
RESIDENT OF NEAR HOJAI MARKETING WHOLESALE CONSUMERS,
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, ADARSHA BAZAAR, MAIN ROAD,
HOJAI, P.O- HOJAI, P.S.- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782435.
13: SUBHANKAR DAS,
SON OF SANJIB DAS,
RESIDENT OF PEOLINAGAR MORAN, P.O. MORAN, P.S. MORAN, DISTRICT-
DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 785670.
14: KRITIKA LANGTHASA,
DAUGHTER OF LT. ARNODA LANGTHASA,
SAINZA RAJI, HAFLONG, PO- HAFLONG PS- HAFLONG,
DIST- DIMA HASAO, PIN 788819.
15: SUBHAM SEN,
S/O PRADEEP SEN,
R.K. ROAD, BENGALIPATTY, NAGAON, ASSAM, P.O. NAGAON,
P.S. - NAGAON SADAR, PIN- 782001.
16: TAHIR AHMED,
SON OF JASHIM UDDIN LASKAR,
VILLAGE AND PO- RAKHAL KHALER PAR-I, P.S. SILCHAR, CACHAR,
Page No.# 3/28
ASSAM-788025
17: TARALI SAIKIA,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO-346, MOTHER TERESA ROAD, P.O.- ZOO ROAD,
P.S.- GEETANAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO,
ASSAM, PIN- 781024.
18: BHASKAR JYOTI PEGU,
SON OF GOLAP CHANDRA PEGU,
RESIDENT OF - NO1 KACHUTALI, MAHORICAMP, GOGAMUKH, DHEMAJI,
P.O. UKHAMATI, P.S.- GOGAMUKH, DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN- 787056.
19: YEKHYOPA CHOWLIK,
DAUGHTER OF LATE SILLAKHIT CHOWLIK,
POWAIMUKH VILLAGE, P.O. MAKUMKILLA, P.S. MARGHERITA,
DIST- TINSUKIA, PIN- 786187.
20: SUSHANTA SARKAR,
SON OF SURESH CH. SARKAR,
JOYNAGAR, WARD NO. 4, PO AND PS -GOSSAIGAON,
DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR, PIN- 783360.
21: MOON MOON MEDHI,
DAUGHTER OF RAMKRISHNA MEDHI,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.2, SHANTI PATH, FAKHARUDDIN ALI AHMED
NAGAR, PANJABARI ROAD, SIXMILE, P.O.- KHANAPARA, P.S. -DISPUR,
DIST- KAMRUP METRO, PIN-781022
22: DHRUBAJYOTI DAS,
SON OF LATE SUREN CHANDRA DAS,
RESIDENT OF SHREE HARI APARTMENT 1/B, NEAR BHARALUMUKH POST
OFFICE, K.R.B ROAD KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781009.
23: BIJOY SANKAR SAKIA,
S/O HEMKANTA SAIKIA,
ADDRESS CHARIGAON KATHONIARKURI, P.O. CHENGELIGAON,
P.S. JORHAT, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785010.
24: APURBA DAS
SON OF LATE JADAV DAS,
K.K.H. SANSKRIT COLLEGE GATE, PADUMBARI, JALUKBARI,
DIST- KAMRUP (M), PIN 781013.
25: AJOY DOLEY,
SON OF MANIK CHANDRA DOLEY,
RESIDENT OF KUMARBARI, JENGRAIMUKH, P.O- JENGRAIMUKH,
P.S- JENGRAIMUKH, DISTRICT- MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN-785105
Page No.# 4/28
26: AIONDEEP GOGOI,
SON OF NOGEN GOGOI,
RESIDENT OF VILL- BORBHETACHAPORIGAON, P.O- LICHUBARI,
P.S- LICHUBARI, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785008.
27: PROTUL HOJAI,
SON OF JAYPALAL HOJAI,
VILLDIMALIKPUR, P.O.- MAIBANG, P.S.- MAIBANG, PIN-788831,
DISTRICT- DIMA HASAO.
28: ARIHANA GOGOI,
DAUGHTER OF GHANASHYAM GOGOI,
RESIDENT OF TARAJAN, NEAREST LANDMARK - ONGC DISPENSARY, PO.
TARAJAN, P.S.TARAJAN, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM,
PIN-785001
29: HEMANGA SAIKIA,
R/O TOWN NARAYANPUR WARD NO- 01,P.O. DIKRONG,
P.S. NARAYANPUR, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR , PIN- 784164.
30: SAHARUL AHMED,
SON OF MD ABDUL MANIK,
VILLAGE- DEORAIL, P.O.- BADARPUR AND P.S.-BADARPUR,
PIN-788806, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI.
31: BIJOY SANKAR BORAH,
SON OF PRASANTA BORAH,
VILLAGE SONARI, P.O-SONARI, P.S.-SONARI, DISTRICT-CHARAIDEO,
PIN-785690.
........Petitioners
-VERSUS -
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -781006.
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
ESTABLISHMENT-B BRANCH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -781006.
3:SURESH KALITA,
GUWAHATI NH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
4:KHANINDRA KHATANIAR,
GUWAHATI NH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Page No.# 5/28
5:RANJAN MAHANTA,
SIVASAGAR DISTRICT TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
6:MAINUDDIN AHMED,
GOALPARA BUILDING CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
7:NUR AHMED ALI,
DHUBRI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
8:BIRAJ KUMAR MUDIAR,
DISPUR AND GUWAHATI EAST TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
9:NUR AMIN ALI,
KOKRAJHAR BUILDING CIRCLE,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
10:KRISHNA DUTTA,
NAHARKATIA, DULIAJAN, CHABUA BUILDING DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
11:SHANE ALAM,
TEZPUR BUILDING CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
12:BISHNU ARJEL CHETRI,
DIPHU ROAD DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
13:RAJAT KANTI NATH,
OFFICE OF HAFLONG (R AND B) CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
14:ACHYUT KR NATH,
SIPAJHAR AMD KALAIGAON TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
15:PANKAJ DAS,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SONITPUR AND
BISWANATH ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
16:DIJU GOGOI,
JORHAT, DERGAON AND TITABOR RAOD DIVISION.
17:AJIT BARMAN,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NALBARI ROAD CIRCLE,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Page No.# 6/28
18:SANKAR SARMA,
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NALBARI ROAD CIRCLE,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
19:RIJU GOGOI,
DIBRUGARH, LAHOWAL, MORAN AND TINGKHONG TERRITORIAL ROAD
DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
20:MONOWAR HUSSIAN,
SARBHOG AND JANIA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
21:SAIFUDDIN AHMED,
SOUTH KAMRUP TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
22:HEMENDRA BARMAN,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
NALBARI ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
23:KANAK KALITA,
BRAHMAPUTRA BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION-II,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
24:LAKHESWAR THAKURIA,
BARPETA, BAGHBAR AND CHENGA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
25:TIKENDRA CHOUDHURY,
BHAWANIPUR, PATACHARKUCHI AND SARUKHETRI TERRITORIAL ROAD
DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
26:SHAMSUJJAMAN BARLASKAR,
HAILAKANDI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
27:MD NUR ISLAM,
SOUTH SALMARA DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
28:ANUD TAMULI,
NAZIRA AND AMGURI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
29:AJAY KR SARMA,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER, TEZPUR ZONE,
Page No.# 7/28
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
30:BALIN GOGOI,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CHARAIDEO AND
SIVSAGAR ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
31:MD TAZUDDIN AHMED,
BARPETA, BAGHBAR AND CHENGA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
32:CHANDAN CHAKRABORTY,
MUSALPUR R AND B DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
33:KHITABUDDIN AHMED,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BORDER ROADS) AND NEC WORKS,
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT AND ATTACHED TO JALUKBARI
AND HAJO TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
34:DUL MALLA BUZARBARUAH,
RANGIA NH DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
35:RANJIT PATOWARI,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT,
36:DIPAK CH DAS,
NORTH KAMRUP TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT.
37:PRADIP KONWAR,
GOLAGHAT AND KHUMTAI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
38:MAZIDUR RAHMAN,
DHUBRI CIVIL SUB-DIVISION TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
39:JAYANTA KR KHATONIAR,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CHARAIDEO AND
SIVSAGAR ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
40:BHASKAR BORAH
TEZPUR, SOOTEA AND RANGAPARA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
41:MOHIT RANJAN DAS,
SILCHAR AND UDARBAND TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Page No.# 8/28
42:BHUPENDRA NATH DAS,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, ARRANDTI, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
43:SATYENDRA NATH THAKURIA,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS), PUBLIC WORKS ROADS
DEPARTMENT.
44:DHIRAJ SARMA,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BONGAIGAON AND
DHUBRI ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
45:SYED AFROZ AHMED,
ABHYAPURI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
46:ANIRUDDHA BISWAS,
MAHUR ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
47:UCHCHAL KR BHATTACHARJEE,
NAZIRA AND AMGURI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
48:HERAMBA MEDHI,
NORTH KAMRUP TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
49:NIRMALI KAKOTY,
HOJAI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
50:TASMIN AHMED,
TINSUKIA, DOOMDOOMA AND SADIA TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
51:CHINU PHUKAN,
GUWAHATI NH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
52:HITESH SARMA,
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DARRANG ROAD CIRCLE,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
53:GOLAP CH KALITA,
GOALPARA WEST AND JALESWAR TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
54:H M SANOWAR HUSSAIN,
SOUTH SALMARA DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Page No.# 9/28
55:KAILASH PATOARY,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BORDER ROADS AND NEC) WORKS,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
56:NABA KR SARMA,
GUWAHATI NH DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
57:JITENDRA NATH DEKA,
EAST GUWAHATI TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
58:RAJUMONI KOTOKY
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
MORIGAON ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
59:DURLAV GOGOI,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CHARAIDEO AND
SIVSAGAR ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
60:PRABHAKAR MAHANTA,
BAKULIA NH DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
61:MAINU MAHANTA,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BORDER ROADS AND NEC) WORKS,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
62:ANAMUR RAHMAN BARBHUYAN,
KARIMGANJ NORTH, KARIMGANJ SOUTH AND BADARPUR TERRITORIAL
ROAD DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
63:SD ASHADULLAH DEWAN,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BORDER ROADS AND NEC WORKS),
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT.
64:ANIL RANJAN DAS,
RANGIA NH DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
65:MD OSMAN GONI,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER, EASTERN ZONE,
DIBRUGARH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
66:DHIRAJ DUTTA,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
67:RUPAM KAKATI,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, LAKHIMPUR AND MAJULI
Page No.# 10/28
ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
68:DALIM KALITA,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GOALPARA AND SOUTH
SALMARA ROAD CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
69:DEEPJYOTI DEKA,
BHAWANIPUR, PATACHARKUCHI AND SARUKHETRI TERRITORIAL ROAD
DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
70:HIMANGSHU TALUKDAR,
NALBARI NH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
71:ARUNODAY DAS,
HAILAKANDI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
72:AMAL DEKA,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS), PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT AND ATTACHED TO WEST GUWAHATI TERRITORIAL
ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
73:JUNU MONI BORGOHAI,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER, EASTERN ZONE
DIBRUGARH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
74:DIPAK BHARALI,
SOUTH KAMRUP TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION AND ATTACHED TO
JALUKBARI AND HAJO TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION.
75:GAJENDRA BAISHYA,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, ARRANDTI, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
76:BISWAJIT BANIK,
OFFICE OF THE HOJAI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
77:DILIP GOYARY,
MUSALPUR (R AND B) DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
78:PIJUSH KANTI CHOUDHURY,
BORKHOLA AND KATIGORAH TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
79:UTPAL KUMAR KHAKHLARY,
DUDHNOI AND GOALPARA EAST TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Page No.# 11/28
80:BIJOY KUMAR DAS,
NALBARI NH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
81:RAJIB SAIKIA,
GOLAGHAT NH DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
82:BAPUTI DEORI,
LAKHIMPUR, NAOBOICHA AND BIHPURIA TERRITORIAL ROAD
DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
83:NABIN CHANDRA DOLOI,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
84:RONALD LAL ROCHAON INBUON,
DIPHU BUILDING CIRLCE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
85:BABY TOKBIPI,
BAKULIA NH DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
86:HONKON SHYAM,
SARUPATHAR TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
87:HEMSING RONGPHAR,
UMPANAI ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
88:NAREN CHANDRA TERANG,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
89:CHATRA TERON,
DIPHU ROAD DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
90:HITESH DAS,
GUWAHATI NH DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
91:DIMBAJIT DEORY,
GUWAHATI BUILDING CIRCLE-I, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
92:KOLOM SINGH BEY,
BAKULIA ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
93:AMAL CHANDRA DEORI,
DHEMAJI DISTRICT TERRITORIAL ROADS DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
94:DILIP HAZARIKA,
Page No.# 12/28
LAKHIMPUR, NAOBOICHA AND BIHPURIA TERRITORIAL ROADS
DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
95:BHASKAR JYOTI BORA,
DIBRUGARH NH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
96:TIRAN CHANDRA RABHA,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BORDER ROADS) AND NEC WORKS,
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT.
97:AJIT HOJAI,
HAFLONG NEC CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT.
98:SANJIB KUMAR ROY,
ABHAYAPURI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION,
PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT.
99:JAYANTA KUMAR GOSWAMI,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C), PWRD, MORIGAON TERRITORIAL
ROAD SUB-DIVISION, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 78210.
........Respondents
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. D.J. Das, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General, Assam for
the State.
: Mr. B.D. Konwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. J.
M. Konwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 92.
: Mr. P. Doley, Advocate for respondent Nos.94 to 98.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 12.02.2026.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.02.2026.
Whether the pronouncement is of the operative
part of the judgment? : N/A
Page No.# 13/28
Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced? : YES
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. D.J. Das, learned Advocates for the
petitioners; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam
for the State; Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs.
J.M. Konwar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 92 and Mr. P.
Doley, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.94 to 98.
2. The petitioners, directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Civil),
have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 22(3) of the Assam
Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978 (in short,
"Rules of 1978") and the consequential action by the State in assigning
seniority to respondent Nos.3 to 98, who are promotees to the same
cadre.
3. The controversy arose because the petitioners were appointed
as Assistant Engineers on 21.09.2022, whereas the promotees were
appointed on 06.01.2023. However, the promotees have been placed
senior to the direct recruits on the ground that they were promoted
against vacancies of the calendar year-2022 and under Rule 22(3), a
promotee appointed against a vacancy occurring in a year shall rank
Page No.# 14/28
senior to a direct recruit of that year.
4. The petitioners contend that such seniority assignment enables
a person "not even born in the cadre" to the rank above those already
appointed and is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
5. In order to understand the dispute and resolve the same, it
would be necessary to refer to Rule 22 of the Rules of 1978 in its entirety,
which reads as under:
"22. Seniority- The Seniority of a member in a cadre appointed by direct
recruitment or by promotion shall be determined according to the order of merit
in the respective list finally approved by the Appointing Authority under sub-
rule (6) of Rule 13 and sub-rule (4) of Rule 14, sub-rule (1) of Rule 18, if he
joins the appointment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order or
within the extended period as mentioned in Rule 19.
(2) If a member fails to join the appointment within the initial 15 days
of receipt of order or within the extended period, as mentioned in Rule 19, but
joins later, his seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of
joining.
(3) A member appointed by promotion against a vacancy
occurring in a year shall be senior to a member appointed by direct
recruitment of that year.
(4) A separate seniority list of "S.E.S." SDOs and SDOs (T.C.) since re-
designated and encadred as Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer
with effect from 1-1-73 promoted from the cadre of Junior Engineer shall be
maintained such seniority list shall continue till all the members of the list are
adjusted against promotion post or the post are vacated by retirement or
otherwise.
(5) The inter-se-seniority of such Assistant Executive Engineer shall be
fixed in accordance with sub-rule (1) of this Rule.
(6) The seniority of such Assistant Executive Engineer shall be in
accordance with the decision of the Governor."
Page No.# 15/28
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Before any further discussion is made with regard to the
arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be necessary to
refer to few of the terms of the employment as defined in the dictionary
of the Rules of 1978.
Rule 2(j) defines "Year" as a Calender Year.
The General Clauses Act, 1897 defines "year" to mean a year
reckoned according to the British calendar.
Rule 6 provides for direct recruitment. The Rule provides that
subject to sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, direct recruitment to the cadres of
Assistant Engineers, --- shall be made by the Governor on the basis of
selection made by the Commission in accordance with the procedure
provided in the Rule.
Rule 6 further provides that before the end of each year, the
Government shall make an assessment regarding the likely number of
vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment during the next year and shall
intimate the same to the Commission together with the details about
reservation to categories, as provided under Rule 17.
There shall be a simultaneous request by the Government to
the Commission to recommend a list of candidates for direct recruitment,
in order of preference; whereupon the Commission shall make the
selection in accordance with the scheme of the selection prescribed by
the Government in consultation with the Commission.
The Commission shall thereafter furnish the Government with a
Page No.# 16/28
list of candidates recommended by it in order of preference, found
suitable for direct recruitment. The number of candidates in such a list
may be approximately double the number of vacancy. The Commission
shall then simultaneously publish the list in the Assam Gazette and such
other place the Commission may consider proper. Such list shall remain
valid for 12 Calendar months from the date of recommendation.
In the event of the Commission being unable to recommend
sufficient number of candidates to fill up the vacancies in a year, it shall,
in consultation with the Appointing Authority, repeat the procedure for
recommending a subsequent list in the year; provided that the
Appointing Authority shall not make appointment of any candidate from
the subsequent select list until all the candidates of the earlier list of the
same year, eligible for appointment, have been offered the
appointment.
This, therefore, means that the appointment process
culminates with the appointment order by the Appointing Authority.
7. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1978 deals with promotion as Assistant
Engineers, which provides that the Appointing Authority shall publish in
the Government Gazette annually the number of vacancies in the
respective cadres of Assistant Engineers which have occurred or are likely
to occur in the year.
Subject to the suitability as may be decided by the Selection
Board and by the Appointing Authority, in consultation with the
Commission, an officer belonging to the cadre of Junior Engineer in
Page No.# 17/28
Assam Junior Engineering (Public Works Department) Services under the
Government shall be eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant
Engineer in the manner provided in Rule 13 and 14, if he possesses the
requisite qualification.
Rule 11(4)(c) clarifies that notwithstanding anything contained
in the Rule, subject to the suitability, a Subordinate Engineer Grade I of
Assam Subordinate Engineering (P.W.D.) Service, on his acquiring the
academic qualification, as prescribed for a direct recruit Assistant
Engineer, shall be promoted as Assistant Engineer, in consultation with the
Commission, as provided in Rule 14 against the next available vacancy in
the cadre and such promotion shall be treated as direct recruitment to
the cadre of Assistant Engineer for the purpose of the Rules.
The general procedure of promotion has been dealt with in
Rule 13.
Sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 clearly provides that the Appointing
Authority shall consider the select list prepared by the Board along with
the character rolls and personal files of the employees and approve the
list unless it considers, any change necessary. If the Appointing Authority
considers it necessary to make change in the list received from the
Board, he shall inform the Board of the changes proposed and after
taking into account the comments, if any, of the Board may approve the
list finally with such modifications, if any, as may, in his opinion be just and
proper.
Sub-rule (7) of Rule 13 provides that the inclusion of a
candidate's name in the select list shall confer no right to promotion
Page No.# 18/28
unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such enquiry as may be
considered necessary that the candidate is suitable for promotion.
Sub-rule (9) of Rule 13 provides that promotion shall be in
accordance with the list finally approved by the Appointing Authority.
Sub-rule (10) of Rule 13 provides that the select list as finally
approved by the Appointing Authority shall be published by the
Appointing Authority in the Assam Gazette within 15 days from the date
of approval.
8. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioners submits that Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1978, thus, entitles a
promotee to count seniority based on occurrence of vacancy in a year
while a direct recruit would count his seniority based on recruitment
made in a year. The resultant effect is, if Rule 22(3) is allowed to remain in
the statute, that a promotee would be entitled to count his seniority from
the date when he was not even born in the cadre.
Most importantly, this, it is urged, is violative of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India and bears no rational nexus with respect to
the promotion scheme.
That apart, Rule 22(3) is, in a large measure, anachronistic to
the provisions contained in Rules 2(j), 6(1)(a), 6(1)d, 11(c) and 13(6).
9. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate for respondent
Nos.3 to 92 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General,
Assam, however, have expostulated that Rule 22(3) is clear and specific,
Page No.# 19/28
which ought not to be tinkered with. It is a kind of quota-rota type
arrangement embedded in the service structure. It has further been
submitted that the concept of "birth in the cadre" is an argument which
is rhetorically attractive, but legally unsound.
Seniority jurisprudence distinguishes between date of
appointment and the slot in the recruitment year. If the service structure
contemplates a combined seniority list based on recruitment year, the
date of physical joining may not be determinative.
The Supreme Court has upheld the quota- rota system, holding
that inter se seniority can be structured by the Rule.
10. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association -Vs-
State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: (1990) 2 SCC 715.
Rule 22(3) should be seen as a protective measure for
maintaining promotional avenue equilibrium. Such balancing is a matter
of public policy.
A rule can be struck down or read down only if it is manifestly
arbitrary and is violative of constitutional provisions.
There is a proper classification bearing nexus sought to be
achieved between direct recruits and the promotees to the post of
Assistant Engineer.
11. They have referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in
S.G. Jaisinghani -Vs- Union of India :: AIR 1967 SC 1427 and Dental
Page No.# 20/28
Council of India -Vs- Biyani Shikshan Samiti & Anr. :: (2022) 6 SCC 65.
12. In Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. -Vs- State of Orissa & Ors. ::
(1998) 4 SCC 456, the Supreme Court had considered the scope of Rule
26(1) of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. The facts of that case
were that in the year 1978, 40 (forty) vacancies accrued in the post of
Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Wing of the Irrigation Department of
the State of Orissa, out of which 10 posts were to be filled up by direct
recruitment. The advertisement for recruitment was issued in the year
1979 and the appointments were made in the year 1980.
The respondents therein were Junior Engineers who had been
promoted as Assistant Engineers in accordance with the Rules on
different dates in 1979 and 1980. One of the direct recruits, namely,
Jagdish Ch. Patnaik claimed before the State Administrative Tribunal that
he should be given the seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer just
below the promoted Assistant Engineer in the year 1978 since he had
been recruited to the said post against a vacancy which had arisen in
the year 1978 and he ought not to have been made to suffer because of
the delay in completing the recruitment process.
The Tribunal accepted the said contention and held that his
seniority should be determined, treating him to be a recruit of the year
1978, notwithstanding the fact that he was appointed as an Assistant
Engineer by notification in the year 1980.
Rule 26 of the Rules (Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941) in
question deals with the inter se seniority of the Assistant Engineers as
Page No.# 21/28
between the direct recruits and promotees; the promoted officers
recruited during the year would be considered senior to the officers
directly recruited during the year.
The Supreme Court, after reading the entire architecture of the
Rules and in particular Rule 26, held that in case of direct recruits, the
Rules unequivocally indicated that the final authority lies with the State
Government to issue appointment orders from amongst the persons
found suitable by the Public Service Commission and further who were
found medically fit by the Medical Board. Such appointee was required
to undergo probation for two years and only thereafter he would be
confirmed in the service. Rule 26 used the expression "when officers are
recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment", which necessarily
mean that when those persons were appointed as Assistant Engineers by
the State Government. To import something else into a rule, the Supreme
Court opined, would neither be in the interest of justice nor would be
necessary in any manner and would tantamount to legislation by the
Court.
The well-known principle of construction of a statute was
reiterated that when the language used in the stature is unambiguous
and on a plain grammatical meaning being given to the words in the
statute, the end result is neither arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the
object of the statute, then it would be the duty of the Court to give effect
to the words used in the statute as the words declare the intention of the
law-making authority at its best.
Interpreting the Rules as such, it was held that the expression
Page No.# 22/28
"recruited" in the Rules would mean appointed and the expression
"during the same year" would mean during the calendar year and,
therefore, the direct recruits recruited during the calendar year would be
junior to the promotee recruits recruited during the said calendar year.
It would be somewhat necessary to reproduce afore-noted
Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, which was
considered by the Supreme Court as it is slightly different from Rule 22(3)
of the Rules of 1978, which is in question in the present proceeding :
"26. Seniority .-1) When officers are recruited by promotion and by direct
recruitment during the same year, the promoted officers shall be considered
senior to the officers directly recruited irrespective of their dates of joining the
appointment.
(2) Between the two groups of promoted officers, those promoted from the
rank of Sub-Assistant Engineers shall en bloc be senior to those promoted from
the rank of Junior Engineers.
(3) Subject to provision of sub-rules (1) and (2) seniority of officers shall be
determined in accordance with the order in which their names appear in the
lists prepared by the Commission."
13. A comparison of Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers
Rules, 1941, which was in consideration in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra)
and Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1978, which has been quoted above,
would reveal that the wordings are not similar.
14. In Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1978, a definite distinction has
been made between the cases of promotees and direct recruits by
providing that a member appointed by promotion against the vacancy
occurring in a year shall be senior to a member appointed by direct
Page No.# 23/28
recruitment of that year. The clear intendment of the Rule, therefore,
appears to be that for a promotee, the crucial date would be the
occurrence of the vacancy in a year; but for a direct recruit, the crucial
date would be appointment date of that year when the promotees are
appointed.
No such distinction appears from Rule 26 of the Orissa Service
of Engineers Rules, 1941 in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra).
It is in this context that the observation of the Supreme Court in
para 32 of the judgment of Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra), which has been
quoted below, is to be understood.
" 32. The next question for consideration is whether the year in which the
vacancy accrues can have any relevance for the purpose of determining the
seniority irrespective of the fact when the persons are recruited? Mr.
Banerjee's contention on this score is that since the appellant was recruited to
the cadre of Assistant Engineer in respect of the vacancies that arose in the
year 1978 though in fact the letter of appointment was issued only in March
1980, he should be treated to be a recruit of the year 1978 and as such would
be senior to the promotees of the years 1979 and 1980 and would be junior to
the promotees of the year 1978. According to the learned counsel since the
process of recruitment takes a fairly long period as the Public Service
Commission invites application, interviews and finally select them whereupon
the Government takes the final decision, it would be illogical to ignore the year
in which the vacancy arose and against which the recruitment has been
made. There is no dispute that there will be some time lag between the year
when the vacancy accrues and the year when the final recruitment is made for
complying with the procedure prescribed but that would not give a handle to
the Court to include something which is not there in the rules of seniority
under Rule 26. Under rule 26 the year in which vacancy arose and against
which vacancy the recruitment has been made is not at all to be looked into for
determination of the inter se seniority between direct recruits and the
promotees. It merely states that during the calendar year direct recruits to the
cadre of Assistant Engineer would be junior to the promotee recruits to the
said cadre. It is not possible for the Court to import something which is not
Page No.# 24/28
there in Rule 26 and thereby legislate a new rule of seniority. We are,
therefore, not in a position to agree with the submission of Mr. Banerjee, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, on this score."
15. That apart, we have found from the records that the entire
process of promotion and recruitment of the promotees was completed
in the year 2022. The recommendations were made by the Selection
Board on 07.12.2022 and the same was notified also on 17.12.2022.
However, the appointment process was delayed for about a week or so
and formal appointment letters were issued on 06.01.2023. In that case,
holding the petitioners to be senior to the respondents/promotees, would
be doing definite damage to the wordings of Rule 22(3) of the Rules of
1978 as also the service jurisprudence.
16. The issues before this Court, therefore, are whether Rule 22(3) is
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and whether the
expression "vacancy occurring in a year" must be interpreted as the
date of appointment with respect to the promotees also.
17. A further question would arise whether the promotees could
be given seniority over the direct recruits appointed few days earlier at
that point of time but belonging to the same recruitment year.
A service rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India carries the statutory force. It can be invalidated only if it is
manifestly arbitrary; it violates constitutional guarantees and is ultra vires
the parent statute.
18. In Dental Council of India -Vs- Biyani Shikshan Samiti & Anr.
Page No.# 25/28
(supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated that subordinate legislation
enjoys a presumption of constitutionality and can be struck down or read
down only if it is clearly arbitrary and unconstitutional.
19. Though the petitioners have relied heavily on the decision
rendered in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik (supra), wherein it was held that
seniority ordinarily flows from the dates of appointment, not from the
date of occurrence of vacancy but the wordings of Rule 26 of the Orissa
Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 did not make any distinction between
the promotees and direct recruits. Even otherwise, in Jagdish Ch.
Patnaik (supra), the Supreme Court did not lay down any inflexible
principle. It only held that in the absence of statutory rule, seniority
cannot be assigned from the date of vacancy. Where Rules expressly
provide otherwise, the Rule would govern.
20. It would also be relevant here to state that in Direct Recruits
Class II Engineering Officers' Association (supra), the Constitutional
Bench had recognized that where the recruitment had been made from
different sources under quota system, inter se seniority may legitimately
be regulated through rotation and recruitment year principles. Once
appointment is made according to the Rules, seniority must be
determined in accordance with those Rules.
21. In Bhey Ram Sharma & Ors. -Vs- Haryana State Electricity
Board & Ors. :: 1994 Supp (1) SCC 276 , the Supreme Court had
examined the question of fixation of seniority inter se between the officers
appointed from different sources, i.e. by promotion and by the process of
Page No.# 26/28
direct recruitment. It was held that it is almost settled that while
determining the inter se seniority amongst the officers recruited from
different sources or between the officers appointed by the same process
at different times, the date of entering in the service is relevant. A person
who enters in service first shall rank senior unless there is some rule
providing otherwise, which can be held to be consistent with Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
22. In the present case, the distinction has been made and the
only purpose appears to be to protect the promotional equilibrium
between the promotees who have put in a large number of years in
service of the Organization, who in their fag end of careers ought not be
placed juniors to the direct recruits, who have many years to go in the
service.
23. Examining Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1978 in question again, it
appears that the Rule making authority consciously linked seniority of
promotees to the vacancy year but the same was not to be applied to
direct recruits whose seniority inter se with the promotees would be
governed by the stipulation that the promotee appointed against the
vacancy accrued in a year would en-block be placed senior to direct
recruits of the year.
Thus, in this case, the occurrence of vacancy for direct recruits
is not the crucial condition but their appointment date and the year of
occurrence of vacancy for the promotees.
24. The challenge to the Rule on the ground that it is heavily
Page No.# 27/28
loaded in favour of the promotees in matters of seniority, is not worthy of
acceptance for the reason that the challenge is made on the anvil of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which permits intelligible
classification backed by the objects sought to be achieved, and the
object here is to maintain the equilibrium in the promotional avenue.
The Rule does not lead to any unguided discretion. It
prescribes an objective standard -vacancy year for the promotees.
Service jurisprudence recognizes that equality does not mean
identical treatment across different sources of recruitment.
25. The slight temporal difference in the wordings, which appears
to be a conscious decision of the Rule making authority, ought not to
render the Rule unconstitutional. Seniority is a civil consequence
governed by statutory prescription, not necessarily by merely
chronological entry through different sources.
26. Seen in this context, we have not found any irreconcilable
conflict in Rule 22(3), Rule 2(j), Rule 6, Rule 11 or Rule 13. Rules 6 and 13
govern the process of recruitment; whereas Rule 22 governs seniority
after recruitment.
The impugned set of Rules operate in distinct spheres.
27. There is yet another aspect of the matter which needs to be
stated. Structuring seniority between the promotees and direct recruits, is
a matter of service policy, lying purely on the domain of Rule making
Authority.
Page No.# 28/28
28. We, therefore, conclude that Rule 22(3) of the Rules of 1978 is
a statutory prescription involving a recruitment year to be crucial, with
some distinction between the promotees and direct recruits which is
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, nor does it confer any impermissible
retrospective appointment; but only maintains a structural parity
between the sources of recruitment.
Rule 22(3), thus, passes the muster of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
The challenge to the Rule, thus, fails.
This writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bijoy
DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=783380,
Bongaigaon, Bongaigaon Assam India
783380, title=7318,
2.5.4.20=ea95005c2739f7122fc228f8f3675b38
Sarma
2253afc27472f70072f5c830064b7818,
serialNumber=ae146067fe00a3674c98588486
fd18a83654d25960795fe1c9190d16e398a0cf,
[email protected], cn=Bijoy
Sarma
Date: 2026.02.21 11:29:40 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
