Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010180142025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/307/2025 1: BHAIRAB KUMAR NATH AND ORS OVERSEER (CIVIL), OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BAMUNIMAIDAM, P.O- BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI-781021, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2: APURBA KUMAR KALITA OVERSEER (CIVIL) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BAMUNIMAIDAM P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3: RAJIB KUMAR SAIKIA OVERSEER (CIVIL) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BAMUNIMAIDAM P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS 1: RANJU GOGOI BHAGAWATI AND ORS. WIFE OF PRAHLAD SHANKAR BHAGAWATI, OVERSEER (CIVIL), OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BAMUNIMAIDAM, P.O- BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI-781021, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:DWIPUL KUMAR DEKA S/O HARENDRA NATH HALOI OVERSEER (CIVIL) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BAMUNIMAIDAM P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE COMMISSIONER INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 KAMRUP (M Page No.# 2/4 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Chakravarty, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate. : Ms. A. Das, Advocate. : Ms. R. Lakra, Advocate. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 17.10.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Advocate for the respondents. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 21.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.286/2023, whereby in the Gradation List, the appellants have been made junior to the respondents. The respondents had challenged the Final Gradation List dated 20.12.2022 of the cadre of Overseer (Civil) in the establishment of the Commissioner of Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Assam for the reason that in the seniority position, they were made juniors to the appellants herein. The respondents, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) for recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil and Mechanical) under Public Works Department (Roads) and the post of Overseer (Civil) under the Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Assam, had applied and had been returned successful. They were made to join their respective services on 11.08.2003. After the respondents had joined their service, the services of the appellants were regularized vide an order dated 29.09.2003 and the regularization was with effect from a retrospective date of 12.06.2003. Page No.# 3/4 Precisely for this reason, the respondents herein were placed below the ladder and the appellants, for their regularization with a retrospective date (12.06.2003), were placed higher in the list. This was challenged by the respondents on the ground that ad hoc employees, who were later regularized, could not be given retrospective seniority to the detriment of the direct recruits under a regular process of recruitment. The learned Single Judge, after having perused the Gradation List and the source of appointment of the appellants as well as the respondents, found that the direct recruits were appointed prior to the appellants, who were regularized only much later but with a retrospective date which had the approval of the Cabinet. Mr. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that in the absence of any question against the decision of the Cabinet in regularizing the services of the appellants from a retrospective date, no decision could have been taken to destabilize and unsettle the Final Gradation List where the appellants were placed higher than the respondents. The law with respect to seniority is well settled. In State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. -Vs- Ashok Kumar Srivastava & Anr. :: (2014) 14 SCC 720, it was held that seniority ought not to be reckoned retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. The seniority cannot be given to an employee who is yet to be borne in the cadre and by doing so, it may adversely affect the employees who had been appointed validly in the meantime. [Also refer to Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors. -Vs- Reevan Singh & Ors. :: (2011) 3 SCC 267]. It was clarified in Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) that inter se seniority in Page No.# 4/4 a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further emphasized that seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre. Applying this principle, the learned Single Judge found merit in the contention of the respondents and directed for preparation of a fresh Gradation List in the cadre of Overseer (Civil) in the Department, assigning senior position to the respondents over the appellants. The decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, which is sought to be appealed here, is not required to be interfered with. The appeal has no merits and hence, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Mukut Comparing Assistant