Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010241402015 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7072/2015 SMTI JYOTIRUPA BARMAN D/O NRIPENDRA NR. BARMAN R/O WARD NO. 3, ABHAYAPURI P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -781006. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD ROADS N/H ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003. 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD NALBARI NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRCLE NALBARI ASSAM. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ABHAYAPURI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM. Page No.# 2/7 5:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. NH ABHAYAPURI SUB-DIVISION ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 6:SRI JURAN ALI LOWER DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ABHAYAPURI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGOAN ASSAM 7:SRI PUSHPA RAM DUTTA LOWER DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ABHAYAPURI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGOAN ASSAM 8:SRI BIPUL CHANDRA DUTTA LOWER DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGIENER PWD ABHAYAPURI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGOAN ASSAM 9:SRI DHENUDHAR ROY LOWER DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ABHAYAPURI CONSTRUCTION DIVISION ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGOAN ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R J SARMA, MS.D DEVI,MS.M JALAN,MS.B RABHA,MR.R DE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NHAI, MRS.M BORA,MRS.V L SINGH,MR.M HUSSAIN(R- 6&9),MDI H KHAN(R-6&9),MR.H DAS(R-7&8),SC, PWD (ROADS),MR.M U MONDAL(R- 6&9),MS.J DAS(R-7&8),MS.L BORAH(R-7&8) Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Date of hearing & judgment : 22.05.2025 J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (ORAL) Heard Mr. R De, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H Das, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 & 8 and Mr. M U Mondal, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. None appears for the PWD respondents. [2.] The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has challenged the final inter- se-seniority list of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) under Abhayapuri Construction Division, Abhayapuri issued vide Office Order No. 51 dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure-J). According to the petitioner, prior to issuance of the final seniority list, a provisional seniority list was issued on 09.07.2014 (Annexure-C) wherein, the petitioner’s name appears at Sl. No. 7. The petitioner submitted his complaint before the respondent authority concerned with regard to his placement in the seniority list but, however, when final seniority list was published, his position remained same at Sl. No. 7. Aggrieved, he is before this Court. Page No.# 4/7 [3.] Mr. R Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come to learn that the private respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 who were placed above her in the seniority list, in fact, were earlier serving on Muster Roll basis and without completing the required length of service of 15 years they have been inducted into Grade-IV post and thereafter, promoted to the LDA post. He submits that in fact the respondent No. 8, whose name appears at Sl. No. 4 of the seniority list, was a Work-Charge Roller Handyman before his joining as LDA. Since there is anomaly in his absorption to a Grade-IV post before completion of 15 years as Work-Charged, he could not have been placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. The respondent authorities, considering the grievance projected on the impugned seniority list, had directed the Executive Engineer, PWD (NH), Abhayapuri Construction Division to submit a detailed report. The said authority, thereafter vide Communication dated 10.04.2015 (Annexure-R) submitted the report to the C.E, PWD (NH works), Assam, Chandmari clearly indicating the various anomalies and irregularities in the manner in which the parties concerned had been promoted/appointed to the post of LDA. Despite the said report, since no action has been taken, the petitioner having no alternative has filed the instant writ petition. [4.] Mr. R De, learned counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Page No.# 5/7 Department of Public Works, submits that the averments on irregularities on appointment of the private respondents to the Grade-IV post and thereafter, to the Grade-III post has been clearly highlighted against paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 and 12 to 28 of the writ petition and that in the counter affidavit, the respondent authorities have not only failed to offer any comments but in fact have accepted that there are anomalies. He, therefore, submits that such being the position, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider re-visiting the seniority list and place the petitioner at the appropriate position. [5.] Mr. M U Mondal, learned counsel submits that respondent No. 6 has already been transferred to another Division, while the respondent No. 9 has expired. He submits that even if seniority list is to be withdrawn the respondents he represents cannot be affected. [6.] Mr. H Das, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 & 8 submits that respondent No. 7 has since retired from service and as for respondent No. 8, he still remains as an LDA under the establishment of Executive Engineer, PWD, Abhayapuri Construction Division. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the seniority list in view of the fact that she was only appointed as LDA on 01.03.2008 whereas, the respondent No. 8 had already been appointed on 15.05.2004. Therefore, the petitioner Page No.# 6/7 cannot claim seniority before she is born in the cadre. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has referred to the case of Venduzo Sasu & Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland Ors., reported in 2023 (2) GLR 965 and also the case of L Chandrakishore Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) GLT SC 32. [7.] It may be seen that prior to issuance of the final seniority list dated 30.09.2014 a provisional seniority list was published on 09.07.2014 wherein, the petitioner’s name was placed at Sl. No. 7. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner submitted representations as well as sought for certain information through RTI application. Following the same, Superintendent of Engineer, PWD, Nalbari N.H Circle, Nalbari had written to the Chief Engineer, PWD, Abhayapuri Construction Division to take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Likewise, the Chief Engineer, PWD, NH Works had also directed the Executive Engineer concerned to submit a detailed report on the matter. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, vide his Letter dated 10.04.2015, submitted a detailed report with regard to the manner in which the seniority has been drawn in respect of the LDAs concerned. However, no further action appears to have been taken by the respondent authorities concerned in the matter and it is stated at the bar that no promotion has been made to the post Page No.# 7/7 of UDA by relying upon the impugned seniority list till date. As already noted, respondent No. 7 has since retired from service while respondent No. 9 has expired and respondent No. 6 transferred to a different Division. Therefore, what remains is the respondent No. 8 and the petitioner. Considering the report which is already available, this Court without expressing anything on merit is of the considered view that the respondent authorities in the Public Works Department should revisit the seniority list dated 30.09.2014 taking into account the report submitted by the Executive Engineer on 10.04.2015 (Annexure-R). It is also provided herein that in considering the said report and taking a fresh decision the authorities shall give due opportunity to the respondent No. 8 and the petitioner, apart from any other persons who may be affected. The entire exercise of consideration should be done within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [8.] The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant