JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. These set of writ petitions have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. We have heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.143/2026; Mr. S. Borgohain, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.693/2025; Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Lotha, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.1865/2026; Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.2071/2026; Mr. T. Deuri, learned Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) No.2026/2026; Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned Advocate for BTC; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department; Mr. D. Thaosen, learned Standing Counsel, N.C. Hills Autonomous Council. 3. The petitioners, all of whom have undergone the Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (hereinafter to be referred as “RCCC”) training from the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre of the Government of Assam, under Revenue and Disaster Management Department in various sessions from 2017 to 2024, have questioned the validity of Rule 5(1A) of the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which amends the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service Rules, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2023”), thereby allowing only pre-trained RCCC candidates to appear for recruitment to the entry level post of Land Records Assistant (equivalent to Lot Mandal), as a one-time measure , but explicitly excluding the candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Council areas , like , Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Counci l , N.C. Hills Autonomous Counci l , etc., on the ground of the same being arbitrary, violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and that the amendment, in effect, causes discrimination based on residence or places of birth, despite some of them being non-tribals and not claiming any tribal priority rights. 4. The Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) is a 6(six) months’ training course imparted by the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, which, this Court has been informed, is presently the only Training Institute in the State of Assam for providing training to the aspirants for the posts of Revenue officials and Recorders. 4. The Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) is a 6(six) months’ training course imparted by the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, which, this Court has been informed, is presently the only Training Institute in the State of Assam for providing training to the aspirants for the posts of Revenue officials and Recorders. This Training Course has been designed with an objective to train the candidates with the duties of Recorders and passing of this Course was considered to be a necessary/pre-requisite for appointment to the posts of Lot Mandals in different districts of Assam. The petitioners were nominated for training by the respective Autonomous Councils, depending upon their places of residence. 5. It would be relevant here in this context to state that the Government of Assam framed the Rules of 2023, which stood notified on 27.03.2023 and came in to force with effect from 01.04.2023. 6. Prior to the enactment of the Rules of 2023, referred to above, Lot Mandals were appointed by the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys, Assam, as per district-wise vacancies and for all such recruitments, the candidates were required to have a pass certificate of the Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) training. The Rules of 2023, therefore, centralized the recruitment process as also created the career path for the subordinate officials of the Assam Land Records. Thus, the process was formalized and structured. 7. Under the Rules of 2023, the entry level post of Land Records Assistant (equivalent to Lat Mandal) is to be filled up through direct recruitment without any pre-requisite of the candidate having successfully undergone the RCCC training. According to the Rules of 2023, the training would be provided to the candidates only after their appointment. 8. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2023 prescribes the method of recruitment and sub-rule (1) thereto provides that a Land Records Assistant would be recruited on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by a Selection Board and such exercise would be followed by a 6(six) months’ training at the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, Assam. 9. It appears that after the notification of the Rules of 2023, it was discerned that there are around 400 candidates who had already successfully completed the RCCC training but had not been appointed, notwithstanding the fact that vacancies were available. 10. 9. It appears that after the notification of the Rules of 2023, it was discerned that there are around 400 candidates who had already successfully completed the RCCC training but had not been appointed, notwithstanding the fact that vacancies were available. 10. In order to accommodate such RCCC trained candidates, the Rules of 2023 was amended in the year 2025 by inserting sub-Rule (1A) in Rule 5, whereby, as a one-time measure, the candidates who had already undergone 6(six) months’ Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) training at the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre and who had been declared proficient in the mandated examination by an official result declared by the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys etc., Assam, in both Survey and Settlement subjects, before the date of publication of the amended Rules, were allowed to appear in the examination for recruitment to the post of Land Records Assistant. However, as noted above, the amended sub-Rule (1A) of Rule 5 specifically excluded all those candidates who were nominated for training by the Territorial and Autonomous Council areas of Assam. 11. This amendment was notified on 29.11.2025. 12. Pursuant to that, an advertainment was issued vide Advertisement No.DLR-11013(21)/50/2025/ 130 dated 14.03.2026, inviting applications from intending candidates who have successfully completed 6(six) months’ Recorders’ Certificate Class Course Training from the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, Dakhingaon (except from Sixth Schedule areas), as a one-time measure, in on-line application form through its web-site, for the post of Land Records Assistant. 552 posts were to be filled up against the afore-noted advertisement. 13. The eligibility criteria and the terms and conditions specifically noted that the candidates should have passed the RCCC training from Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, Dakhingaon, Guwahati, as per the advertisement for RCCC training examination issued by the Office of the Directorate, Land Records, Assam (except Sixth Schedule districts/other States). 14. The challenge of the petitioners to this exclusion was based on the provisions contained in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such exclusion based on the place of residence or nomination, it has been argued, does not have any rationale or nexus with the objectives sought to he achieved and is highly discriminatory to them even though they have undergone the same course and have been declared to be proficient in Land Records and Surveys. 15. Such exclusion based on the place of residence or nomination, it has been argued, does not have any rationale or nexus with the objectives sought to he achieved and is highly discriminatory to them even though they have undergone the same course and have been declared to be proficient in Land Records and Surveys. 15. The petitioners have alleged violations of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as they have not been provided with equal opportunity in matter relating to State employment and are being discriminated against on the ground of place of birth and/or residence in respect of an employment under the State of Assam. 16. The discrimination, it has been argued, is not based on any intelligible differentia as the same has no nexus or rational link to the object of the amendment. 17. The contention of the petitioners is that they are residents of Autonomous Council area and some of them are non-tribals, who do not claim any priority rights in the said area of their domicile. Under such circumstances, the action of the respondents in prohibiting them from participating in the recruitment process initiated by State Government on the basis of their place of birth and/or residence is not only discriminatory but also mala fide. 18. The State, however, seeks to defend the afore-noted amendment and the consequent advertisement on the ground that it is only a one-time remedial measure confined to those candidates who have already cleared the RCCC examination with proficiency certificates issued by the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys, etc., Assam. 19. According to the data available with the State, approximately 1518 candidates were declared proficient in non-Council batches of training at the Centre since 2008; out of whom 751 have already been appointed as Land Records Assistants, leaving behind approximately 767 candidates, including the petitioners who are yet to be absorbed. 20. The avowed purpose of this amendment was to give benefit to those trained candidates. 21. In this context, Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, has submitted that the exclusion of the candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Council areas under sub-Rule (1A) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2023 is lawful and is backed by administrative principles. 21. In this context, Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, has submitted that the exclusion of the candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Council areas under sub-Rule (1A) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2023 is lawful and is backed by administrative principles. The reason assigned for such an argument is that the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, under which the Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Council and other Autonomous District Councils in Assam are governed, provides for creation of Autonomous Councils with legislative and executive powers over specified subjects, including the administration of revenue within their jurisdiction. 22. Land revenue is a “transferred subject” in the Sixth Schedule areas and the Autonomous District Councils have separate administrative machineries and separate recruitment processes for revenue officials falling within their territorial jurisdiction. Seen in this background, Mr. Borpujari asserts, the exclusion in the amended Rules is justified. 23. It has further been submitted that the Autonomous Councils have their own mechanism for appointment of Revenue officials within their territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the petitioners, it is contended, being the residents of Bodoland Autonomous Council and N.C. Hills Autonomous Council and having been nominated by the afore-noted Councils, would have ample avenues for employment as Revenue officials within the Autonomous Council areas through the Autonomous Councils’ own establishment. 24. That apart, the petitioners and all other candidates, including those from Autonomous Council areas, would, notwithstanding such amendment, remain eligible to apply for the posts of Land Records Assistant through regular direct recruitment process under Rule 5 (1) of the principal Rules of 2023, subject to fulfilling the prescribed qualifications. 25. This one-time measure under sub-Rule (1A) is only an extraordinary, exceptional and temporary provision for a specific group and it does not foreclose any future general right of the petitioners to apply for the State cadre posts. 26. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the amendment Rules and the advertisement pursuant to such amendment, it clearly appears to us that a classification is sought to be made on the basis of source of nomination for undergoing the RCCC training in the State of Assam. For a classification to be declared valid, it must satisfy the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rationale nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. 27. For a classification to be declared valid, it must satisfy the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rationale nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. 27. In the present cases, the petitioners are the residents of the State of Assam though their place of residence falls under the Autonomous Territorial Councils but they still remain the residents of the State of Assam. They could not be put under any distinct class only for the reason of they having been nominated for the Course through the Autonomous Council; more so, when the training imparted at the Centre was one and same. The RCCC trained persons would otherwise be required for same kind of service expected from them. However, the key question is whether excluding the petitioners, who have received the training on the nomination of the respective Territorial Councils, would in any way serve the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment clearly appears to be providing a one-time opportunity to already RCCC trained candidates, who otherwise have lost out on eligibility due to the Rules of 2023, which does not prescribe such training as a pre-requisite for appointment. Excluding the petitioners does not advance the objective of utilizing the pre-trained employees, or of giving them the opportunity of serving the State. On this score, the exclusion by way of such classification completely fails the rational nexus test. 28. The other aspect, which ought not to be ignored or forgotten is that such classification based on residence directly leads to discrimination as the petitioners appear to be excluded only for the reason of coming from a specific territorial region, governed by Autonomous Council, who perforce had to be nominated for such training course in the State of Assam. This engages the application of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 29. Article 16(2) strictly prohibits discrimination on the basis of only residence, religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence unless protected under Article 16(3), which requires a Parliamentary law and not a State Rule and any exclusion on that count is constitutionally suspect as being absolutely arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 30. Even if it is seen in the context of a one-time measure, the exclusion is blanket for all Autonomous Councils nominees without any clear justification of either merit, efficiency or administrative necessity. 30. Even if it is seen in the context of a one-time measure, the exclusion is blanket for all Autonomous Councils nominees without any clear justification of either merit, efficiency or administrative necessity. There could be nothing more arbitrary than this. 31. In A.V.S. Narasimha Rao & Ors. -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. :: (1969) 1 SCC 839 , the Supreme Court, while considering the validity of a Government order relieving from the job of non-domiciled persons appointed on or after a particular date to certain categories of posts reserved for domiciles of Telengana under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959, clearly explained that under Article 16(1), emphasis is on equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State. The word “State” in 16(1) was required to be understood in the extended sense given to it by the definition of that word in Article 12. 32. Article 16(2) then specifies of prohibition against discrimination only on the grounds of religion, race, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. The Supreme Court went on to observe that the intention is to make over the office of employment open and available to every citizen, and inter-alia to make offices and employment in one part of India open to citizens in all other-parts of India. 33. The third clause of Article 16 then makes an exception. This Clause was amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. For the original words of the clause “under any State specified in the First schedule or any local or other authority within its territory any requirement as to residents within that State’, the present words from “under the Government” to “Union territory” have been substituted. 34. The Clause thus enables the Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any requirement as to the residence within a State or Union territory prior to appointment, as a condition of employment in the State or Union territory. 35. 34. The Clause thus enables the Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any requirement as to the residence within a State or Union territory prior to appointment, as a condition of employment in the State or Union territory. 35. Under Article 35(a), this power is conferred upon Parliament but is denied to the Legislatures of the States, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, and under (b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution in respect of the matter shall subject to the terms thereof and subject to such adaptations that may be made under Article 372 is to continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament. 36. Even Parliament cannot, according to the Supreme Court, while prescribing the requirement of residence, can prescribe the requirement of residence in a particular part of the State. 37. Bodoland Autonomous Council and N.C. Hills Autonomous Council fall within the State of Assam. 38. Same principles were followed by the Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma -Vs- State of Rajasthan & Anr. :: (2002) 6 SCC 562 , wherein weightage given on the basis of place of residence in matters of recruitment of teachers in Panchayat schools was held to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 16(2), 16(3) and 14 of the Constitution of India. [Also refer to V.N. Sunanda Reddy & Ors. -Vs- State of A.P. & Ors. :: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 235 ]. 39. Thus, for all practical and other purposes, such amendment in the Rules of 2023, introducing classification of RCCC trained nominees of the Autonomous Councils from being considered for one-time adjustments in Government services does not muster the constitutionality required for its validation. 40. We, therefore, are left with no option but to strike down the afore-noted Amendment Rule to that extent as unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 41. The exclusion part in the Advertisement No.DLR- 11013(21)/50/2025/130 dated 14.03.2026 is also struck down as constitutionally invalid. 42. With the result of such declaration, the petitioners if otherwise eligible, would be required to be allowed to participate in the selection process against the afore-noted advertisement for their selection in Government jobs. 43. We order accordingly. 44. The afore-noted set of writ petitions stand allowed.