Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010162312026 2026:GAU- AS:12540-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4695/2026 SHRI RAJESH BHARADWAJ S/O LATE SHRI D P BHARADWAJ, R/O VILL. PALAICH, PHAGUDHAR, DIST. KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 227 SF, ARJUN NAGAR, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110029 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 27 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SASGASTRA SEEMA BAL EAST BLOCK V R.K PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 3:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR (PERS.-I) DIRECTOR GENERAL SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL EAST BLOCK V .RK. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FRONTIER HEADQUARTERS SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL KHANAPARA G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM 781022 Page No.# 2/8 5:SHRI ANUJ THAPLIYAL WORKING AS DIG THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 6:SHRI S.C. SHARMA A.O. THORUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 7:SHRI OM PRAKASH A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 8:MOHAN MATHPAL A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 9:SHRI AJAY UNIYAL A.O. THROUTH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 10:SHRI K.L. PURI A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 11:SHRI B.S. THARKOTI A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V Page No.# 3/8 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 12:JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V .R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 13:SHRI P.B. CHETRI A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 14:SHRI S.S. THAPA A.O. THORUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 15:SHRI P.P. THAKUR A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 16:SHRI V.K. LOSHALI A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 17:MS AMRITA MITRA JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 18:SHRI M S. NEGI JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL Page No.# 4/8 SSB EAST BLOCK V .R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 19:SHRI L.P. NAUTIYAL JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 20:SHRI N.S. NEGI JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 21:SHRI P.S. BISHT JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 22:SHRI RAVINDER NATH JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF HE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 23:SHRI S.K. SAJWAN JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 24:SHRI SUBHONDU SHAH JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 25:SHRI TSERING DORJEE (ST) Page No.# 5/8 JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 26:SHRI B.K. ROY (SC) JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 27:SHRI H.R. ARYA (SC) JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 110066 28:SHRI S.K. ROY (SC) JT. A.O. THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SSB EAST BLOCK V R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 11006 For the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) : Mr. S. Borthakur, Sr. Advocate Mr. U.S. Bora, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Kaushik, Advocate –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 31.08.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the petitioner; and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. The judgment and order dated 29.04.2026, passed by the Central Page No.# 6/8 Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter to be referred to as “Tribunal”), in O.A. No. 283/2018, is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner had participated in an All India Competitive Test for being selected as Special Area Organizer (SAO) in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), which was earlier known as Special Service Bureau. Ultimately he was placed at Serial No. 1 in the reserved panel. He got the occasion to join service only on 28.07.1994, when the names of the candidates in the main list got exhausted and the reserved panel was looked into. At the time when the petitioner was appointed, the SAO cadre was being governed by a rule which provided 25% under direct recruitment quota and 75% under promotional quota from the eligible Circle Area Organizers, who had completed 4 years of regular service, to get promoted to the post of SAO. The seniority between the direct recruitees and the promotees was to be fixed under the quota-rota principle under the DoPT guidelines. It appears from the records that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 22.06.1993 for recommending the names of the officers (Circle Area Organizers) for promotion to the post of SAO. In the said meeting, 31 Circle Area Organizers were recommended for being promoted to the post of SAO under the promotional quota. Thereafter, promotion orders were issued and all such recommended candidates assumed the charge of the promotional post sometimes between August and November, 1993, i.e. much before the petitioner joined the service. Page No.# 7/8 Since the afore-noted 31 officers had been promoted to the post of SAO earlier than the entry of the petitioner in the service under the direct recruitment quota, they were shown to be seniors to the petitioner. However, the petitioner noted an anomaly in the year 1998 that although in the seniority list, he was placed at Serial No. 118, but actually the total sanctioned strength was only 108. He further found that those 31 persons, who were promoted under the promotional quota, did not actually qualify for being promoted for the reason of not possessing the requisite service length as Circle Area Organizer. He therefore inferred that those officers were given promotion only in order to make the petitioner and other direct recruits junior to the promotees. The petitioner then made a representation before the authorities flagging the afore-noted aspect, but nothing happened for many years. It further appears from the records that the petitioner continued making representations seeking correction of his seniority and for disclosure of records, but he could make no headway. However, after a long time, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the department, which, the petitioner says, was a non-speaking order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an Original Application before the Tribunal, which also remained pending for eight years. During that period, for the first time, new documents were produced by the respondents to scuttle the claim of the petitioner. However, finally the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application preferred by the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches and, thus, the substantial issues raised by the petitioner were never addressed. It also appears from the records that the petitioner retired from Page No.# 8/8 service on 30.06.2025 as a Circle Area Organizer. The promotees are now serving as DIGs. The petitioner claims that because he was made junior, his case got prejudiced even after his retirement, as his pension and other retiral benefits remained the same. We find the order passed by the Tribunal to be absolutely justified, as the issues raised by the petitioner could not have been adjudicated because of such delay. That apart, on merits, we find that the petitioner has no case in as much as those 31 promotees had been promoted to the post of SAO much before the petitioner was even born in service. The allegation that the those 31 officers had been promoted without having served for 4 years as Circle Area Organizers and that it was deliberately done for the purpose of making the petitioner and other direct recruits junior to the promotees, is wholly inferential and without any basis. Thus, on merits also we find that the petitioner has no case. Constrained thus, we dismiss this writ petition in limine. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant