Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010274312025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/27/2026 LITON DEB S/O LATE IRESH CHANDRA DEB, ITKHOLA GHAT, NETAJI NAGAR ROAD, P.O.- MALUGRAM, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788002 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE LEGAL REMEBRANCER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781006 3:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM 5:THE SELECTION BOARD CONSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 10.08.2022 C/O THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CACHAR Page No.# 2/6 SILCHAR ASSAM 6:SMT. RUBI NATH PEON OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM For the appellant : Mr. J. Abedin, Advocate Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate/ S.C., Gauhati High Court Assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, Advocate Ms. R.B. Bora, Jr. Govt. Advocate, Assam – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 19-02-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for the respondents. 2. The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1097/2025, whereby even though the request made by the writ petitioner [Mitra Chakraborty Page No.# 3/6 (Kanu)] was rejected by the learned Single Judge on finding that the select list dated 18.02.2024 was wrongly cast, directed the same to be recast, thereby shutting out the appellant from the list of successful candidates. 3. In August, 2022, an advertisement was issued by the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar for filling up of 11 Grade-IV posts. The selection process consisted of written test and interview. The select list was prepared on 18.02.2024 wherein the appellant, who belongs to unreserved category, stood fourth in merit and was appointed and he also joined his duty in the year 2024. After he worked for two years, a lady candidate, namely, Mitra Chakraborty (Kanu) filed the afore-noted writ petition before this Court alleging that 30% horizontal reservation for PWD and woman candidates had not been computed properly in preparation of the select list. Her claim before the Court was that she had scored 74 marks and was ranked 19th in merit and, therefore, she should have been appointed against one amongst the four posts meant for the Unreserved category. 4. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of Mitra Chakraborty (Kanu) on the ground that though she claimed herself to be belonging to the OBC category, she in fact had applied as a General category candidate. That apart, the manner in which the reservation was to be computed was not followed appropriately. On a look at the select list, the learned Single Judge found that the woman candidate, who had scored the highest marks amongst the lady candidates, was one Sumana Paul, who also had been selected as her Page No.# 4/6 having been placed at Sl. No.8 in the select list. The learned Single Judge found that in fact, she (Sumana Paul) should have been made to migrate to the Unreserved category by removing the appellant from the select list wherein he was placed in the last of the 4 candidates in the Unreserved category. The learned Single Judge observed that with this migration of Sumana Paul, one place would lay vacant in the OBC category which ought to have been filled up by the second highest scorer in the category of OBC woman candidate, namely, Rubi Nath who was originally placed at Sl. No.21 in the merit list. This way only, the reservation policy had to be given effect to. 5. While setting aside the select list, the learned Single Judge referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others (2007) 8 SCC 785; Saurav Yadav and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2021) 4 SCC 542; and Sadhana Singh Dangi and others vs. Pinki Asati and others (2022) 12 SCC 401. 6. The learned Single Judge also extracted the provisions contained in rule 3 of The Assam Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Post) Rules, 2005, which has been enacted by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 11(1) of the Assam Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Post) Act, 2005. 7. In Saurav Yadav (supra), the Supreme Court has set out the pattern of computing the horizontal reservation for women which inter alia states that first a list has to be made of the candidates in order of merit which is open category and in which category even persons of reserved Page No.# 5/6 category can fall depending upon their performance. Thereafter, if there is no woman candidate amongst the slot allotted for Unreserved category, the top scorer in the woman category, be it reserved or unreserved, would have to be picked up to fill up that post. Thereafter, the successful candidates from each of the reserved category being the highest scorer in that category would be accommodated in various slots. 8. The learned Single Judge also, in our estimation, correctly applied the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra) and found that the manner in which the select list was cast, was incorrect. It was only under such circumstance that a direction was issued for recasting of the select list. This recasting of the select list has resulted in an unfortunate effect on the appellant who had to go out of the service. 9. Mr. Abedin, learned Advocate for the appellants, however, submits that after the appellant having served the institution for two years, this order ought not to have been passed; more so, when the claim of the writ petitioner [Mitra Chakraborty (Kanu)] was rejected. The list ought not to have been disturbed when there was no claim of Sumana Paul, who had already been accommodated in the merit list. She was unnecessarily made to migrate to the Unreserved category, leaving one post for reserved woman category candidate. Such tinkering with the select list has rendered the appellant jobless. 10. After having gone through the judgment impugned and the arguments raised on behalf of the parties, it appears to us that once it was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the select list was not Page No.# 6/6 properly framed, it was the obligation of the Court to have it corrected even if it led to some uncomfortable changes resulting in the appellant going out of the service. The law must take its own course, or else the process of decision making would stand faulted. 11. We do appreciate that after two years of discharging duties, the appellant was removed from the service but then that was the only call before the learned Single Judge, which he exercised appropriately. 12. Finding no fault with the decision of the learned Single Judge, we dismiss this appeal. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant