JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Ms. T. Wapangla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.1; Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4; Mr. J. Payeng, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.5. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.6 inspite of service having been effected upon the respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved in the present proceedings by the Gradation List of the staff for the year 2024 in the Office of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon and it is under such circumstances, the said Gradation List has been put to challenge. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The brief facts of the instant case as it appear from the materials on the record is that an advertisement was issued on 13.11.2018 by the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In-charge of Centralised Recruitment, Gauhati High Court for filling up of various posts of LDA/Copyist/Typist in the District Judiciary of Assam. The numbers of posts were duly mentioned in the said advertisement against each district. For the purpose of the present case, it is relevant to take note of that in respect to Nagaon District Judiciary, there were 12 posts which were to be filled, out of which 1 post each were reserved for ST(P), ST(H), OBC/MOBC and the remaining 9 posts were for unreserved category. 4. Pursuant to the said selection proceedings so initiated, a Select List was published by the Gauhati High Court through the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In-charge of Centralised Recruitment, Gauhati High Court for the District of Nagaon. In the said Select List, the petitioner was at Sl. No.3 and had secured 91 marks. The respondent No.5 was at Sl. No.4 having secured 90 marks and the respondent No.6 was at Sl. No.8 having secured 89 marks. Pursuant thereto, a Select List was published on 30.09.2019 by the Centralised Recruitment, Gauhati High Court by a notification dated 30.03.2019 for the District of Nagaon. In the said Select List, the petitioner was put at Sl. No.3, the respondent No.5 was put at Sl. No.4 and the respondent No.6 was put at Sl. No.8 and they were also given posting in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon. 5. In the said Select List, the petitioner was put at Sl. No.3, the respondent No.5 was put at Sl. No.4 and the respondent No.6 was put at Sl. No.8 and they were also given posting in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon. 5. Pursuant to this notification dated 30.03.2019, the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In-charge of Centralised Recruitment, Gauhati High Court issued a communication dated 20.04.2019 intimating the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, to issue the appointment letters to the selected candidates in its establishment and after issuing appointment letters, initiate police verification process and other necessary formalities. The contents of this communication dated 20.04.2019 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant dispute, and as such, the said communication dated 20.04.2019 is reproduced therein under:- Annexure 4, at Page 44. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) No. HC.XXXVII-45/2018/318 /R.Cell Dated Guwahati 20-04-2019 From: Registrar (Administration)-cum- In-charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, Assam, PIN-781001 To: The Member, MACT Nagaon, Assam. Sub:- Appointment of provisionally selected candidates as LDA/Copyist/Typist. Ref: Notification No.HC.XXXVII-45/2018/236/R.Cell Dated 30-03-2019 Sir/Madam, As directed, I am to inform you that the following candidates have been provisionally selected for appointment in your establishment in the post mentioned against their names: You are requested to issue appointment letter to the concerned selected candidates of your establishment and after issuing appointment letters, initiate the police verification process and other necessary formalities. Copies of the particulars of the candidates are enclosed herewith. This is for your kind information and necessary action. Yours faithfully (A. Hazarika) Registrar (Admin)-cum- In Charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati-1 6. It so happened that the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, who is the respondent No.4 issued the respondent Nos.5 & 6’s appointment letters on 02.05.2019 and the petitioner whose position was higher in the Select List as well as in the communication dated 20.04.2019 was issued the appointment letter on 03.05.2019. 7. The materials on record further show that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 joined on 02.05.2019 itself upon receipt of the appointment letters both dated 02.05.2019 whereas the petitioner joined on 03.05.2019 having received the appointment letter on 03.05.2019. Thereupon, the records further reveal that both the petitioner as well as the private respondents continued to render the services in their respective capacity in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon. 8. Thereupon, the records further reveal that both the petitioner as well as the private respondents continued to render the services in their respective capacity in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon. 8. Pursuant to a notification dated 16.09.2024, the Gradation List of the staff for the year 2024 of the Office of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, was published. The petitioner was surprised to learn that the petitioner was put at Sl. No.6 whereas the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were put at Sl. No.4 & 5 respectively. Being aggrieved the present petition. 9. This Court, by an order dated 07.03.2025, issued notice thereby directing the respondents to bring on record their stand by filing the affidavit. 10. The record reveals that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 had filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein the stand so taken is reflected in paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit-in-opposition. It was mentioned that pursuant to the communication dated 20.04.2019 (the contents of which have been quoted herein above), the respondent No.5 presented herself for appointment on 30.04.2019 and was issued an appointment letter on 30.04.2019. On the other hand, the petitioner was presented himself for appointment on 03.05.2019, and accordingly, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 03.05.2019. It was further mentioned that as the respondent No.5 joined the establishment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon before the petitioner, hence the respondent No.5 was placed above the petitioner in terms with the said notification. It was also mentioned that the Gradation List dated 24.10.2024 was published pursuant to the notification dated 16.09.2024 issued by the Government, redesignating the posts of the staff of the Subordinate Judiciary. 11. To the said affidavit-in-opposition, the official respondents have enclosed the appointment letter of the respondent No.5 dated 30.04.2019, the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 03.05.2019, as well as the joining letter of the respondent No.5 dated 02.05.2019. It was also mentioned that there was a provisional Gradation List prepared in the year 2023 wherein also the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.5 whereas the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were placed at Sl. Nos.3 & 4. Further to that, it was mentioned that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were put ahead of the petitioner in the Gradation List in view of the notification dated 14.10.2020 issued by the Gauhati High Court through the Registrar (Administration)-cum- In Charge, Centralized Recruitment. 12. No.5 whereas the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were placed at Sl. Nos.3 & 4. Further to that, it was mentioned that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were put ahead of the petitioner in the Gradation List in view of the notification dated 14.10.2020 issued by the Gauhati High Court through the Registrar (Administration)-cum- In Charge, Centralized Recruitment. 12. An affidavit-in-reply was filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition and further questioning the aspect as to whether there is a requirement of the candidate to appear before the Authority without any notice being issued the appointment letter. 13. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, this Court heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties whose submissions were on the basis of the pleadings as above noted. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 14. This Court, during the course of the hearing, enquired with Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court as to what would to be the Rules applicable in so far as the appointment of the petitioner as well as the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the relevant Rules to be the Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1987’). 15. Taking into account the above, this Court before analyzing the facts above noted, would deal with the some of the provisions of the Rules of 1987. Rule 6 refers to recruitment to various posts coming within the ambit of the ‘service’ as defined in Rule 2(10) of the Rules of 1987. As this Court is dealing with deal with the question of seniority. It is relevant to take note of Rule 12 and more particularly Rule 12(i) which is reproduced herein under:- “12.(i) In the Lower Division Cadre, the seniority shall be according to the date of appointment, if the persons join the appointments within 15 days of the receipt of the order of appointment: Provided that in case of a person prevented from joining within the said period of 15 days by circumstances of a public nature or for reasons beyond his control, the appointing authority may extend it for a further period of 15 days. If the period is not so extended, his seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining. If the period is not so extended, his seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining. When however more than one person are appointed on the same date their inter-se-seniority shall be determined according to their position in the merit list prepared by the District & Sessions Judge as mentioned in Note below clause (a) of Sub-rule (5) of rule 6. Provided further that the inter-se-seniority among Lower Division Assistants appointed under clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub- rule (5) of Rule 6 on the same date shall be according to the following order - (a) Assistants appointed under clause (a) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6. (b) Assistants appointed under clause (b) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6.” (c) Assistants appointed under clause (c) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 6.” 16. From a perusal of the above quoted Rule 12(i) of the Rules of 1987, it is seen that in the Lower Division Cadre, the seniority shall be according to the date of the appointment provided the person joins the appointment within 15 days of the receipt of the order of appointment. It further stipulates in circumstances of a public nature or reasons beyond the control if the person cannot join within the initial period of 15 days, the said period may be extended for a further period of 15 days. However, beyond the initial period of 30 days, if a person joins pursuant to an appointment order, his seniority would be reckoned on the basis of his date of joining. It is also very pertinent to take note of that when more than one person are appointed on the same date, their inter-se seniority shall be determined according to their position in the merit list prepared by the District and Sessions Judge as mentioned in Note of Clause (a) of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1987. This aspect is of relevance taking into account that the dispute involved herein. 17. In the backdrop of the above, now let this Court to analyze the facts. 18. This aspect is of relevance taking into account that the dispute involved herein. 17. In the backdrop of the above, now let this Court to analyze the facts. 18. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is clear that in respect to the District of Nagaon, the petitioner's position was higher than that of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 in as much as the petitioner had secured 91 marks out of 150 marks, whereas the respondent Nos.5 & 6 secured 90 and 89 marks out of 150 marks respectively. In the Select List which was published vide the notification dated 30.03.2019, the petitioner was put at Sl. No.3 whereas the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were at Sl. Nos.4 & 8 and the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were assigned their posting in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon. The communication dated 20.04.2019 the contents of which have been quoted herein above, categorically directed the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon to issue the appointment letters inter alia the position of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent Nos.5 & 6. It shocks and surprises this Court that the respondent No.4 who is the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal instead of issuing the letters of appointment in terms with the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court, instead issued the appointment letters on the basis when the candidates, i.e. the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.5 & 6 appeared before the respondent No.4. This act on the part of the respondent No.4 is unknown in service jurisprudence. The resultant effect of the action on the part of the respondent No.4 is that the petitioner could join only on 03.05.2019 whereas the respondent Nos.5 & 6 could join on 02.05.2019 and thereby moving ahead in the seniority. 19. The question therefore arises as to whether such a course of action can be permitted to continue? In the opinion of this Court, the answer is an emphatic “No” taking into account that it was the duty on the part of the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, i.e. the respondent No.4 to have issued the appointment letters to the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.5 & 6 either on the same date and under no circumstances the petitioner's appointment letter could have been issued on a later date than that of the respondent Nos.5 & 6. This action on the part of the Respondent Authorities, more particularly the respondent No.4 has resulted in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as the respondent No.4 failed to take action in accordance with the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side and also had acted unreasonably and unfairly against the petitioner. 20. The next question therefore arises as to what directions can be passed in the facts of the instant case taking into account Rule 12 (i) of the Rules of 1987 which have been already quoted herein above. It is the opinion of this Court that taking into account that the respondent Nos.5 & 6 had joined on 02.05.2019, their appointment orders cannot be pushed one day later, i.e. 03.05.2019. It is also the opinion of this Court that in order that the injustice caused to the petitioner is remedial the appointment letter of the petitioner which is dated 03.05.2019 can be permitted to be read as being issued on 02.05.2019 and further taking into account that the petitioner had joined on 03.05.2019, in terms with Clause (i) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1987, the petitioner can regain his seniority ahead of the respondent Nos.5 & 6. CONCLUSION 21. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The appointment letter of the petitioner dated 03.05.2019 be read as dated 02.05.2019. (ii) The petitioner, having joined on 03.05.2019, i.e. within a period of 15 days from the date of his appointment order, would be senior to that of the respondent No.5 & 6 taking into account the position of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the merit List as well as in the Select List. (iii) The impugned Gradation List of the staff of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the year 2024 is interfered with to the extent that the petitioner would be senior than the respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the gradation list in view of the directions passed herein above. (iv) The concerned Respondent Authorities to publish a fresh Gradation List putting the petitioner ahead of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the Gradation List. (iv) The concerned Respondent Authorities to publish a fresh Gradation List putting the petitioner ahead of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the Gradation List. (v) In view of the above observations and directions, the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaon shall revisit the recommendation so made to the Joint LR and Joint secretary to the Government of Assam dated 22.08.2024 in as much as the petitioner would be senior to that of the respondent Nos.5 & 6. (vi) This Court further directs the respondent No.4 to carry out the above exercise within a period of 15 days from today. 22. There shall be no order as to costs.