WP(C) 713/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) The petitioner, a Senior Lecturer of District Institute of Educatio n and Training ( for short, hereafter referred to as ’DIET’) of the State of Ass am, seeks judicial intervention for redressal of his grievance against the wro ng fixation of his seniority in that post vis-a -vis the respondents preferred over him. 2. I have heard Mr KH Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr SK Mu khtar, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr SK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Edu cation Department, Govt. of Assam. None has entered appearance on behalf of the private respondents. Incidentally, on the orders of this Court, the names of Re spondents 4,11,12 and 13 have been deleted from the array of respondents. No aff idavit-in -opposition on behalf of the respondents has also been filed. 3. The uncontroverted pleaded version of the petitioner is that vide Not ification No.EDG.438/89/93 dated 9.5.1991 of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. o f Assam, Education Department , he along with others was appointed as Senior Le cturer in the aforementioned institute under Rule 3(1) of the Assam Public Serv ice (Ad-hoc) Appointment Rules, 1986. He accordingly joined the post on 8.5.1991 . He participated in a process initiated by the Assam Public Service Commission ( for short, hereafter referred to as ’Commission’) and was recommended for reg ular appointment to the post of Senior Lecturer in the Department of In-service Programme & Extension Service. In the select list dated 21.9.1993 published by the Commission, the petitioner’s name appeared at Sl No.6. In the subsequent sel ect list dated 12.10.93 also of the Senior Lecturers, the names of Respondents 4 , 7,9, 10 and 13 appeared. It was thereafter that acting on the aforementioned r ecommendation of the Commission, the Education Department of the State by Noti fication No. B(2) H.903/93/74 dated 8.9.95 regularized the services of the petit ioner along with all others as referred to therein on and from the date(s) of s uch recommendation. In the said letter, the Commission’s recommendation vis- a -vis, the petitioner was mentioned to be 21.9.1993. This communication mention ed as well, that the period of adhoc services of the persons named therein would be computed towards pension and increment. Noticeably, such service was not reckonable for the purpose of computation of seniority. 4. In the provisional gradation list that followed and published vide comm unication No.A(I)E.303/99/122dated 17.3.2003, the names of otherwise equally pla ced Senior Lecturers who had been recommended by the Commission after the petit ioner were placed above him. Being dissatisfied, he submitted representation to correct the anomaly in terms of the order of regularization dated 8.9.95. The f inal gradation list published on 11.6.2004 however, did not record any alterati on changing the inter se arrangement. That position was maintained in the final gradation list that was published vide Notification dated 18.10.2004. As the p etitioner’s representation dated 22.11.2004 against the continuing anomaly and t he detrimental impact on his seniority remained unheeded, has approached this C ourt for redress. 5. Whereas, Mr Choudhury has urged basing on the unequivocal norm of date of regularization of the petitioner’s service that his seniority has to be reckoned on and from 21.9.93 i.e. the date of recommendation of the Commissi on, Mr Das, however, has not been able, in absence of the pleadings of the respo ndents, to effectively counter the same. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a considerati on of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that in the face of ot herwise obvious criteria referred to in the Notification dated 8.9.95 sans, weig hty and persuasive consideration to the contrary, not other measure could hav e been applied for the purpose of judging the inter se seniority of the relevant incumbents. As the notification dated 8.9.95 regularizing the service of the pe titioner does not recognize the adhoc services of the other persons named therei n to be a factor to be taken note of for determination of their inter se seni ority, in the opinion of this Court, the same could also not have been applied. A plain reading of the provisional/final gradation lists as referred to herein above also does not disclose the length of service rendered by the incumbents to be the determinant in this regard. Noticeably, the private respondents who have been awarded higher seniority though notified, are not before this Court. Five years have elapsed in between and presumably, the intervening developments have contributed to marked changes in the service profile of the concerned in cumbents. 7. In that view of the matter, it is considered appropriate so as to p revent further bouts of litigation that the issue be remitted to the Commission er and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, Govt. of Assam to cause necessary steps tobe taken to examine the same and to take appropriate dec ision in accordance with law. As the petitioner and the private respondents ha ve stakes in the matter, the said authority would notify them of the process so that they can participate therein, if so advised. As the issue of inter se s eniority between the parties is pending for long, the aforementioned authority would endeavour to complete the exercise as ordered within a period of two mont hs from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. The petition stands disposed in these terms. No costs.