Disposed¶38

Pabin Ch. Boro v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Jul 2026WP(C)/6106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/6106/2023; Pabin Ch. Boro v. State of Assam; decided 15.07.2026; roster point; roster register; de-reservation; ST(P); Scheduled Tribe Plain; unreserved point; Senior Assistant; Lower Division Assistant; promotion; Public Works Department; Guwahati National Highway Division; reservation in service; status of employee; writ petition disposed; protective directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; the prayer for placement against a Roster Point meant for ST(P) candidates was not acceded to. With observations and directions, the respondents were directed not to deprive the petitioner of any further promotion for which he may be entitled to be considered as an ST(P) community member, and not to undermine his ST(P) status in his further advancement in service. ¶38

Pabin Ch. Boro Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's placement, in the Roster Register for the cadre of Senior Assistant, against a Roster Point meant for unreserved community candidates (in place of a point meant for ST(P) community candidates) prejudices his status as an ST(P) member and his further advancement in service career.

¶30

Court's answer

It is a settled position of law that a Roster Register is only for the purpose of apportioning posts in a cadre amongst unreserved and reserved community candidates, and otherwise has no effect in determining the status of an employee whose name is incorporated in it.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Merely on account of the petitioner being placed in the Roster Register against a point meant for unreserved community candidates, no prejudice has been caused to him; his ST(P) status would not be undermined in any manner and the placement is inconsequential, having no adverse effect on his further progression in service.

¶33

Key takeaways

The petitioner's apprehension that such placement would cause prejudice to his further advancement in service career is clearly misplaced; the grievance raised in the writ petition does not mandate acceptance.ratio¶36
Protective direction: the respondent authorities shall not deprive the petitioner of any further promotion to the next higher grades in the event that he, being a member of the ST(P) community, is entitled to be considered as such.ratio¶37
Further direction: the respondent authorities shall not, in any manner, undermine the petitioner's ST(P) status in the matter of his further advancement in service career.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.), Order dated 15.07.2026 in WP(C)/6106/2023 (Pabin Ch. Boro v. State of Assam & 5 Ors): The petitioner, appointed as LDA in 2008 against an ST(P)-reserved post and promoted to Senior Assistant by order dated 28.12.2016, objected to his placement in the Roster Register published in 2022 against a Roster Point meant for unreserved candidates (shown de-reserved pursuant to Government approval dated 15.12.2016). Held: a Roster Register serves only to apportion posts in a cadre between unreserved and reserved community candidates and does not determine an employee's status; the placement caused no prejudice, was inconsequential, and did not undermine the petitioner's ST(P) status; his apprehension was clearly misplaced. Directions issued: respondents shall not deprive the petitioner of any further promotion for which he is entitled to be considered as ST(P), and shall not undermine his ST(P) status in his further career advancement. Writ petition disposed of.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010234082023

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6106/2023

¶6

PABIN CH. BORO

¶7

S/O- LATE PUWA RAM BORO, R/O- HATATH COLONY, W/NO. 4, HOUSE NO. 63/A, P.O. PANDU, P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-781012, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (BUILDING AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶11

2:THE UNDER SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM (ESTABLISHMENT) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDING AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY) DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶12

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS)/(NATIONAL HIGHWAY WORKS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003.

¶13

4:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

¶14

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRCLE CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003.

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 6:ANAMIKA MECH D/O- LATE PRASANTA MECH R/O- HOUSE NO. 8 RUPNAGAR OPPOSITE HEMESWARI BORO PATH P.O. BHANGAGARH P.S. PALTANBAZAR DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM GUWAHATI-781032

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, MR. A HUSSAIN,A. K. KANU

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MS P BORUAH (R-6),MS. A RANA (R-6),MR. C SHARMA (R-6)

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 15.07.2026

¶22

Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard

¶23

Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, as well as Ms. A. Rana, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent No.6.

¶24

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a

¶25

direction for placing him against the Roster Point meant for Schedule Tribe Plain ST(P) community candidates in the cadre of Senior Assistant in the establishment of the

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Guwahati National Highway Division, in pursuance to his promotion to the said post in the year 2016.

¶28

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition was initially appointed as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA) against a post reserved for the ST(P) community candidates. Such appointment of the petitioner was effected vide order dated 20.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was considered for promotion to the next higher grade of Senior Assistant and accordingly, the petitioner was so promoted vide order dated 28.12.2016. Thereafter, a Roster Register of the cadre of Senior Assistant was published in the year 2022 and therein, the petitioner was placed against a Roster Point meant for unreserved candidates, which was shown to have been de-reserved in pursuance to an approval received from the Government on 15.12.2016. The petitioner who belongs to the ST(P) community, on being placed against a Roster Point meant for unreserved community candidates in the cadre of Senior Assistant, being apprehensive that such placement of the petitioner would result in his status as a member of a ST(P) community to be ignored while considering his case for further advancement in his service career, has instituted the present writ petition.

¶29

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record.

¶30

5. The claim of the petitioner as noticed, hereinabove, is for his placement against a Roster Point meant for ST(P) community cadre of Senior Assistant in the establishment of the Respondent No.5. It is not disputed that the petitioner on being

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

found to be suitable was promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistant vide issuance of an order dated 28.12.2016. The petitioner on his such promotion had joined against the promotional post on the same very date i.e. on 28.12.2016. Thereafter, in the Roster Register as published for the cadre of Senior Assistant in the establishment of the Respondent No.5, the name of the petitioner was so reflected, therein, against a point meant for unreserved community candidates.

¶33

6. It is a settled position of law that a Roster Register is only for the purpose of apportioning the posts in a cadre amongst the unreserved and the reserved community candidates. The Roster Register otherwise would not have any effect in determining the status of an employee, whose name has been incorporated, therein. Merely on account of the petitioner being so placed in the Roster Register against a point meant for unreserved community candidates, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the matter and the ST(P) status of the petitioner would not be undermined in any manner. The placement of the petitioner against a Roster Point meant for unreserved community candidates in the considered view of this Court is inconsequential and would not have any adverse effect on the further progression of the petitioner, herein, in his service career.

¶34

7. Accordingly, the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of being placed against a Roster Point meant for unreserved community candidates in the cadre of Senior Assistant in the establishment of the Respondent No.5, would cause prejudice to his further advancement in his service career in the considered view of

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

this Court is clearly misplaced. Accordingly, the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance from this Court.

¶37

8. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court provides that the respondent authorities on account of the fact that the petitioner has now been placed against a Roster Point meant for unreserved community candidates in the cadre of Senior Assistant in the establishment of the Respondent No.5, would not deprive the petitioner of any further promotion to the next higher grades, in the event, the petitioner being a member of ST(P) community is entitled for being considered as such. The ST(P) status of the petitioner shall not be in any manner undermined by the Respondent Authorities in the matter on further advancement of the petitioner in his service career.

¶38

9. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Pabin Ch. Boro v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pabin Ch. Boro v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rita Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dhaneswar Routh Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Md. After Hussain Vs the Punjab National Bank and 6 Ors.

Bilal Uddin Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Bupen Brahma Alias Bhupen Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Sankar Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.