HAMSODAO HOJAI AND 27 ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS Advocate - GA, ASSAM, ,SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT,SC, NCHAC — WP(C)/1865/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section ART 226. Disposed: --Disposed Of on 23rd April 2026.
CNR: GAHC010065352026
e-Filing Number
26-03-2026
Filing Number
WP(C)/3697/2026
Filing Date
27-Mar-2026
Registration No
WP(C)/1865/2026
Registration Date
30-Mar-2026
Judge
Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
Coram
Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
10023 - Selection and appointment with respect to State Govt Employees. ( 23 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
23-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Of
Last updated 01-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HAMSODAO HOJAI AND 27 ORS
Adv. MR B D DAS,MR J LOTHA,MR J LOTHA, ,MR H K SARMA,MR J LOTHA
-
2.JORINGDAO DAOLAGUPU
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
3.DEBOJIT HOJAI
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
4.SUNITA NAIDING
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
5.BIVEK LANGTHASA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
6.RASHMI KARIGAPSA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
7.PAMMIL HAGJER
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
8.ROCKY CHAND HAGJER
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
9.ANURAJ LONGMAILAI
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
10.SUMRIT LANGTHASA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
11.CHANDINI NAIDING
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
12.SUDIP KHEMPRAI
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
13.NIKHIL NUNISA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
14.JOSMAIDAO THAOSEN
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
15.PROVAKAR HOJAI
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
16.ALBIDRA KEMPRAI
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
17.PROSENDU BODO
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
18.ROHAN KARIGAPASA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
19.DEPENJOY BATHARI
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
20.NAIRUNG NUNISA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
21.SUPIYA DIBRAGEDE
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
22.SUBORAJ JOHORI
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
23.SAMRATH LANGTHASA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
24.PRONIB NUNISA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
25.NOMIT NUNISA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
26.PRITIJIT KHERSA
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
27.PIRUSH ARDAO
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
-
28.SEETOM DAOLAGAJAO
Adv. HARSHADITTYA ROY DAS
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS Advocate - GA (Government Advocate), ASSAM, ,SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT,SC, NCHAC
-
2.THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
-
3.THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY ETC
-
4.THE NORTH CACHAR HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL
-
5.THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AND REVENUE OFFICER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Apr-2026
- For Fresh Admission With Stay/Bail -
Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
-
23-Apr-2026
Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF
Summary The Gauhati High Court struck down Rule 5(1A) of the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which excluded candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Councils from a one-time recruitment opportunity for Land Records Assistant posts. The court found the exclusion unconstitutional and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, as it discriminated based on place of residence without any rational connection to the amendment's objective of accommodating pre-trained candidates. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Apr-2026
Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF
-
27-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP(C)/1865/2026
Summary The Gauhati High Court struck down Rule 5(1A) of the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which excluded candidates nominated by Territorial and Autonomous Councils from a one-time recruitment opportunity for Land Records Assistant posts. The court found the exclusion unconstitutional and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, as it discriminated based on place of residence without any rational connection to the amendment's objective of accommodating pre-trained candidates. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts