1. Dispute over seniority in the cadre of senior lecturer concerning the impact of officiating service and qualifying service requirements under statutory service rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1028
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Smt. Imlikokla Longchar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7166 of 2022, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27603 of 2019
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 2003 Rules supersede any contrary provision in an earlier legal instrument, and the requirement of five years of service in the feeder grade is essential for promotion to the next higher grade.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Seniority Dispute - Nagaland State Council of Educational Research and Training Service - 2003 Rules - The judgment discusses the career graph of the appellants and the respondent, the application of the 2003 Rules, and the principle of continuous service for promotion. The court emphasizes that the time spent in the immediate superior grade on stopgap or ad-hoc basis should not be computed for determining the length of service, and the requirement of five years of service in the feeder grade is essential for promotion to the next higher grade. The court also highlights that the 2003 Rules supersede any contrary provision in an earlier legal instrument and that the appellants did not fulfill the eligibility requirement for promotion to the post of senior lecturer.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute revolves around the seniority of the appellants and the respondent in the cadre of senior lecturer under the State Council of Educational Research and Training Service (SCERT), Department of Education, Government of Nagaland. The appellants sought seniority over the respondent, leading to several rounds of litigations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants did not fulfill the eligibility requirement for promotion to the post of senior lecturer as per the 2003 Rules, and their time spent in the immediate superior grade on stopgap or ad-hoc basis should not be computed for determining the length of service. The court emphasized the principle of continuous service for promotion and held that the 2003 Rules supersede any contrary provision in an earlier legal instrument.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the 2003 Rules in determining the seniority of the appellants and the respondent in the cadre of senior lecturer.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is that the time spent in the immediate superior grade on stopgap or ad-hoc basis should not be computed for determining the length of service, and the requirement of five years of service in the feeder grade is essential for promotion to the next higher grade. The 2003 Rules supersede any contrary provision in an earlier legal instrument, and the appellants did not fulfill the eligibility requirement for promotion to the post of senior lecturer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the authorities to take steps based on the seniority positions of the appellants and the respondent in terms of the judgment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Saksham Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Saksham Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants seek seniority based on officiating promotion dates, while the respondent argues that ad-hoc service in the feeder cadre cannot count toward promotion eligibility. (Para 4 , 8 )
3. The court found that officiating service in a superior grade and contractual service in the feeder grade do not count toward qualifying service for promotion. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
4. Stopgap or ad-hoc service in a superior grade and contractual service in the feeder grade cannot be computed for determining length of service in a cadre. (Para 12 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed; seniority positions to be determined based on the court's findings regarding qualifying service and regularization. (Para 16 )
6. Does time spent in a superior grade on an officiating or ad-hoc basis count toward the length of service in that cadre?
No, the general principle of service jurisprudence is that stopgap or ad-hoc service in an immediate superior grade is not computed for determining length of service in that cadre, unless specific rules provide otherwise. (Para 12 , 14 )
7. Can contractual service in a feeder post be counted toward the continuous qualifying service required for promotion to a higher grade?
No, time spent on a contractual basis in the feeder post cannot be factored in when determining the length of service required for eligibility for promotion. (Para 14 )
8. Does an administrative memorandum override statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution?
No, statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution supersede any contrary provisions contained in earlier legal instruments or administrative memoranda. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The origin of the controversy giving rise to the present appeal goes back to the year 2007 and there have been several rounds of litigations over the issue which we shall briefly narrate in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment. The contesting parties in this appeal are the appellants and the respondent no. 4 (Keruupfeu “K”). The educational authorities of the State of Nagaland, who are also respondents in this appeal are supporting the appellants. The dispute is on the question of seniority the appellants and K in the cadre of senior lecturer under the State Council of Educational Research and Training Service (SCERT), Department of Education, Government of Nagaland. The appellants are collectively seeking seniority over K.
3. We are giving below a table showing the career graph of K and the four appellants (henceforth referred to as A1, A2, A3 and A4 respectively in descending order from the table) in their respective cadres:
| Name | Parties | Date of Appointment | Date of Regularisation as Lecturers/Senior Lecturer | Date of Temporary Promotion as Senior Lecturer | Date of Regularisation as Senior Lecturer |
| Smt. Imlikokla Longchar | Appellant No. 1 | 30.10.1992 Lecturer on contract | 28.03.2001 with effect from 15.01.2001 regularised as lecturer | 20.11.2003 with effect from 14.11.2003 | 08.11.2007 with effect from 14.11.2003 |
| Smt Atula Aier | Appellant No. 2 | 30.10.1992 Lecturer on contract | 28.03.2001 with effect from 15.01.2001 regularised as lecturer | 20.11.2003 with effect from 14.11.2003 | 08.11.2007 with effect from 14.11.2003 |
| Shri Limatoshi | Appellant No. 3 | 18.02.1993 Lecturer on contract | 28.03.2001 with effect from 15.01.2001 regularised as a lecturer | 20.11.2003 with effect from 20.01.2001 | 08.11.2007 with effect from 20.01.2001 |
| Smt Alemla Jamir | Appellant No. 4 | 31.03.1993 Lecturer on contract | 28.03.2001 with effect from 15.01.2001 regularised as lecturer | 20.11.2003 with effect from 20.01.2001 | 08.11.2007 with effect from 20.01.2001 |
| Smt. Keruupfeu | Respondent No. 4 | 30.03.1993 Senior Lecturer on contract | March 2005 with effect from 16.01.2004 regularised as Senior Lecturer | Was appointed in this post on contract | -- |
4. Draft seniority list as on 1st July 2006 was circulated by the authorities in which the K was shown below the appellants. K’s objection to this seniority list was mainly on the point that the appellants could not be positioned above her as the dates of entry of the appellants into the cadre of senior lecturer was subsequent to her entry into the said cadre. The appellants initially came to be senior lecturer on the basis of their officiating promotions on 20th November 2003 with effect from 14th November 2003 (for A1 and A2) and 20th January 2001 (for A3 and A4) whereas K’s regularisation in the post in question was with effect from 16th January 2004. K’s regular promotion in that cadre was before the actual dates of regularisation of the appellants in the subject post. The appellants’ regularisation in the said posts was made in the year 2007, with earlier effect as would be evident from the abovereferred table. K’s representation was rejected and final seniority list was published on 17th November 2006 in terms of the draft list. As per a Cabinet Memorandum no. EDS/SCERT-15/2004 (“Memorandum”) issued in the month of March 2005, regularisation recommendation of K was made with effect from 16th January 2004 as she had completed more than ten years’ service in the department. This appears to have had been subsequently approved and notified. We also find from this Memorandum that she was recommended for regularisation on the basis of a suitability test. The said Memorandum, inter-alia, carried the following stipulation:
“4(2) There are some regular lecturers who were given officiating promotions to the posts of Sr. Lecturers subject to regularization by the
