Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AIZAWL BENCH)
Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J.
Lianchungnunga, Deputy Manager, Zoram Industrial Devp. Corporation Ltd. – Appellants
Vs.
Zuram Industrial Devp. Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 156 of 2003
Decided On: 03.06.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: K.P. Pathak, M. Zothankhuma, S.K. Sharma and P.N. Goswami, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: C. Lalramzauva, A.R. Malhotra, N. Sailo and K.V. Tlangmawia, Advs.
In the absence of specific rules, the length of service in the earlier grade determines seniority, and the authority of the Managing Director to make appointments can be derived from the delegation of powers by the Board of Directors.
Headnote:
Seniority - Fixation of Seniority - Zoram Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (Group A Post) Recruitment Rules 1994, Government of Mizoram office memorandum dated 10.10.02, Government of India office memorandum dated 16.6.2000
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Manager at Zoram Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., challenged the fixation of his seniority vis-a-vis another Deputy Manager and the promotion of another Deputy Manager to the post of Manager. The petitioner argued that seniority should be based only on service in the rank of Deputy Manager and that the promotion process violated guidelines. The respondents contended that length of service should determine seniority and that the promotion and appointment processes were valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that seniority should be determined based on the length of service in the earlier grade of Assistant Manager, as there were no specific rules for seniority fixation. The court also held that the promotion and appointment processes were valid and that the Managing Director had the authority to make appointments.
Issues: 1. Fixation of seniority between Deputy Managers. 2. Validity of the promotion process to the post of Manager. 3. Authority of the Managing Director to make appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of specific rules, length of service in the earlier grade determines seniority. The promotion and appointment processes were found to be valid, and the Managing Director had the authority to make appointments.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
B.P. Katakey, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner who is serving as Deputy Manager, Zoram Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (ZIDCO) challenging the fixation of seniority of he Petitioner vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 5 in the rank of Deputy Manager and also the promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Manager of the said corporation.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Asstt. Manager in ZIDCO and joined the service on 19.12.89. He was thereafter recruited to the post of Deputy Manager, vide order dated 8.2.95 against the 50% quota meant for direct recruitee and the Respondent No. 5 who was initially appointed as Asstt. Manager in the corporation on 12.12.89 was also promoted to the post of Deputy Manager on 8.2.95 against the quota fixed for promote, consequent upon the resolution of the board of directors taken in respect of both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5, under the provision of Zoram Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (Group A Post) Recruitment Rules 1994. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 joined their services as Deputy Manager on the same date i.e. on 8.2.95. The said appointment/promotion of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Deputy Manager was made pursuant to the selection conducted by the departmental promotion committee on 12.1.95 wherein the DPC has recommended that keeping in view the dates of joining of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 in the post of Asstt. Manager, the Respondent No. 5 is to be treated as senior to the writ Petitioner. The said decision of the DPC was accepted by the corporation. The Board of Directors of the corporation thereafter on 1.9.03 has decided to fill up the post of Manager lying vacant and consequently a departmental promotion committee meeting was held on 18.9.03 for consideration of the Deputy managers for promotion to the said post of manager. The Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 who came within the zone of consideration in terms of the provision contained in Zoram Industrial Development Corporation (group A post) Recruitment Rules 1996 were considered for promotion to the said post. The DPC for the purpose of consideration of promotion took into consideration the ACRs' of all these three persons for the year 1996-97 to 2000-2001 and recommended the name of the Respondent No. 4 for promotion to the said post of manager and empanelled the names of Respondent No. 5 and the Petitioner, in order of merit, for the post of Manager, wherein the Respondent No. 5's name was placed at serial No. 1 and that of the Petitioner at serial No. 2. On the basis of the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee, the Respondents No. 4 was promoted to the post of Manager vide order dated 25.9.03 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. Hence the present writ petition challenging the fixation of the seniority of the Respondent No. 5 above the Petitioner in the rank of the Deputy Manager and also the promotion of the Respondent No. 4 to the post of Manager.
3. I have heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1,2,4 and 5 also Mr. N. Sailo, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3.
4. Mr. Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the manner in which the seniority between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 in the rank of Dy. Manager has been fixed is not correct, as, for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the said rank the corporation has to take into consideration the service rendered by them in the rank of deputy manager only and cannot take into consideration the service rendered in the rank of Asstt. Manager as has been done in the instant case. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that since under the 1994 recruitment rules th
