1. These batches of writ appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 25.3.94 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 495 of 1994/114 of 1994 (Imphal Bench) and Civil Rule No, 247 of 1994. A common question of facts and law has arisen in these writ appeals and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Respondent No. 1 herein as writ petitioner filed a petition praying for setting aside the Government order dated 4th January, 1994 (Annexure A/8), the Government order dated 31st January, 1994 (AnnexureA/13) and the Government order dated 31st January, 1994 (Annexure A/15) in the writ petition. In the said writ petition filed by Shri Yumnam Mangibabu Singh, respondent No. 1 herein, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 24 of 1994 and Writ Appeal No. 25 of 1994 was arrayed as respondent No. 1 and the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 26 of 1994 and Writ Appeal No. 27 of 1994 was arrayed as respondent No. 5. The learned Single Judge after hearing counsel of both sides allowed the petition and set aside the office memorandum dated 4.1.1994 (Annexure A/8) fixing the inter se seniority of the petitioner below the respondent No.5. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent No. 1 to 4 to fix the inter se seniority of the petitioner according to the observation and decision made by the Single Judge in the judgment.

3. We have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel for thevJ appellant in all the appeals and Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned counsel for the respon-dents in all the appeals.

4. Four reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge in allowing the petition. These are:

(1) Writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein was senior to the respondent No.5 (proforma respondent herein) in the cadre of Executive Engineer;

(2) The appointment on ad hoc basis of the writ petitioner to the post of SE was earlier to the appointment of respondent 5 on ad hoc basis to the post of SE inasmuch as the writ petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis to the post of SE on ad hoc basis on 4.12.82;

(3) The writ petitioner had become eligible for promotion to the post of SE earlier than the respondent 5 inasmuch as the writ petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of SE on 9.5.81 and the respondent 5 became eligible for promotion to the post of SE on 4,6.82;

(4) The writ petitioner has put in more length of continuous service in the post of SE than the respondent 5;

On the basis of the aforesaid reasons the learned Single Judge had held in paragraph 8 of its judgment that the inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent 5 in the cadre of SE should be determined according to the seniority in the feeder post, namely, in the cadre of Executive Engineer. It would thus appear that the findings of the learned Single Judge solely based on seniority of the writ petitioner and respondent 5 in the cadre of Executive Engineer, holding that the promotion to the post of SE should be made in accordance with the seniority in the feeder post ie Executive Engineer.

5. Mr. A.Nilamani Singh has assailed the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the findings of the learned Single Judge are contrary to the outstanding general principle for determination of seniority laid down under the office memorandum dated 22.11.1959 by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and circulated by the Manipur Administration in its letter dated 14 August, 1962 and letter dated 7.2.1986 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension and adopted by the Govt. of Manipur by its Memorandum No. 21/24/8/-DP dated 13 Nrvember, 1987 annexed in these writ appeals. According to Mr. Nilamani Singh, the post of SE is a selection post and the seniority in the selection post has to be determined in order of merit in accordance with the guidelines and principle determining the seniority.

6. That the post of SE is a selection post is not disputed at the Bar. If that is so, the int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document