Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Smti Yamek Mize Taggu, W/o. Shri T. Taggu & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 539, 217, 540, 218 of 2023
Decided On : 13-08-2024
Seniority - Section Officers - Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Recruitment to the Post of Section Officer Rules, 2004 - The Court ruled that the seniority list prepared by the Departmental Screening Committee was flawed as it relied on an overruled judgment, emphasizing the need for adherence to the latest legal principles regarding seniority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the final seniority list of Section Officers, arguing that the list improperly placed direct recruits above promotees based on an overruled legal precedent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the screening committee's decision was unsustainable as it relied on a judgment that had been overruled, and that the promotions in question were not direct recruitments.
Issues: 1. Is the screening committee's decision based on an overruled judgment sustainable? 2. Can those promoted through a limited departmental competitive exam be considered direct recruits? 3. Should seniority be based on the date of vacancy or actual entry into the cadre?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the seniority of promotees cannot be undermined by direct recruits when the latter were not part of the cadre at the time of the former's promotion, and that the screening committee's reliance on an overruled judgment was legally incorrect.
Result: The writ petitions are allowed, quashing the impugned seniority list and directing a new list to be prepared.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Dev Choudhury, J.
1. Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, State of Arunachal Pradesh representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
2. These four writ petitions filed by two writ petitioners are taken up together for final disposal as it involves similar issues, cause of action and are inter connected.
3. By way of WP(C)/217(AP)/2023 and WP(C)/218(AP)/2023 these batch of writ petitions, the final inter-se-seniority list of Section Officer of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat dated 24.06.2020 has been challenged.
4. The respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit in opposition in the aforesaid writ petitions taking a stand that the final select list was prepared on the basis of a decision of the Departmental Screening Committee held on 11.06.2020. Such decision of the Screening Committee held on 11.06.2020 is under challenge in WP(C)/539(AP)/2023 and WP(C)/540(AP)/2023.
5. The brief facts of the present case can be summarized as follows:-
II. Thought the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, were promoted at later point of time, they were placed above the present petitioners in the final seniority list for the reason that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are direct recruits and the petitioners are promotees. Therefore, the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340, is applicable and accordingly, the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are required to be placed above the promotees like the petitioners in the final seniority list.
6. At the relevant point of time, Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Recruitment to the Post of Section Officer Rules, 2004 (for short Rules, 2004) was holding the field regulating the method of recruitment of the post of Section Officers, Group-B (Gazetted) in Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Services. Such Rule was enacted in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
7. Rule 4 of the said Rules, 2004 prescribes the method of recruitment, age limit and qualification etc. in terms of Column 5 to 14 of the Schedule appended to the said Rules, 2004.
8. In terms of the Schedule, 50% post of Section Officer is to be filled up by promotion on the basis of selection cum seniority from amongst the Assistant of Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Sub Ordinate Service, who have rendered at least 6 years of regular service in the grade.
9. The remaining 50% are to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination from amongst the Assistants of Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat, who have rendered 6 years of regular service in the grade on the basis of merit to be adjusted on the basis of an examination having total 350 marks, which includes General Knowledge (100 marks), General English/Noting/Drafting/Easy Writing (100 marks), FRs/SRs/GFRs/Pension Rules/CCS(CCA) Rules/General Provident Fund Rules (100 marks) and Viva-Voce (50 marks).
10. There is no dispute as regards the qualification of the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 for being promoted to the post of Section Officer. There is also no dispute, as regards their date of promotion to the post of Section Officer. It is also not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were promoted after being successful in the limited departmental competitive examination and that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of selection cum seniority.
11. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that whole foundation of the decision of the Departmental Screening Committee to re-fix the seniority position is absolutely fallacious, for the reason that the judgment of N. R. Parmar (supra), could not have been made applicable on the date of the decision of
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
Seniority in government service is determined by the date of appointment, not just the year joined in the cadre, protecting prior established seniority rights.
Inter-se seniority for direct recruits/promotees appointed 27.11.2012-18.11.2019, not finalized by 18.11.2019, determined from recruitment process initiation date per 1986/2014 OMs, overriding later ....
Seniority for government employees must be determined from the date of appointment, not the initiation of recruitment, as upheld in relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
Seniority must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment, as an employee cannot claim seniority for any period prior to their actual entry into the service or their induction into the cadr....
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
