IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the application of the quota-rota rule for determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, emphasizing its necessity for fairness in service.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Choudhury, J.)

This intra -court appeal is presented against a Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 124/2019. It may be mentioned that by the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2022, the learned Single Judge has disposed of two writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 62/2019 and W.P.[C] no. 124/2019, by dismissing both of them. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 62/2019 was preferred by two writ petitioners viz. [i] Moanungsang; and [ii] Allen Imchen wherein the present appellant no. 1, Neilhoulie Seyie was impleaded as party-respondent no. 9. On the other hand, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 124/2019 was preferred by the present two appellants as the writ petitioners viz. [i] Neilhoulie Seyie [A-1]; and [ii] Vihinu John [A-2] wherein the two writ petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 62/2019 were impleaded as party-respondent no. 3 and party-respondent no. 4 respectively and they are also impleaded in this intra -court appeal as party-respondent no. 3 [R-3] and party-respondent no. 4 [R-4] respectively.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of their writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 124/2019 where the present two appellants were the writ petitioners, the instant intra -court appeal has been preferred challenging that part of the common Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2022. It has been submitted at the Bar that no intra -court appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 62/2019 wherein the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4 in the instant intra court appeal, were the writ petitioners.

3. The subject-matters of both the writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 62/2019 and W.P.[C] no. 124/2019 were, in essence, with regard to inter se seniority of the contesting parties in the post/cadre of Inspector of Supply in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Nagaland. The contestation arose among the contesting parties when by a Government Letter no. SPLY-10/03/2013 dated 19.11.2018, a tentative seniority list of Inspector of Supply in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Nagaland was published. The genesis of the dispute is another seniority list of Inspector of Supply published by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Nagaland indicating the inter se seniority positions of incumbents holding the post of Inspector of Supply, as on 31.03.2016. In between publication of the afore-mentioned two seniority lists, another revised seniority list was circulated for the Inspector of Supply, as on 15.03.2017, reference of which would be made in the later part of this order.

4. In order to understand and appreciate the exact nature of the inter se seniority dispute involved, it appears apt, at the inception, to refer to both the seniority list of Inspector of Supply, as on 31.03.2016 [hereinafter also referred to as ‘First List of Seniority’, at places, for easy reference] and the seniority list of Inspector of Supply, as on 19.11.2018 [hereinafter also referred to as ‘Second List of Seniority’, at places, for easy reference], published by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Nagaland.

4.1. The First List of Seniority, that is, the seniority list of Inspector of Supply in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Nagaland, as on 31.03.2016, was as follows :