Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1483
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
Anungla Pongener And Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Smti Anungla Pongener And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 32 Of 2025
Decided On : 22-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.309
Headnote
(B) Seniority - Rule 25(IV) - Supersession of senior officials requires specific recommendation and reasoning by DPC to maintain legality in administrative promotions. (Paras 30, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, Assistant Headmasters (AHM), filed a writ petition challenging the final seniority list published by the State on 14.01.2025, arguing their violation of the Nagaland School Education Service Rules of 2017, specifically Rule 25 which pertained to the fixation of inter-se seniority. It was noted that the DPC had not provided reasoning for the apparent supersession of senior officials which became a central aspect of the challenge.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the DPC's recommendations and the subsequent seniority list published to be flawed due to the lack of reasoning in the recommendations that became ineffective, thereby invalidating the process. Thus, it dismissed the petitioner's claims as they approached the court without clean hands and suppressed material facts.
Issues: 1) Legality of the seniority list published on 14.01.2025. 2) Whether seniority fixation under Rule 25 relates to promotees. 3) The requirement for specific reasons in DPC recommendations. 4) The challenge against the procedure employed for the promotion. 5) Applicability of the constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice in this context. (Paras 6, 8, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the DPC failed to follow the legal requirement of documenting reasons for any recommendation that altered established seniority, rendering the promotions and the subsequent seniority list legally unsustainable. It affirmed that recommendations from the DPC are advisory and not binding without due compliance to legal protocols when established rules clearly dictate procedures. (Paras 36, 37)
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and the seniority list published on 14.01.2025 was upheld. A fresh DPC was directed to be convened in compliance with established rules, to review the regularization of officiating promotions. No cost was awarded.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Zho, Mr. Hisinlo Himb, Ahri Sono,V Koza,B. Soto,C. Losou,W. Marhu
For the Respondent: Mr. Limawapang, Mr. Wati Jamir, Mr. N. Angami, Govt Adv NL
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners allege violation of rules of seniority. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. issues for court consideration regarding seniority governance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. senior government advocate disputes petitioners' claims. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's observations on dpc procedures. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal obligations for dpc reason-giving. (Para 25 , 30 , 36) |
| 6. court dismisses petition; directs fresh dpc. (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
The petitioners in the present writ petition are Assistant Headmasters (AHM), Junior Grade II in the School Education Department, Nagaland, the respondent Nos. 3 to 37 are also serving as AHM in the same Grade, in the same department.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) on 15.05.2024. The DPC was held for consideration of regularization of the officiating promotion of both the respondents, as well as the private respondents and the DPC had recommended to regularize the services of the officiating officers in the Grade of AHM in order of preference in terms of Rule 25 of the Nagaland School Education Service Rules 2017 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 2017).
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that based on the recommendation of the DPC, the regularization Order dated 07.06.2024 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of School Education Nagaland. In the said notification, the effective dates of regular promotion of the petitioners in the grade of AHM are prior in point of time to that of the private respondents. All the petitioners have been regularized to the post of AHM, Junior Grade on the same date i.e. 19.01.2023, whereas the private respondents have been regularized in the post of AHM Junior Grade on different dates and months, much later then the petitioners.
4. However, when the final Seniority list of AHM was published on 14.01.2025, the State respondents have placed the petitioners below the private respondents while fixing the seniority and thus, violated Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017. It is alleged that the seniority list dated 14.01.2025 is violative of the Service Rules of 2017 and therefore, being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have approached this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Zho, Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27,28, 30, 31, 34, 35 & 36, Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6, 11, 16, 19 and 32 and Mr. N. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. Also heard Mr. Hisinlo Himb, learned counsel for the applicant in I.A (Civil)/67/2025.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Zho submits that there are six issues which need to be adjudicated by this Court;
1) Whether the seniority fixation under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017 relates to promotees.
2) Whether the post of AHM is a promotional post.
3) Whether there was any select list made by the DPC.
4) Whether the DPC recommendation dated 15.05.2024 and Notification dated 07.06.2024 are under challenge
5) Whether the Service Rules of 2017 governs the seniority of promotees.
6) Whether the impugned final seniority list of 14.01.2025 is violative of Rule 25 of the 2017 Rules.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in the grade of graduate teacher, which is the feeder grade for promotion to AHM, the private respondents were senior to the petitioners, but by the DPC recommendation of 15.05.2025 and Notification dated 07.06.2024, the petitioners have been made senior in the grade of AHM. It is stated that the DPC has recommended the petitioners to be senior in order of preference as provided in Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned final seniority list of AHM dated 14.01.2025 is violative of the constitutional p
