Inter se seniority must be determined by merit according to recruitment rules, rather than the date of appointment, reinforcing principles of legal validity in public appointments.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - (i). The Petitioner, an Additional Superintendent of Police was initially appointed in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in the Police Department, Government of Sikkim by a letter of appointment dated 09-11-2015. He assails the offer of appointment made to the Respondent No.4 (hereinafter 'R4'), dated 10-05-2016 (Annexure-P7), and the appointment Order, dated 25-06-2016, appointing R4 as Deputy Superintendent of Police and prays that both be set aside. That, the inter se seniority settled vide Notification bearing No.106/GEN/DOP, dated 02-08-2016, whereby R4 has been placed at Serial no.69 while he has been placed at Serial no.70 also be set aside and he be placed at Serial no.69 of the seniority list. That, the Respondents be directed to make necessary corrections in the Office Order, dated 03-09-2019, (vide which he and R4 were promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police), by placing him at Serial no.1 instead of R4. That, the Respondents be ordered to refrain from taking steps on the Order dated 03-09-2019 and a fresh seniority list be published with the rectifications sought supra.

(ii) The Petitioner's case summarized is that on 12-09-2012, the Sikkim Public Service Commission (hereinafter 'R2'), issued an advertisement for filling up twenty-five posts of Under Secretaries and equivalent, in the junior grade of the Sikkim State Civil Service (hereinafter 'SSCS'). On 27-11-2012, by an addendum to the advertisement, two posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter 'DySP') were also included. The advertisement made no mention of a Panel List or Waiting List. The Petitioner along with R4 and other candidates appeared for the preliminary examination conducted by R2 on 20-07-2014 and the main examinations from 23-02-2015 to 26-02-2015. R2 published the names of selected candidates on 09-06-2015. For the post of DySP, one Ms. Barbara Lama (hereinafter 'Candidate No.1'), was selected in the unreserved category, while the Petitioner was selected also to the post of DySP, in the reserved category of Bhutia/Lepcha (BL). Two candidates selected to the post of Under Secretary (hereinafter 'US') declined to take the appointment, thus the said two posts remained vacant. The Candidate No.1, who was first in the Merit List for DySP was not appointed in the post on grounds that she was not entitled to a Certificate of Identification (hereinafter ' COI '). The Petitioner upon receiving his letter of appointment, dated 19-11-2015, joined training at the North Eastern Police Academy (hereinafter 'NEPA'), Meghalaya from January, 2016. His letter of appointment stated that seniority would be maintained as declared by the R2 vide its Notice bearing No.93/SPSC/2015, dated 09-06-2015. The Petitioner later came to learn of the appointment of R4 in the post of DySP vide Order dated 25-06-2016 and of the Notification dated 02-08-2016, whereby in the inter se Seniority List of the members of the SSCS, R4 was placed at Serial no.69, while he was placed at Serial no.70, thereby making him junior to R4. Being thus aggrieved, he submitted a representation to R1 the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, Training and Public Grievances through R3, the Director General of Police, on 24-10-2017. He apprised R1 that R4 had joined his training centre in July, 2016 while he had joined NEPA in January, 2016 therefore R4 was junior to him in service. In response R1 informed him that his prayer could not be considered as the inter se seniority was determined on merit, based on the exam results declared by R2. Hence, the instant Writ Petition seeking the prayers reflected hereinabove.

2. R1 disputed the contentions of the Petitioner and by averments sought to clarify that that as doubts were raised about the COI submitt