Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT, SHILLONG
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
B. Nongrum and Shri. G. Dkhar - Appellant
Versus
Government of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 312/2010
Decided On : 03-03-2014
Gradation List - Inspector of Excise - 3.10.2006 - The present judgment discusses the challenge to the Gradation List/Inter-se Seniority List of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006. The court also considers the subsequent promotions of the petitioners and the private respondent No. 6 to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Excise and Superintendent of Excise. The judgment highlights the principle of collateral challenge and the futility of challenging promotions through a selection process without specific prayers for the same in the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners and the private respondent No. 6 were appointed as Inspector of Excise after a selection process by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission. The petitioners challenged the Gradation List/Inter-se Seniority List of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006, claiming seniority over the private respondent No. 6. Subsequently, both parties were promoted to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Excise and Superintendent of Excise through a selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present writ petition was barred by the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the CPC, as the earlier writ petition for the same relief had been dismissed as infructuous. The court also emphasized that the present writ petition did not include a prayer for setting aside the promotion orders, making it a futile exercise to challenge the promotions through a selection process.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the present writ petition, considering the dismissal of the earlier writ petition for the same relief and the absence of specific prayers for challenging the promotion orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the CPC, which precludes a party from instituting a fresh suit or petition in respect of the same subject-matter after abandoning or withdrawing an earlier suit or petition without the court's permission. The court also emphasized the doctrine of collateral challenge, stating that the validity of an order must be directly challenged and set aside in an independent proceeding.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the present writ petition as devoid of merit, emphasizing the futility of challenging promotions through a selection process without specific prayers for the same in the writ petition.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Sing, J.The present writ petition is the second round of litigation for the same relief/prayer viz. for quashing the Gradation List/Inter-se seniority List of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006 in respect of the petitioners and the private respondent No. 6, but in the second writ petition, over and above, the prayer for quashing the inter-se seniority list of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006, a further prayer had been made for quashing the Gradation List of the Deputy Superintendents of Excise so far as the petitioners and the private respondent No. 6 are concerned and also for a direction to re-fix their seniority. During the pendency of the first round of litigation i.e. WP (C) No. 251(SH)/2007 between the present parties, questioning the impugned Gradation List/Inter-se Seniority List of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006, the petitioners and the private respondent No. 6 were further promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') associated with the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (for short 'MPSC') to the higher post i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Excise vide order dated of the Governor of Meghalaya dated 17.02.2009. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the post of Deputy Superintendent of Excise is a selection post and to that post, the petitioners and the private respondent No. 6 were promoted after subjecting to selection process by the said order dated 17.02.2009. Again when the present writ petition is pending, the petitioners and the private respondent No. 6 were further promoted to the post of Superintendent of Excise on the recommendations of the DPC vide order of the Governor of Meghalaya dated 12.10.2012.
2. Heard Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-5. Also heard Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.
3. The petitioners, private respondent No. 6 and 12 others were selected after subjecting to the selection process by the MPSC for appointment to the post of Inspector of Excise under the Commissioner of Excise and the MPSC under its letter dated 06.09.1990 sent the list of the selected candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of Inspector of Excise; in the said select list in order of merit, the name of the private respondent No. 6 appeared at Srl. No. 7 and the names of the petitioners appeared at Srl. No. 8 & 11 respectively. It is not disputed that in the list of the selected candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of Inspector of Excise, the name of the private respondent No. 6 is above the petitioners. The petitioners who were the selected candidates were appointed as Inspector of Excise vide order dated 16.11.1990.
4. The Commissioner of Excise under his letter dated 06.11.1991, requested the MPSC to extend the validity of the said select list of the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Inspector of Excise dated 06.09.1990 for a further period of six months w.e.f. 07.09.1991, and the MPSC agreed to extend the validity period of the said select list for the post of Inspector of Excise for a further period of six months w.e.f. 07.09.1991 vide letter of the Secretary, MPSC, Shillong dated 10.12.1991. During the validity period of the said select list of the candidates for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Excise in order of merit, the private respondent No. 6 was appointed as Inspector of Excise vide order of the Commissioner of Excise, Meghalaya dated 27.02.2992. It would be beneficial to mention here that in the present writ petition, the petitioners are not assailing nor questioning the order/letter of the MPSC dated 10.12.1991 for extending the validity period of the said select list and also the order of the Commissioner of Excise dated 27.02.1992
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
