IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of the petitioners should be counted from the date of their regularization as Assistant Engineers. The court also emphasized the irregularity of re-fixing the seniority list without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners are graduate Electrical Engineers and were appointed as Assistant Engineers in the PHE Department under Regulation 3 (f) of the MPSC (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1972 on 10.01.2003. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition, is with the inter se seniority list wherein they have alleged that after a long period of 14 years the same has been unsettled.

2. The brief facts are that in 2006, the MPSC conducted a special interview for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the PHE Department and the petitioners were placed in order of merit at serial number 1 and 2 respectively, in the list of 6 successful candidates. In the years 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2016, the seniority list of officers serving in the PHE Department in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Electrical/ SDO) was published and both the petitioners at serial number 1 and 2 were all along placed in a higher seniority position than the Respondents 3, 4 and 5.

3. In March 2018, a representation was submitted by the respondent No. 3, objecting to the seniority list dated 27.10.2017 citing Rule 20(4) of the Meghalaya PHE Service Rules 1996, which provides amongst others, that any cadre member of the service appointed by promotion, shall be senior to a member appointed by direct recruitment where such appointment, falls in the same year. In this case the petitioners on 08.06.2006, on the recommendation of the MPSC, their services as Assistant Engineers was regularized, however, the letter was silent as to from which date their services was formally regularized. The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 on the other hand were appointed as Sub-Engineer Grade-I on 18.11.1991 and vide order dated 13.10.2006 were granted temporary/adhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (PHE) and thereafter, on the recommendation of the MPSC, the promotion of the respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 was regularized vide letter dated 29.10.2007. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 and 2 after many years by Notification dated 23.05.2018 placed the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 at a higher seniority position, which the petitioners allege has unsettled the settled seniority position without appreciating that the petitioners joined the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) initially on 14.01.2003, whereas the private respondents were promoted on 13.10.2006 as Assistant Engineers.

4. The petitioners' main contention is that as their appointments under Regulation 3(f) w.e.f. 14.01.2003 was made pursuant to the recommendation of the MPSC, which was subsequently regularized on 08.06.2006 again on the recommendation of the MPSC the period of service of the petitioners from 14.01.2003, must be counted for the purpose of seniority. A further ground taken by the petitioners to claim their seniority from 2003, is that from the date of entry into the service cadre of Assistant Engineer/SDO, the salary of the petitioners was disbursed after the pay slips were issued by the office of the Accountant General and further, they were also granted annual increments, allowances and other benefits as admissible right from January, 2003.

5. The State respondents in issuing the impugned gradation list, have put up a case that the writ petitioners were not initially recruited on a regular basis against permanent sanctioned posts, but that their appointments made in 2003, was subject to discharge without notice, as they were made under Regulation 3(f) of the MPSC Regulation, 1972. It is contended that only after the writ petitioners underwent the requisite recruitment process conducted by the MPSC that vide Notification dated 08.06.2006, the petitioners were regularized as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) by the PHE Department. The correction or rectification it is contended, was done under Rule 20 (4) of the Meghalaya Public Health Engineering Service Rules, 1996, wherein it has been provided that in any cadre, a member of the service appointed by promotion shall be sen