Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Md. Manouwer Ali & Ors. - PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Manipur & Ors. - RESPONDENTS
W.P. (C) NO. 319 OF 2015
Decided On : 26-09-2016
The dispute for seniority is amongst two groups of persons appointed under the direct recruitment quota to the post of Inspectors. The petitioners contended that they had been regularly appointed in the year 1994 whereas the main contesting private respondents No. 3 to 46 were appointed on regular basis subsequently in the year 1999. And as such, these private respondents subsequently appointed on regular basis are to be placed below the petitioners while fixing the seniority list. The contesting private respondents as well as the State Government on the other hand, however, contended that they were appointed in the year 1992 by following the rules, though there might not be regular vacancies at the time, which is also true of the present petitioners, in as much as when the petitioners were regularly appointed in the year 1994, there were no regular vacancies and all the regular vacancies came to existence only in the year 1999 when supernumerary posts were created. Accordingly, the contesting private respondents are entitled to count their seniority w.e.f. 1992.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute for seniority is amongst two groups of persons appointed under the direct recruitment quota to the post of Inspectors. The petitioners contended that they had been regularly appointed in the year 1994 whereas the main contesting private respondents No. 3 to 46 were appointed on regular basis subsequently in the year 1999. And as such, these private respondents subsequently appointed on regular basis are to be placed below the petitioners while fixing the seniority list. The contesting private respondents as well as the State Government on the other hand, however, contended that they were appointed in the year 1992 by following the rules, though there might not be regular vacancies at the time, which is also true of the present petitioners, in as much as when the petitioners were regularly appointed in the year 1994, there were no regular vacancies and all the regular vacancies came to existence only in the year 1999 when supernumerary posts were created. Accordingly, the contesting private respondents are entitled to count their seniority w.e.f. 1992.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were not regularly appointed in the year 1994 as there were no regular vacancies at that time. The Court also held that the private respondents were appointed in the year 1992 by following the rules and that their appointments were regularized in the year 1999. The Court further held that the private respondents are entitled to count their seniority from the date of their appointment in 1992.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were regularly appointed in the year 1994? 2. Whether the private respondents were appointed in the year 1992 by following the rules? 3. Whether the private respondents' appointments were regularized in the year 1999? 4. Whether the private respondents are entitled to count their seniority from the date of their appointment in 1992?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person can be said to be regularly appointed only when he or she is appointed by following the recruitment rules and against regular vacancies in which event, such person can be said to be borne in the cadre and become a member of the cadre. 2. In order to become “a member of service” a candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely, (i) the appointment must be in a substantive capacity; (ii) to a post in the service i.e. in a substantive vacancy; (iii) made according to rules; (iv) within the quota prescribed for the source. 3. When the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Heard Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard also Mr. Y. Ashang, Addl. G.A., for the State Respondents, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the private respondents no. 3 to 46, referred to as the contesting private respondents and Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the respondents no. 47 to 61.
2. The petitioners have challenged the seniority list dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure-A/5 to the writ petition) for the post of Inspectors in the office of Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Manipur alleging that though the petitioners were regularly appointed earlier in the year 1994, the private respondents, who were regularly appointed subsequently in the year 1999, have been placed above the petitioners.
3. The petitioners contend that the petitioners were initially appointed as Inspectors on officiating basis during the period 06.12.1990 and 17.02.1992. As the petitioners continued to serve for a long period, they approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court for regularisation of their services by filing writ petitions being C.R. No.6 of 1993, C.R. No.8 of 1993, C.R. No.37 of 1993, C.R. No.1481 of 1992, and C.R. No.42 of 1992. In the said writ petitions, the Gauhati High Court passed an interim order on 30.3.93 to the effect that the petitioners shall not be ousted from service.
4. It has been submitted that while the aforesaid writ petitions were pending, the office of the Registrar, Co-Operative Society initiated the process for regularisation in different posts as per the Office Memorandum dated 22.08.1994. Mr. Bimol, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as evident from the letter dated 21.2.1994 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies prior to the regularization process, there were as many as 16 posts of Inspectors were lying vacant in the office of Registrar, Co-Operative Society. Mr. Bimol, submits that as the petitioners were continuing their Services on officiating basis as mentioned above, in terms of the policy decision of the State Government as contained in the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the officiating appointees were regularised by holding a special DPC. Thus, on the basis of the recommendation of the Class-III DPC held on 05.08.94 and as approved by the Government on 06.08.1994, the present petitioners along with 6 others were appointed as Inspectors, Co-Operative Societies in order of merit vide order dated 08.08.94 issued by the Registrar, Co-Operative Society (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition). The aforesaid appointment order, was superceded by a subsequent order dated 31.8.94 clarifying that the petitioners and 6 others would be deemed to be appointed as Inspector of Co-Operative Society on regular basis w.e.f. 08.08.94. In view of regularisation of the services of the petitioners as Inspectors, the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioners were also closed as not pressed vide order dated 24.11.94. Mr. Bimol submits that it is evidently clear that the petitioners were appointed as Inspectors under the direct recruitment quota on regular basis w.e.f. 08.08.94 and accordingly, their service benefits including seniority will be counted from 08.08.94. However, according to the petitioners, the problem has arisen because of the private respondents, who, though, were appointed subsequently in the year 1999, have been placed above the petitioners in the seniority list as mentioned above.
5. Mr. Bimol, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the contesting private respondents, though were regularly appointed in the year 1999, were earlier appointed in various capacities as Inspectors against the ad-hoc vacancies. Mr. Bimol, submits that earlier a DPC was held on 12/13 Feb. 1987 on the recommendation of which a number of Inspectors were appointed. However, as the number of recommendees were more than the existing vacancies, these excess recommendee
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
