IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of natural justice mandates giving an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order. Violation of this principle can lead to the setting aside of the order.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar; CJ. - This case pertains to seniority in the rank of Junior Administrative Assistant, now known as Judicial Assistant, in the service of the High Court of Manipur.

1. The petitioner and respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 belong to this rank, having been appointed as such in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. The tentative seniority list of Junior Administrative Assistants was published by the High Court of Manipur vide Notification dated 05.09.2020. The petitioner figured therein at Sl. No. 8 while respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 stood at Sl. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 respectively.

Later, by order dated 17.12.2020, the High Court of Manipur brought out the final seniority list of Junior Administrative Assistants, after considering the objections/complaints received in relation to the tentative seniority list dated 05.09.2020. In this final seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 13 while respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 were shown above him at Sl. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 respectively. Aggrieved by the alteration of his seniority, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. His prayer is to direct the High Court of Manipur to prepare the seniority list for Junior Administrative Assistant category afresh in accordance with law and not to initiate the promotional process for this feeder category till the disposal of the writ petition.

By order dated 22.11.2021, this Court directed that any promotions made from this feeder category would be subject to further orders in the writ petition and would not vest any promotee with a right to such promotion.

2. Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel, entered appearance for respondent No. 2; and Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, entered appearance for respondent No. 6. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned standing counsel, appeared for the High Court of Manipur.

3. Ms. L. Sillori, learned counsel for the petitioner, would assert that alteration of the petitioner's seniority was effected without even putting him on notice or giving him an opportunity of hearing. Fairly admitting this fact, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned standing counsel, would contend that doing so would have only been an exercise in futility.

4. We find no merit whatsoever in this submission. When an adverse order is proposed to be passed against a person, the principles of natural justice mandate that he be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the order. It is not for the authority concerned to presume that the person would have nothing to say and that giving him an opportunity of hearing would prove to be an exercise in futility.

When a tentative seniority list of employees in a particular cadre is brought out by the employer and objections/complaints are received in response thereto, persons who would be affected by any alteration in the seniority positions in the tentative list necessarily have to be informed of the objections/ complaints received and given an opportunity of hearing before finalization of the seniority. [See Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of UP and another (2001) 4 SCC 675.

5. As it is an admitted fact that the High Court of Manipur did not follow this procedure and straightaway altered the seniority of the petitioner in the rank of Junior Administrative Assistant, without even giving him an opportunity of hearing, the final seniority list dated 17.12.2020, in so far as he and the private respondents are concerned, has to be set at naught on the short ground that it was issued in utter violation of the rule of audi alteram partem - in effect, no man shall be condemned unheard.

6. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter as to whether the alteration in the petitioner's tentative seniority position in the rank of Junior Administrative Assistant was justified or warranted on facts and in law. It is for the High Court of Manipur, on the administrative side, to decide this issue in the first instance.

7. Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, wou