Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv. with Ms. A. Kharmyndai, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with Ms. Z.E Nongkynrih, GA (For R 1-3)

Mr. S. Sen, Adv. (For R 4&5)

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The petitioners who are presently serving as Sub-Divisional Officers/Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the PHE Department of the Government of Meghalaya by way of the instant writ petition are seeking rectification of the gradation list dated 14.02.2024, to show them senior to the respondents Nos. 4 & 5. The ground on which the rectification is sought is that the petitioners except for the petitioner No. 1, who is higher in the merit list than the respondent No. 5, but all lower in the merit list to the respondent No. 4, has been shown lower in the gradation list in spite of being appointed earlier than the said respondents. The relevant dates being as follows:-

i) Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 12.01.2007

ii) Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 20.12.2006

iii) Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 22.12.2006

iv) Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 13.12.2006

v) Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 03.05.2007

vi) Respondent No. 5 was appointed on 15.05.2008

2. Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Kharmyndai, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners along with the other candidates had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Health Engineering Department and were part of the 22(Twenty-two) successful candidates recommended for appointment against 19(Nineteen) posts. The petitioners by virtue of the Reservation Policy, were then appointed against the said posts before the respondents Nos. 4 & 5. However, he submits in the inter se seniority list published by the respondent No. 2, dated 05.05.2021, the name of the respondent No. 4 was reflected at Sl. No. 16, which is above the petitioner No. 1 at Sl. No. 17, and the name of respondent No. 5 was reflected at Sl. No. 18, above the name of the respondents, Nos. 2, 3 & 4, who were shown at Sl. Nos. 19, 20 & 21, though they were appointed subsequently. Being aggrieved, the petitioners he submits, had preferred a representation on 11.03.2022 enclosing the Judgment and Order of this Court dated 10.02.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 301/2018 and other connected matters, wherein it was held that subsequently inducted employees, would not stand on the same footing as candidates appointed earlier though they may be higher in the merit list.

3. Without their grievance being addressed, the learned Senior counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 then published a draft gradation list on 01.01.2023, which again reflected the names of the petitioners below the names of the respondents. It is then submitted that the petitioners submitted a fresh representation to the respondent No. 2 on 25.05.2023 and also relied upon the Judgment dated 09.11.2022 delivered in WP(C) 394 of 2021 in the case of Zanera R. Marak & Ors. vs. State of Meghalaya, which held that ordinarily a person in public employment appointed earlier, becomes senior to a person appointed later, irrespective of age, merit or other considerations. The said representation he submits, was rejected on the ground that the referred Judgment relied upon by the petitioners was not relevant, inasmuch as, the Rule governing the two services i.e. Meghalaya Civil Services and Meghalaya Public Health Engineering Service Rules were completely distinct from each other, and further Office Memorandum dated 14.06.2023, governing the relationship between reservation roster and seniority was also referred to.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1, then published a fresh gradation list on 14.02.2024, showing the inter se seniority of the officers of the Department as on 01.01.2024, but the r