1. Inter-se seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees in a police service cadre regarding whether seniority depends on the date of appointment or the date of vacancy. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S.BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors - Appellant
Versus
Ningam Siro & Ors - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8833-8835 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19565-19567 of 2019) with Civil Appeal Nos. 8838 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17007 of 2019) Civil Appeal Nos. 8836-8837 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19568-19569 of 2019)
Decided On : 19-11-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
A person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne in service.
When High Court directs preparation of seniority list in accordance with its observations, State has no option but to comply. Preparation of independent list is not permissible.
A person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne in service.
When High Court directs preparation of seniority list in accordance with its observations, State has no option but to comply. Preparation of independent list is not permissible.
Subject
Seniority Dispute - Inter-se Seniority
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Service law - Seniority - A person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne in service - The year in which the vacancy accrues has no bearing on determining seniority. (Para 29)
(b) Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 - Rule 28(i), Rule 28 (iii) and Rule 16 (iii) - No provision for counting seniority from the date of vacancy - Only from the date of appointment. (Para 33, 47)
(c) Administration of justice - Rule of law - Single Judge directing modification of seniority list in accordance with his observation - Division Bench affirming the same - State had no option but to comply - Preparing fresh seniority list independently not permissible. (Para 48)
Facts of the case:
Prior to their induction (on 01.03.2007) to the MPS Grade II Cadre, the promotees were serving as Inspector of Police and they were granted promotion on the basis of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). On the other hand, the Private Respondents 3 to 32 and no. 33 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 366 of 2013 were directly recruited into the MPS Grade II Cadre, vide the respective orders dated 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007.
Govt. of Manipur, applying the principle of dovetailing between the promotees and the direct recruit officers, issued the Order on 17.5.2013 publishing the final seniority list (as on 01.04.2013), of the MPS Grade II Officers. This order was challenged in a writ petition.
Single Judge of the high Court quashed the impugned orders.
The Division Bench upheld the conclusion of the Single Judge. Review petition was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
A person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne in service.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):A. Henry, Vivek Kumar, Kumar Mihir, Leishangthem Roshmani Kh, Anupama Ngangom, Aribam Jankinath Sharma, Punam Kumari, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Punam Kumari, Leishangthem Roshmani Kh, Anando Mukherjee, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):A. Henry, Vivek Kumar, Kumar Mihir, Leishangthem Roshmani Kh, Anupama Ngangom, Aribam Jankinath Sharma, Punam Kumari, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Punam Kumari, Leishangthem Roshmani Kh, Anando Mukherjee, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Direct recruits claim seniority from the vacancy year or recruitment initiation, while promotees argue seniority must be reckoned from the actual date of appointment per service rules. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
3. The court observed that seniority cannot be granted retrospectively to a person not yet borne in the cadre, and state-specific service rules override general central government memorandums. (Para 28 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
4. Seniority is determined by the date of appointment and cannot be reckoned from the date of vacancy or recruitment initiation unless expressly provided by the relevant service rules. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 40 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court orders upheld; State directed to prepare a revised seniority list based on the date of appointment. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 )
6. Can seniority be reckoned from the date of vacancy or the initiation of the recruitment process?
No, seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of vacancy or the initiation of the recruitment process unless expressly provided by the relevant service rules. A person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date they were not yet borne in the service. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 40 )
7. Does administrative delay in finalizing recruitment entitle a selected candidate to retrospective seniority?
No. The court held that an applicant does not acquire service-related rights until the recruitment process is complete and they are appointed. Administrative delay does not justify granting seniority from a date prior to the actual appointment. (Para 39 , 40 )
8. Do Central Government Office Memorandums on seniority override specific State Service Rules?
No. General principles or memorandums applicable to Central Government employees do not have an overriding effect on state-specific service rules, which govern the officers in the respective state service. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )
9. What does the term recruitment year signify in the context of determining inter-se seniority?
The term recruitment year does not mean the year in which the recruitment process is initiated or the year in which a vacancy arises; seniority is instead determined by the order of appointment. (Para 47 )
JUDGMENT :
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. These matters pertain to an inter-se seniority dispute in the Manipur Police Service Grade II Officers Cadre, hereinafter referred to as “MPS Grade II Cadre”.
The appellants before us in the SLP (C) No. 19565-67 of 2019 were few of the respondents in the W.P.(C) No. 366 of 2013. They are to be described hereinafter as “direct recruits”. The respondents in this SLP were the Writ Petitioners in the High Court who were appointed on promotion to the MPS Grade II Cadre. For clarity and ease of understanding, they are being referred as “promotees” in this judgment.
3. Prior to their induction (on 01.03.2007) to the MPS Grade II Cadre, the promotees were serving as Inspector of Police and they were granted promotion on the basis of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). On the other hand, the Private Respondents 3 to 32 and no. 33 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 366 of 2013 were directly recruited into the MPS Grade II Cadre, vide the respective orders dated 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007.
4. Appointment and seniority in the Manipur Police Service is governed by the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the MPS Rules, 1965”). After considering the claims and objections and in compliance with the Court’s direction (18.02.2013) in W.P(C) No. 235 of 2012, the Govt. of Manipur, applying the principle of dovetailing between the promotees and the direct recruit officers, issued the Order on 17.5.2013 publishing the final seniority list (as on 01.04.2013), of the MPS Grade II Officers. The promotees challenged this through the Writ Petition (C) No. 366 of 2013 in the High Court of Manipur. By amending their Writ Petition, the promotees also challenged the subsequent Govt. orders dated 20.01.2014 and 19.02.2014 where the direct recruits were placed above them.
5. Before the Writ Court, the promotees contended that they entered the MPS Grade II Cadre on 01.03.2007 whereas the private respondent nos.3 to 33 were appointed subsequently (on 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007 respectively) and, therefore, they should be regarded as senior to the direct recruits.
6. The direct recruits on the other hand claimed seniority over the promotees by contending that seniority has to be decided in accordance with the year of the vacancy and not by the fortuitous date on which, the appointment could be finalized for the direct recruits.
7. In an earlier proceeding i.e., Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012, in an inter-se seniority dispute amongst the direct recruits and promotees in the MPS Grade II Cadre, the State in their counter affidavit took the stand that seniority should be determined from the date on which the person was appointed but not from the date of vacancy. For the direct recruits appointed on 14.08.2007 against the vacancy of 2004-2005 it was averred that their seniority should be counted from the date of appointment.
8. The learned Judge heard the parties, applied his mind to the Office Memorandums produced before him and by the common judgment dated 07.07.2017 quashed the impugned orders. It is seen that single Judge directed that the batch of promotees appointed on 01st of March 2007 must be given seniority above the direct recruits appointed on 14th August, 2007 and he justified this by stating that a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment and cannot claim seniority from a date when he is not borne in the service. For this conclusion, the learned Judge had relied upon, inter alia, the ratio in Jagdish Chandra Patnaik’ vs. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456. The Court also held that the expression “year” must refer to financial year and not calendar year. Support for such conclusion is based on the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 which contains instructions to be followed by DPC in the matter of holding its meetings towards promotion which is one of the methods of recruitment. This Memo specifies that the recruitment year would
