Sri Devendra
Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Mizoram &
Ors [1997] INSC 265 (10
March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R The petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police on July 10, 1973 and was further promoted as Deputy
Superintendent of Police on April 8, 1982.
The contesting respondents were directly recruited as Deputy Superintendents on
March 25, 1982. Their inter- se seniority is
regulated by Rule 25 of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986. Rules, 1986. Rules
25 reads as under:
"25.
Seniority - The Administrator shall prepare a list of members of the Service
arranged in order of seniority as determined in the manner specified below :- (i)
(a) Persons recruited on the results of the competitive examination in any year
shall be ranked INTER SE in the order of merit in which they are placed at the
competitive examination on the results of which they are recruited, those
recruited on the basis of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those
recruited on the basis of a later examination.
(b)
The relative seniority INTER SE of persons recruited by selection shall be
determined on the basis of the order in which their names are arranged in the
list prepared under rule 13, those recruited on the basis of an earlier
selection being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of a later
selection.
(ii)
The seniority of members of the Service appointed at the initial constitution
of the Service in accordance with the provisions of part VI of these rules
shall be determined by the Administrator in consultation with the Board.
Provided
that in the case of persons appointed under sub rule (i) of the rule 15, if two
or more persons belonging to the same parent service or Department are thus
appointed, they shall be ranked INTER SE in the parent Service or Department as
the case may be.
(iii)
The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined
according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees
which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment
and promotion under rule 5." In the matter of fixation of the inter se
seniority under Rule 25(iii), the relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees
has to be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct
recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved
for direct recruitment and promotion under Rule 5.
The
Division Bench has pointed out in the impugned order the position as under:
"Clause
(ii) of rule 25 quoted above clearly stipulated that the seniority of the
service appointed at the initial constitution of the service shall be
determined by the administrator in constitution with the Board. Since all the
Respondents have been appointed as members of service at the initial
constitution of service their seniority has to be determined by the
Administrator in accordance with the said rules." Shri P.K. Goswami,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the
definition under Rule 2(g) of `service' read with Rule 5, the inter-se
seniority falls to be due. We find no force in the contention. The statutory
rule 25(iii), as indicated above, clearly postulates that the inter se
seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees has to be determined in
accordance with quota and rotation. Accordingly seniority was rightly
determined as per the respective dates of appointment. Therefore, the rotation
has to be considered as per the date of appointment and in accordance with the
vacancy under the rules. Otherwise, the rule of rota-quota unduly gets
disturbed.
When
the claims for promotion to the post of Addl.
Superintendent
of Police had come up for consideration, in the meeting held by the DPC on
October 6, 1988, the petitioner was found to be unfit and contesting
respondents were found to be fit as per the proceedings indicated in the
judgment of the High Court. As a consequence, the petitioner could not claim
right to promotion at that time on the basis of the assessment made by the DPC
or to seniority over those promoted as per the recommendation of the DPC. The
petitioner may be found fit at a later stage of selection but he cannot get
seniority over the persons who were found fit in the meeting held on October 6,
1988 and promoted on October 20, 1988 and have already got promoted to higher
post i.e. Addl. Superintendent of Police. The seniority in lower post loses its
significance.
The
petition, therefore, does not merit interference.
It is
accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2