PETITIONER:
SRI DEVENDRA PRASAD SHARMA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
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 interse 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.