I. CHUBA JAMIR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 17-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 118 
.. 
A 
I. CHUBA JAMIR & ORS. 
+ 
v. 
THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHAITERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 
Service Law - Encadrementlmerger of post - Affecting 
seniority - Employees in the cadre seeking seniority over the 
c employee whose post was merged - Ground taken that they 
were eligible for promotion to the post before the date of 
merger - Held: Employees in the cadre not entitled to 
seniority over the employee whose post was merged - Mere 
eligibility does not confer right to promotion - Encadrement, 
D being a policy decision, does not warrant interference ,by the 
.. 
court - On facts, the challenge was delayed - Nagaland 
' 
Economics and Statistics Service Rules, 1973. 
Appellant Nos.1 and 3 and predecessor of appellant 
E No. 2 were appointed as directed recruits as Class II 
officers in State Economics and Statistics Service in the 
year 1984. 3rd respondent was appointed as Statistician-
cum-Economist (Class I officer) in the department of PWD 
and Housing in the year 1988. In the year 1990, though 
the post of Assistant Directors (Class I) in the department · 
) 
F of Economics and Statistics fell vacant, the appellants 
were not considered for promotion. Respondent No.3 
made representation for his transfer alongwith the post 
to the State Economics and Statistics Service. The post 
of Statistician-cum-Economist under department of PWD 
G and Housing was merged with Economics and Statistics 
Service. Accordingly, respondent No.3 was transferred to 
'> 
the department of Economics and Statistics in the cadre 
~ ,_
of Assistant Director. However, his seniority in the cadre 
H 
118 
I. CHUBA JAMIR & ORS. v. STATE OF NAGALAND & 119 
• 
ORS. 
·~ 
was to be counted from the year 1992. In the year 1996 
A 
respondent No.3 was promoted as Deputy Director in 
officiating capacity. Appellants were also promoted to the 
post of Assistant Directors on the same date. In a 
tentative seniority list, respondent No.3 was shown 
above the appellants. Appellants 
challengeed 
B 
respondent's seniority over them. Single Judge of High 
Court disposed of the writ petition in favour of the 
appellants holding that they should be deemed to have 
been promoted to the posts of Assistant Director 
notionally one day prior to the date on which respondent c 
No.3 was appointed as Assistant Director. In intra-court 
appeal, Division Bench of High Court held that appellants 
were not entitled to seniority over re.spondent No.3. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The present case was not a case of 
promotion at all but it was a case of merger of the post 
held by him in the department of PWD and Housing with 
the post of Assistant Director in the Economi'cs and 
Statistics Service of the State. In the interest of 
administration, it is open to the State Government, as a 
matter a policy, to bring about merger of posts/cadres 
and, ordinarily, the matter does not warrant any 
D 
E 
interference by the Court. [Para 18] [129-G-H; 130-A] 
F 
Vinay Kumar Verma and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 
(1990) 2 SCC 647 and S.P. Shivprasad Pipal vs. Union of 
India and Ors. (1998) 4 sec 598, relied on. 
1.2. The validity and legality of the Government Order 
G 
and the Notification effecting the encadrement of the post 
held by respondent no.3 in the PWD and Housing 
Department with the Economics and Statistics Service 
does not seem to have been squarely challenged before 
H 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 11 S.C.R. 
A the High Court. The Court, on scrutiny, might find that the 
encadrement was wrong and illegal. In that case the 
Court would undoubtedly strike down the encadrement 
resulting in the posting of respondent No. 3 as Assistant 
Director in the Economics and Statistics Service 
B notwithstanding the fact that the decision was taken at 
the highest level in the Government and the notification 
was issued with the approval of the highest Government 
functionary. But the Single Judge accepted the validity 
of the encadrement and yet proceeded to direct the 
c deemed promotion of the appellants-writ petitioners as 
Assistant Directors from a date prior to the appointment 
of respondent no.3 as Assistant Director. The only 
ground for passing such extra ordinary order was that 
when vacancies arose in the post of Assistant Director -
0 the appellants-writ petitioners were eligible for promotion. 
It is elementary and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.