K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH & ORS. versus NINGAM SIRO & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 19-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 651
651
K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH & ORS.
v.
NINGAM SIRO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8833–8835 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 19, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law : Seniority – Manipur Police Service Grade–II
Officers Cadre – Inter- se seniority amongst direct recruits and
promotees – Final Seniority list of MPS Grade II Officers wherein
promotees-respondents who entered the cadre on 01.03.2007,
placed below the direct recruits-appellants, who joined the cadre
on 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007 respectively – Challenge to, by the
promotees that they should be regarded senior to direct recruits –
Single Judge of the High Court held that promotees must be given
seniority above the direct recruits – Division Bench upheld the
order – On appeal, held: Seniority cannot be claimed from a date
when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre – Rule 28(i)
applicable to both promotees and direct recruits, provides that
seniority shall be determined by the order in which the
appointments are made to the service – If seniority under Rule 28(i)
is to be determined based on the date of appointment, it cannot
be said that for the purpose of Rule 28(iii), the seniority of direct
recruits should be determined on the basis of the date of initiation
of the recruitment process – Term “Recruitment Year” does not and
cannot mean the year in which, the recruitment process is initiated
or the year in which vacancy arises – On facts, it was not
permissible to prepare a fresh seniority list as an independent
exercise, ignoring the decision of the Single Judge as affirmed by
the Division Bench – Thus, the orders of the High Court are upheld
and in view thereof, the State is directed to prepare a revised inter–
se seniority list in the MPS Grade–II cadre – Manipur Civil Service
Rules, 1965 – r. 28(iii), 28(i), 16(iii).
Disposing of Civil Appeal No. 8838 of 2019 and dismissing
Civil Appeal No. 8833–35 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 8836–
37 of 2019, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Manipur Civil Service Rules, 1965 never
provided that seniority should be counted from the date of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
vacancy. For those covered by the MPS Rules, 1965 the seniority
for them will be reckoned only from the date of appointment and
not from the stage when requisition for appointment was given.
[Para 33] [665-F-H]
1.2 The relevant advertisement issued in 2005 for direct
recruitment allowed the aspirants to apply even if, their result
in the qualification examination is awaited. Even more intriguing
and significant is the relaxation that those proposing to appear
in the qualifying examination are also allowed to respond to the
advertisement. If such be the nature of the process initiated (in
the year 2005) for making direct recruitment, a situation can
easily be visualised where, in the event of granting seniority
from the stage of commencing the process, a person when
eventually appointed, would get seniority from a date even before
obtaining the qualification, for holding the post. The applicable
Rules in the instant case however provide that the seniority in
the service shall be determined by the order in which
appointments are made to the service. Therefore, the concerned
Memorandums referred to in N.R. Parmar’s case which deal with
general principles for determination of seniority of persons in
the Central Government service, should not have any overriding
effect for the police officers serving in the State of Manipur. [Para
34, 35] [665-H; 666-A-B-D-E]
1.3 After the judgment in N.R. Parmar’s case was
delivered, the Union of India issued the Office Memorandum
on 04.03.2014 defining the recruitment year to be the year of
initiating the recruitment process against the vacancy year and
that the rotation of quota, would continue to operate for
determination of inter–se seniority between direct recruits and
promotees. This Memo was not made applicable to the State of
Manipur till the issuance of the OM dated 21.12.2017, adopting
the OM dated 04.03.2014 prospectively with effect from
01.01.2018. Significantly, the said OM specifically provided that
“appointments/promotions made before the issue of this OM will
not be covered by this OM. The seniority already fixed as per
existing rules followed earlier in the State prior to the issue of
this OM may not be reopened.” It was also specifically stated
therein that “this OM will come into effect from 01.01.2018 with
the publicatio

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