SMT. IMLIKOKLA LONGCHAR & ORS versus THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 11-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
SMT. IMLIKOKLA LONGCHAR & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7166 of 2022)
OCTOBER 11, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Service Law – Nagaland State Council on Educational
Training Service Rules, 2003 - Promotion – Seniority - The dispute
arose regarding the seniority of four Appellants and Respondent
‘K’ – Draft  seniority  list  as  on  1st July 2006 reflected K below the
Appellants as the Appellants became senior lecturer by promotions
in 2003 whereas K’s regularisation was done in 2004 as per the
Cabinet Memorandum of March, 2005 - K objected on ground that
the date of entry of the Appellants into the cadre of senior lecturer
was subsequent to her entry into the said cadre - K’s representation
was rejected by the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC)
and the final seniority list was published as per the Draft Seniority
List on 17th November, 2006 – Against the same, K approached the
High Court - The first set of Writ Petition filed by K, being W.P. (C )
No. 173 (K) of 2007 which was dismissed on technical grounds –
Another Writ Petition [W.P. (C) No.284(K) of 2007] was also
instituted by K questioning regularisation of Appellants which was
also dismissed – K, however, was partially successful in the second
round of litigation initiated by writ petition registered as W.P (C)
No. 126(K) of 2014 – The High Court remanded the matter back to
DPC for reconsideration and set aside the DPC recommendations
as the same did not reflected the consideration of Nagaland State
Council on Educational Training Service Rules, 2003 – DPC
retained their earlier decision of 2007 in the meeting that took place
subsequent to the order of the High Court - In the appeals arising
out of W.P. (C) No. 173(K) of 2007 and W.P.(C) No. 284 (K) of
2007, a Division Bench of the High Court in a common judgment
delivered set aside the recommendation of DPC and ordered the
State to take immediate steps for reconvening of the D.P.C.  for
purpose  of  fresh  recommendation  for regularization of the private
respondents in the post of Sr. Lecturer on strict observance of the
Rules of 2003 – Against the same, the Appellants have preferred
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 491
491
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
the present appeal on the ground that the DPC recommendations
are in accordance with the Rules of 2003 and they were rightly
considered senior to K – Appellants collectively sought seniority
over K and the education authorities are supporting the Appellants
– Held: The general principle of service jurisprudence is that the
time spent in the immediate superior grade on stop gap or ad hoc
basis ought not to be computed for determining the length of service
of an incumbent in that cadre – Computation of the appellant’s period
of service in the feeder grade can take place only from the date of
their regular appointment - The  appellants  had  entered  the  service
as  lecturer on contractual basis in the year 1992-93 around the
same time K had joined as senior lecturer, also on contract basis -
For the purpose of determining the length of service in the feeder
posts as contained in Schedule II of the 2003 Rules (Eligibility
conditions for the post of senior lecturer- 75% of the post of Senior
Lecturer fallen vacant in a calendar year shall be filled on promotion
from amongst the serving candidates who have rendered continuous
service of 5(five) years in the grade of Research Associate/ Assistant
Planning Officer/ Assistant Project Officer/ Lecturers in DIET), the
time spent on contractual basis cannot be factored in – Appellants
completed three years of service in the feeder grade on
operationalisation of 2003 Rules on 30th April, 2007 but the said
Rules seek to give them regularisation in the cadre of senior lecturer
from 2003 and 2001 respectively – Their service in feeder grade do
not meet the required stipulation of five years period – No reason to
interfere with the judgment under appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
1.1 The general principle of service jurisprudence is that
the time spent in the immediate superior grade on stop-gap or
ad-hoc basis ought not to be computed for determining the length
of service of an incumbent in that cadre. This is of course, subject
to any contrary provision made in the applicable Rules itself. But
no such contrary provision has been shown to us at the time of
hearing of this appeal on behalf of the Appellants or the State.
Thus, com

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