SRI DEVENDRA PRASAD SHARMA versus THE STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 10-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SRIDEVENDRAPRASADSHARMA 
v. 
THE STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS. 
MARCH 10, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986 : 
Rule 25(iii)-Seniority-l11ter se seniority between direct recrnit and 
promotee Deputy Superintendents of Police-Held, the inter se seniority of 
direct recmits and promotees has to be detemiined in accordance with quota 
and mtation-Accordingly seniority was rightly detennined as per the respec-
tive dates of appointment-Therefore, the rotatio11 has to be considered as per 
D the date of appointment and in accordance with the vacancy under the 
mles-/11 the meeting held by DPC, petitioner was found to be unfit for 
promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police-He may be 
found fit at a later stage of selection, but he cannot get seniority over the · 
persons who were found fit in the earlier meeting of DPC and have already·. 
E got promoted to higher post-Seniority in lower post loses its significance. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 4428 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.96 of the Assam High 
Court in W.A. No. 81 of 1994. 
P.K. Goswami, Kailash Vasdev and C.K. Sasi for the Petitioner 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
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 Super-
intendents on March ,25, 1982. Their inter-se seniority is regulated by Rule 
25 of the Mizoram Police Serrice Rules, 1986. Rules 25 reads as under : 
H 
"25. Seniority - The Administrator shall prepare a list of members 
930 
. 
•
·-
-
D.P.SHARMAv. STATE 
931 
of the Service arranged in order of seniority as determined in the A 
manner specified below : 
(i)(a) Persons recruited on the results of the competitive examina-
tion 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 B 
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. 
c 
(ii) The seniority of members of the Service appointed at the initial 
constitution of the Service in accordance with the provisions of D 
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 E 
ranked inter se in the order of their relative seniority in the parent 
Service or Department as the case may be. 
(iii) The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotecs shall 
be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between 
direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas F 
of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under 
rule 5." 
In the matter of fixation of the inter se seniority under Ruic 25(iii), 
the relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees has to be deter- G 
mined 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 H 
A 
B 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
seniority of the service appointed at the initial constitution of the 
service shall be determined by the administrator irt consultation 
with the Board. Since all the respondents have been appointed as 
members of the 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, con-
tends that in view of the definition under Rule 2(g) of 'service' read with 
Rule 5, . the inter-se seniority of the direct recru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.