Supreme Court Judgement on seniority under Service Jurisprudence

୨୦୧୬ ମସିହାରେ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସଚିବାଳୟରେ ଯୋଗଦେଇଥିବା ଏଏସ୍ଓ ମାନଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ବରିଷ୍ଠତା ଚୟନ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ଉପୁଜିଥିବା ଦ୍ଵନ୍ଦ୍ଵ ଦୂର କରିବାରେ ଗତ ନଭେମ୍ବରରେ ମାନ୍ୟବର  ସୁପ୍ରିମକୋର୍ଟ ଙ୍କ ଦ୍ଵାରା ଦିଆଯାଇଥିବା ରାୟ ଅନେକାଂଶରେ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ। 

ସୂଚନାଯୋଗ୍ୟ,  ୨୦୧୬ ଅକ୍ଟୋବର ମାସରେ ୮୧୧ ଜଣ ଏଏସ୍ଓ ୨୦୧୧-୧୨ ମସିହାର ଖାଲି ପଦବୀ ପାଇଁ ମନୋନୀତ ହୋଇ ସଚିବାଳୟରେ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ । ସେହିପରି ୨୦୧୬ ଫେବୃଆରୀ ମାସରେ, ୧୩୯ ଜଣ ଏଏସ୍ଓ ୨୦୧୫-୧୬ (Special Drive for ST/SC)) ମସିହାର ଖାଲି ପଦବୀ ପାଇଁ ମନୋନୀତ ହୋଇ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ। 

ଏହି କ୍ରମରେ, ସ୍ଵରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ବିଭାଗ ପତ୍ର ସଂଖ୍ୟା ୧୬୬୫୩ ତା-୧୨.୦୪.୨୦୧୮ ରେ ଏଏସ୍ଓ ମାନଙ୍କର ଗ୍ରେଡେସନ ଲିଷ୍ଟ ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇଥିଲା । ଏଥିରେ ଆଠମାସ ପଛରେ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିବା ୮୦୦ ଏଏସ୍ଓଙ୍କୁ ୧୩୯ ଏଏସ୍ଓଙ୍କ ଠାରୁ ଆଗରେ ରଖାଯାଇଥିଲା । 

କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହି ରାୟ ପରେ ୧୩୯ ଏଏସ୍ଓ ଙ୍କୁ ବରିଷ୍ଠ ବୋଲି ବିଚାର କରାଯିବାର ସମ୍ଭାବନା ଅଛି ।

💥Seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent was not borne in service : SC
💥Earlier judgement of N.R. Parmar (Supra) overruled.

💢Click Here to download the judgement copy.pdf💢

Civil Appeal No.-008833-008835 - 2019

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19565-19567 of 2019)

-------------------------------

K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S) 

VERSUS 

NINGAM SIRO & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

About the Respondents:
The respondents in this SLP were the Writ Petitioners, serving as Inspector of Police and they were granted promotion on the basis of a duly constituted DPC and inducted to the MPS Grade II Cadre on 01.03.2007.

On the other hand, the Private Respondents were directly recruited into the MPS Grade II Cadre, vide the respective orders dated 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007 against the vacancy of 2004-2005.

Claim of Promotees:
Before the Writ Court, the promotees contended that they entered the MPS Grade II Cadre on 01.03.2007 whereas the private respondent nos.3 to 33 were appointed subsequently (on 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007 respectively) and, therefore, they should be regarded as senior to the direct recruits. 

Claim of Direct Recruits:
The direct recruits on the other hand claimed seniority over the promotees by contending that seniority has to be decided in accordance with the year of the vacancy and not by the fortuitous date on which, the appointment could be finalized for the direct recruits. 

Counter of State Govt.
In an earlier proceeding i.e., Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012, in an inter-se seniority dispute amongst the direct recruits and promotees in the MPS Grade II Cadre, the State in their counter affidavit took the stand that seniority should be determined from the date on which the person was appointed but not from the date of vacancy. For the direct recruits appointed on 14.08.2007 against the vacancy of 2004-2005 it was averred that their seniority should be counted from the date of appointment. 

Judgement Dt.07.07.2017
The learned Judge heard the parties, applied his mind to the Office Memorandums produced before him and by the common judgment dated 07.07.2017 quashed the impugned orders. It is seen that single Judge directed that the batch of promotees appointed on 01st of March 2007 must be given seniority above the direct recruits appointed on 14th August, 2007 and he justified this by stating that a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment and cannot claim seniority from a date when he is not borne in the service.

Judgement of N.R. Parmar (Supra) overruled
The Judgment in N. R. Parmar (Supra) relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Manipur State Police Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R. Parmar (Supra) had incorrectly distinguished the long-standing seniority determination principles propounded in, inter-alia, J.C. Patnaik (Supra), Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors.5 and Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Reevan Singh & Ors.(Supra). These three judgments and several others with like enunciation on the law for determination of seniority makes it abundantly clear that under Service Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. In our considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in J.C. Patnaik (Supra) and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter-se seniority, suggested in N. R. Parmar (Supra). Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled.