Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA:
MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
AIZAWL BENCH ::: AIZAWL
WRIT PETITION (C) No.45 of 2005
D.D. 26.06.2007
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mutum B.K.Singh
Shri. Sangdingliana & Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Mizoram & Ors. ... Respondents
Seniority List:
Whether reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to other employees before fixation
and re-fixation of seniority position? - YES
In the provisional inter-se seniority list dated 7.6.2000 of senior grade Mizoram Civil Services
(M.C.S.) Officers 4 th respondent was placed at Sl.No.44 above the petitioners – On the objection
filed against the seniority list the penalty ‘Censor’ imposed on the 4 th respondent in the disciplinary
proceeding as per order dated 3.6.1999 his name was excluded from the final seniority list dated
19.11.2001 – Writ Petition 52 of 2002 filed by the 4 th respondent final seniority list was dismissed –
However, as per direction of the Court to consider the case of the 4 th respondent for promotion the 4 th
respondent was promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 20.5.2002 as per recommendation of DPC – As
per representation of the 4 th respondent for rectifying his regular date of promotion as per notification
dated 23.3.2005 promotion of 4 th respondent to Senior Grade was regularized w.e.f. 29.4.1999
placing the seniority position above the petitioners – The said order has been impugned in this writ
petition – High Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. I.A.Qureshi
(1998) 9 SCC 261, has set aside the notification dated 23.3.2005.
Held:
It is true that the fixation and re-fixation of seniority positions of the employees are within the
domain of the State Government but such fixation and re-fixation of the seniority position should not
be done arbitrarily, whimsically and behind the back and knowledge of the other employees if their
seniority positions are affected or likely to be affected by such fixation and re-fixation. Impugned
order issued in violation of principles of Natural Justice and such action of the State Government
amounts to infraction of legal rights of the petitioners. On this count alone the impugned order cannot
stand in judicial scrutiny.
Cases referred:
Mizoram PSC
(1991) 4 SCC 109 - Union of India V. K.V.Jankiraman
(1998) 9 SCC 261 - State of M.P. V. I.A. Qureshi
821