9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1733 - SC - Indian LawsInter-se seniority dispute - direct recruits - promotion on the basis of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) - HELD THAT - The Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service. In particular Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is 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. The term Recruitment Year does not and cannot mean the year in which, the recruitment process is initiated or the year in which vacancy arises. As it appears the seniority list published on 29.06.2019 could not be an independent exercise but its purpose should be to give effect to the judgments passed by the High Court. Since the judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench, the seniority list must be prepared in accordance with the High Court's direction. It is certainly not permissible to prepare a fresh seniority list as an independent exercise, without reference to the decisions of the Court. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Inter-se seniority dispute between promotees and direct recruits in the Manipur Police Service Grade II Cadre. 2. Interpretation of the term "year" in the context of seniority. 3. Applicability of the N.R. Parmar judgment to the present case. 4. Validity of the seniority list prepared by the State Government. 5. Compliance with High Court orders regarding seniority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Inter-se Seniority Dispute: The dispute revolves around the seniority between promotees and direct recruits in the MPS Grade II Cadre. Promotees argued that they should be considered senior as they were inducted on 01.03.2007, before the direct recruits who were appointed on 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007. The direct recruits contended that seniority should be based on the year of the vacancy, not the date of appointment. 2. Interpretation of the Term "Year": The Single Judge interpreted "year" to mean the financial year, relying on the Office Memorandum dated 29.04.1999 and the Manipur (SC & ST) Act, 1976. The Division Bench, however, did not delve into this interpretation, focusing instead on the principle that seniority cannot be claimed from a date before actual appointment. 3. Applicability of N.R. Parmar Judgment: The direct recruits cited N.R. Parmar to argue that seniority should be based on the year of vacancy. However, the Court found that N.R. Parmar did not apply to the MPS Rules, 1965, which specify that seniority is determined by the date of appointment. The Court noted that N.R. Parmar had incorrectly interpreted relevant Office Memorandums and overruled it, emphasizing that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the individual was not yet in service. 4. Validity of the Seniority List: The seniority list prepared by the State Government on 29.06.2019 was found to be non-compliant with the High Court's orders. The Court emphasized that the list should have been prepared in accordance with the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench, which both concluded that promotees should be senior to direct recruits. 5. Compliance with High Court Orders: The State Government was directed to prepare a revised seniority list within eight weeks, following the High Court's directions and the Court's interpretation of the MPS Rules, 1965. The Court stressed that seniority should be based on the date of appointment, not the initiation of the recruitment process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's orders, directing the State of Manipur to revise the seniority list in the MPS Grade II Cadre, ensuring that promotees are given seniority over direct recruits based on their earlier appointment dates. The decision in N.R. Parmar was overruled, and the Court clarified that seniority should be determined from the date of appointment, not from the date of vacancy or initiation of the recruitment process.
|
