B. NONGRUM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is the second round of litigation for the same relief/prayer viz for quashing the Gradation List/Inter -se seniority List of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006 in respect of the petitioners and the private respondent No.6, but in the second writ petition, over and above, the prayer for quashing the inter -se seniority list of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006, a further prayer had been made for quashing the Gradation List of the Deputy Superintendents of Excise so far as the petitioners and the private respondent No.6 are concerned and also for a direction to re -fix their seniority.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the first round of litigation i.e. WP(C)No.251(SH)/2007 between the present parties, questioning the impugned Gradation List/Inter -se Seniority List of the Inspectors of Excise dated 03.10.2006, the petitioners and the private respondent No.6 were further promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC ') associated with the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (for short 'MPSC ') to the higher post i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Excise vide order dated of the Governor of Meghalaya dated 17.02.2009. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the post of Deputy Superintendent of Excise is a selection post and to that post, the petitioners and the private respondent No.6 were promoted after subjecting to selection process by the said order dated 17.02.2009. Again when the present writ petition is pending, the petitioners and the private respondent No.6 were further promoted to the post of Superintendent of Excise on the recommendations of the DPC vide order of the Governor of Meghalaya dated 12.10.2012.

(3.) THE petitioners, private respondent No.6 and 12 others were selected after subjecting to the selection process by the MPSC for appointment to the post of Inspector of Excise under the Commissioner of Excise and the MPSC under its letter dated 06.09.1990 sent the list of the selected candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of Inspector of Excise; in the said select list in order of merit, the name of the private respondent No.6 appeared at Srl.No.7 and the names of the petitioners appeared at Srl.No.8 & 11 respectively. It is not disputed that in the list of the selected candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of Inspector of Excise, the name of the private respondent No.6 is above the petitioners. The petitioners who were the selected candidates were appointed as Inspector of Excise vide order dated 16.11.1990.