K THANVELA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitions s (seven in number) challenged the order of promotion of private respondent Nos. 6 to 11 to the posts of inspector. Armed branch (AB) dated 24.10.1995 and also challenged the impugned seniority list of the petitioners vis-a-vis the private respondents dated 1.5,1997.

(2.) The fact of the petitioners case, in gist. is as follows: The petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 6 to 11 had been holding the posts of" Sub-Inspector, Armed Branch (AB) prior to their promotion lo the posts of Inspector (AB), but in the said feeder posts of Sub- Inspector (AH) the petitioners were serious to the private respondents. In the seniority list published on 16,7.1990(AnnexureP-l)of the Sub-Inspector (AB). the petitioners position had been shown at serial Nos. 17,20,24,27, 28, 29 and 32 while the seniority position of the private respondents had been shown at serial Nos. 19, 36. 42, 44, 48 and 59 and according to the petitioners, only the private respondent No. 6 is senior (o the petitioner Nos 2 to 7, but that private respondent No. 6 is also junior to petitioner No. 1, For the purpose of promotion to the posts of Inspector (AB), all the petitioners as well as the private respondents holding the posts of Sub-Inspector (AB) were in the feeder posts and the promotions were to be made on the basis of Regulation No. 39 of the Assam Police Manual Vol.1, but having violated the aforesaid provision of Assam Police Manual, the private respondent Nos, 6 to 11 had been promoted superseding the petitioners vide order dated 24,10.95 to the posts of Inspector (AB) on the basis of the recommendation made by the Mizoram Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "MPSC") communicated vide letter No. 60/ A/95-MPSC/20 dated 31,8.1995, while the petitioner had also been promoted to the posts of Inspector (AB) subsequently vide order dated 3.11.1995 pursuant to the recommendation made by the MPSC vide letter No. 60/A/95-MPSC/24 dated 31.10.1995 and since the petitioners had been promoted subsequent to the promotion of their juniors (private respondent Nos. 6 to 11), in the seniority list published for the posts of Inspector (AB), the petitioners were shown juniors to the private respondents,

(3.) The State Government and the MPSC submitted respective counters separately, the stand taken by the respondent Government in heir counter is that the Regulation 39 of the 'Assain Police Manual stood amended by subsequent Office Memo issued by the Government bearing No. A.32012/1/81- APT(B) dated 24.8.1994. By this office memorandum, the Government decided to obtain the recommendation of the MPSC so far selection of candidature for the purpose of appointment or promotion to any post under Group A or B category under the Government of Mizoram and by this office memorandum, the Government of Mizoram directed all the authorities concerned to place the relevant papers to the MPSC for its consultation so far filling up of the posts under Group A and B are concerned instead of selection procedure followed earlier. The further contention of the State Government is that the names and related papers of all the petitioners, private respondents and other eligible Sub-Inspectors (AB) had been placed before the MPSC and on assessment the MPSC made their recommendations. Since in the first phase the private respondents had been recommended by the MPSC, they had been promoted to the posts of Inspector (AB), but on subsequent phase the names of the petitioners and others had been recommended by the MPSC and they had been promoted accordingly, of course subsequent to the promotion of the private respondents and as such in doing so neither the MPSC nor the State Government committed any wrong nor violated any provision of law.