G P GIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 2.4.98 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch, in OA No.279/95.

(2.) The petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 were initially in the State Police Service of Nagaland. They were selected and appointed under sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules 1954, by the President of India to the Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland at the time of its initial constitution with effect from 1.3.86 by notification dated 18.1.89. The petitioner Nos. 7 and 8, however, were not selected at the time of initial constitution of Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland but were subsequently appointed by way of promotion by the President of India under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules 1954 read with sub-regulation (1) of regulation 9 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were neither selected at the time of initial constitution nor selected in the selection held in the year 1990 but were appointed thereafter by way of promotion to the Indian Police Service. The said respondent Nos. 5 to 10 filed six separate applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch, which were numbered as OA Nos. 143/90, 144/90, 145/90, 147/90, 148/90, and 160/90 and their case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch, was that in the State Police Service of Nagaland they have all through been senior to some of the officers including the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 selected and appointed at the time of initial recruitment to the Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland. By a common judgment and order dated 1.8.94, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch, disposed of the said applications of the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 in the said OA Nos. 143/90, 144/90,145/90,147/90, 148/90 and 160/90 with the following directions:

(3.) Mr S.S. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the averments and grounds in the writ petition submitted that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 were selected and appointed to the Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland at iits initial constitution with effect from 1.3.86 and the petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 were selected and appointed by way of promotion in the year 1990 to the Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland by notification dated 14.3.90. He further submitted that the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 on account of their poor service records though considered by the selection committee were not selected at the time of initial constitution of the Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland and were also not selected in the selection held in the year, 1990. They were selected and appointed much later to the Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland. Hence under the relevant statutory rules of seniority, the petitioners were senior to the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch cannot direct the State Government of Nagaland to recommend the cases of the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 on the ground of hardship so as to place the said respondent Nos. 5 to 10 above the petitioners in the Indian Police Service cadre of Nagaland contrary to the statutory rules relating to seniority.