NINGOYOMI BREEZE DOYE Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are Assistant Project Officer (DWCRA) in the District Rural Development Agency, have sought issuance of appropriate writ(s) commanding the State respondents to correctly project the position of the petitioners in the inter se seniority list of the petitioners vis-a-vis the private respondents, who arc all direct recruits to the posts aforementioned.

(2.) In a nut-shell, petitioner's case may be stated as follows: The petitioners are all female persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Communities of Arunachal Pradesh. An advertisement, dated 10.12.92 (Annexure A to the writ petition) was issued by the respondent No. 3 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Project Officer's (DWCRA) under the District Rural Development Agency, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners, who were working as Junior Teachers in the Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and had already put in, more than 12-13 years of service, on regular basis, in the said department, applied for the said posts of APO (DWCRA). After holding the written test and viva voce / interview, the result of the test so held was declared on 24.5.94 and a common merit list (Annexure D to the writ petition), consisting of all the candidates, who had so faced the written test and interview / viva voce, was published, wherein the petitioners No. 1 to 6 were placed at Serial Nos. 2,4,5,6,8 & 10 respectively. The petitioners were accordingly appointed as APO(DWCRA) vide order, dated 05.07.94 (Annexure C to the writ petition) in different districts. The petitioners were initially appointed, on deputation, as APO (DWRCA) for a period of three years, which was subsequently extended and, in course of time, when the Rural Development Agency asked for options, the petitioners opted for being absorbed in the Rural Development Agency and the petitioners were accordingly absorbed on 23.09.99. The Department of Rural Development Agency published vide its order, dated 01.02.2000, a provisional inter se seniority list (Annexure E to the writ petition), wherein the petitioners No. 1 to 6 were shown at Serial Nos. 7,6,9,10 & 11 respectively, which was contrary to the merit list (Annexure D to the writ petition) already announced. The petitioners submitted a representation, on 19.12.2000, objecting to the seniority list, dated 01.12.2000, aforementioned and seeking modification there of by refixing their seniority as per the original merit list. The respondent authority, however, published, on 27.07.2001, a final inter se seniority list (Annexure F and F1) maintaining the position of the petitioners at Serial No 6 to 11 and that of the respondents. No. 4 to 8 at Serial No. I to 5 respectively. Since the petitioners had appeared in the same competitive examination in terms of the advertisement, dated 10.12.92, aforementioned as had done the private respondents and they (i.e. the petitioners) were selected on the basis of their performance, the inter se seniority list, in question, ought to have been prepared in the same order as reflected from the merit list prepared following the written examination and viva voce test. However, the respondents have acted arbitrarily in placing all the petitioners as junior to the direct recruits in the final seniority list, dated 27.07.2001, aforementioned issued by the respondent No. 2. This apart, the petitioners had already put in 12-13 years of service in the Department of Education before they had participated in the competitive examination aforementioned and, hence, the seniority list ought to have been prepared either as per the merit list aforementioned or by taking into consideration the length of service that the petitioners had already put in their parent department, but the State respondents have, most arbitrarily, computed the date of seniority of the petitioner from the date of their regular absorption, on 23.03.99, in the Rural Development Agency without giving weight age to even the five years of service that the petitioners had rendered in the borrowed department.

(3.) The State respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, the case of the State respondents being, briefly stated, thus: The petitioners, being, originally, employees in the Education Department, of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, were, initially, appointed as APO (DWCRA), on deputation, for a period of three years subject to the consent of the lending department. The deputation period was subsequently extended and before expiry of the extended period of deputation, the petitioners, on their expressing willingness to be absorbed in the borrowed department, were absorbed w.e.f. 23.03.99 (Annexure VII to the State respondents, affidavit-in-opposition). While publishing the provisional seniority list of direct recruits vis-a-vis the departmental candidates, relevant guidelines of the Government of India were borne in mind. According to these guidelines (Annexure X to the statements, affidavit-in-opposition) a person, who is, initially, taken on deputation and absorbed later (where the relevant recruitment rules provide for deputation/absorption) his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will be, normally, counted from the date of absorption. As per these guidelines, the seniority of the petitioners, who were initially brought on deputation and absorbed later in the Rural development Agency, has been counted from the date of their absorption i.e. with effect from 23.03.99. Since the seniority of a person, on deputation, is counted from the date of his/her absorption in the borrowed department, in contrast to the direct recruits, whose seniority is counted from the date of appointment/joining, the seniority list published by the State respondents is correct and valid and may not be interfered with.