NEILHOULIE SEYIE Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP (C)/ 62(K) of 2019 who are respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the other writ petition, i.e., WP (C)/ 124 of 2019 and also heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5,6,7,8 and 9 in the former writ petition and the two petitioners in the later writ petition (one whom i.e., petitioner No. 1 is the respondent no. 9 in the former writ petition).

(2.) Vide a notification dtd. 19/11/2018, the tentative seniority list of inspectors in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies was circulated wherein the petitioners in WP(C)/62 of 2019 who are direct recruits to the post (through competitive exam conducted by the NPSC) were placed at serial No. 8 and 10 and the private respondents Nos. 5,6,7, 8 and 9, who were promoted to the same cadre were placed at serial No. 4,5,6,7 and 9. Being aggrieved by the placement of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 above the petitioner No.1 and by placement of respondent No. 5 to 9, above the petitioner No. 2, the two petitioners in WP(C)/ 62 of 2019 came before this Court through the writ petition challenging the same mainly on the ground that inter-se seniority of persons who are directly recruited to the post of Inspectors and those who are promoted to the same cadre should be determined as per the provisions of Rule 15(ii) of the Nagaland Food and Civil Supplies Department, Nagaland Civil Supplies Service (1st Amendment) Rules, 2002 read with Schedule 2 of the same rules.

(3.) During the pendency of the other writ petition WP(C)/62/2019, the petitioners in WP(C)/124/2019 who are the promotees to the post of Inspector of Supply and one of whom, i.e., petitioner No. 1 is respondent No. 9, in the other writ petition came to know that the Department of Food and Civil Supplies vide their letter No. SPLY10/3/2003 dtd. 19/11/2018, had sought for the views of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P and AR) Department on the matter of inter-se seniority dispute between the direct recruits and promotees and the P and AR Department in turn had consulted the Justice and Law Department through a note; U.O.No. 700 dtd. 30/10/2018, and thereafter had expressed their opinion that executive orders issued by the Department of DOPT will not be applicable in determining the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees but the provisions of Rule 15 (ii) of the Nagaland Civil Supplies (1st Amendment) Rules, 2002, (which shall hereafter be referred to as Rules of 2002) will govern the same. And based on that opinion, the tentative Seniority List of Inspectors as on 19/11/2018, has been prepared and circulated, wherein, the respondent No.3 namely Shri. Moanungsang (petitioner No. 1 in the Writ Petition No. 62 of 2019) has been placed at serial No. 8 of the Seniority List and the petitioner No. 1 (in WP(C) No. 124 of 2019), has been placed at serial No. 9 and respondent No. 4 (in WP(C) No. 124 of 2019), has been placed at serial No. 10 and the petitioner No. 2 in (WP(C) No. 124 of 2019), has been placed at serial No. 11. Being aggrieved by their placement in the seniority list as stated above, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 124 of 2019, also came before this Court challenging the same on the ground mainly, that, though as per the provisions of Rule 15 (ii) of the Rules of 2002, inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees are to be determined based on quota-rota rule, the same has never been implemented ever since the Rule came into existence, instead, inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees has always been determined based on continuous length of service. As such, if the provision of Rule 15 (ii) is implemented at this juncture as intended in the tentative Seniority List under challenge, there would be chaos in the service. The issues involved in the two writ petitions revolves around the determination of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the Cadre of Inspector (now upgraded to Senior Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies) therefore, the two writ petitions were heard together and they are being disposed by this common judgment.