LALSANGLURA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C.Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N.Sailo, learned Government Advocate for respondents No. 1-3 and Mr. Michael Zothankhuma for private respondents.

(2.) The petitioner Lalsanglura had participated in a selection process for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police: Assistant Commandant for which a competitive examination was conducted by the Mizoram Public Service Commission(MPSC). The Commission initially made a recommendation of fifteen names against the fifteen vacancies, subsequently the Commission was asked to make recommendation for another vacancy and the name of the petitioner was recommended against sixteenth vacancy. The petitioner has disputed the claim of the respondents as regards the number of vacancies by stating that there were 18 vacancies and due to some mistake, only 15 were defined. The respondents, on the other hand, submits that originally there were 15 vacancies and while the selection was going on , some other vacancies arose and the Commission was requested to make recommendation. We need not enter into the above controversy as the fact remain that as per the merit list, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl.No. 16 only and hence for the first 15 vacancies, the other respondent's name were recommended and the name of the petitioner was recommended for the 16th vacancy by the Commission.

(3.) The dispute in this writ petition is in respect of inter-se-seniority amongst the direct recruits of 1996. The petitioner has impleaded 12 selectees as private respondents leaving behind three other appointees, on the ground that they were bound to be senior to the petitioner.