PU. ZOTHANSANGA Vs. VANLADIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the present appeal, have filed the writ petition challenging the recommendation made by the Mizoram Public Service Commission, whereby the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition, herein the appellants, have been shown at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 for posting and promotion on the post of Executive Engineer in Grade IV of the Mizoram Engineering Service under Public Works Department.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that admittedly the appellants and the respondents herein were holding the post of Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer in Mizoram Public Works Department. Their service conditions are governed by the Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 1995. Under the relevant rules, the promotion to the post of Grade IV of Executive Engineer is to be effected from Grade V of Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer on the recommendation of the Mizoram Public Service Commission. The Commission has taken up the matter of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and recommended the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Vanlaldika, R. Lalhlira and Lalthanzuala Ralte and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, namely, Zothansanga and Zoramliana for promotion and accordingly by order dated 17.12.1999 they were promoted. The Commission has recommended Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, i.e., present appellants at Serial Nos, 1 and 2, they being holders of postgraduate degree and all things being equal between the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Later on, the Commission again took up the matter of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in the department and recommended writ petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, namely, R. K. Vanlalrema and Zothansanga Intoatea for promotion and accordingly by order dated 7.2.2002 they were also promoted. While promoting the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were shown senior to the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. That has given cause for filing a writ petition.

(3.) THUS , according to the learned Single Judge in the absence of the Government order indicating that the promotional posts for which the selections were held have been specified and identified for conferring any additional advantage on account of post -graduate qualifications, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 could not have gained any advantage over the writ petitioners and they being juniors in the feeder post to the writ petitioners, they should be placed below the writ petitioners in the order of promotion and consequently the writ petition was allowed.