SHILLQNG BENCH M LAITPHLANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A batch of four writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 274(SH)/2001, WP(C) No. 275(SH)/2001,WP(C) No.276 (SH)/2001 and WP(C) No. 277 (SH)/2001, involving similar questions of facts and law, were heard together by the learned Single Judge and decided by common judgment and order, dated 2.1.2003. Aggrieved by the directions contained therein, the private respondents in the said writ petitions have preferred the present five writ appeals, namely, Writ Appeal No. 29/2003, 30/2003, 31/2003, 32/2003 and 33/2003.

(2.) The facts, which are material for the purpose of disposal of the writ appeals, are not in controversy. What emerges as the admitted case of the parties may, in brief, be set out as follows: (i) All the writ petitioners in these appeals are Post Graduates in different specialized fields of medical sciences. Following selection by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission, the writ petitioners joined, on different dates, the Meghalaya Health Service as specialists in the pay scale of Rs. 1000.55.330-EB-70-1750/-. The writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 274 (SH)/2001, WP(C) No. 276 (SH)/2001 and WP(C) No. 275 (SH)/2001 have joined the said service on 14.7.1981, 24.1.1980 and 28.9.1981 respectively and though the petitioner in WP(C) No. 277 (SH)/2001 had initially joined, on 5.2.1979, as Assistant Surgeon in the pay scale of Rs. 700.40.900-EB-40-1100-EB-45-1550/- he too, upon selection, joined the said services, on 24.1 1980, as Medical Specialist in the scale of Rs. 1000-1750/. All the private respondents in the writ petitions aforementioned are appellants herein except Meghalaya Health Service Association, which is an association of all the members of the Meghalaya Health Service (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the said Association"). All the private respondent?, except the said Association were appointed on various dates in Meghalaya Health Service in the pay scale of Rs. 700-40-900-EB-40-1100-EB-45- 1550/-. At the time, when the parties aforementioned had joined the said service, there was no definite set of recruitment rules It was only on 16.8.1982 that the Megnalaya Health Services Rules, 1982 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "1982 Rules")came into force and the said service received definite recruitment rules which prescribed, inter alia, conditions of recruitment and conditions of service of tne members of the said service. The 1982 Rules prescribed four grades for t he members of the said service, these grades being Senior Grade, Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III and laid down different pay scales for each of the said four grades. Since, at the time when the 1982 Rules came into force, the writ petitioners were working in the pay scale of Rs. 1000- 1750/-. they were placed in Grade-II inasmuch as the said scale of pay was prescribed pay scale for the members of the Grade-II. Similarly, the appellants herein except the said Association were placed in Grade-in inasmuch as their pay scale of Rs. 700-1550/- was the pay scale prescribed for the members of the Grade- Ill under the 1982 Rules. According to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of 1982 Rules, a minimum period of 3 years of continuous service in Grade-III was required for the purpose of promotion to Grade-II from Grade-Ill and, similarly, for the purpose of promotion from Grade-II to Grade-I also, the minimum prescribed period was a period of 3 years of continuous service in Grade-II. Ignoring, however, the fact that the writ petitioners had become eligible for promotion on completion of three years of continuous service in Grade-II, the government chose not to promote any of them to Grade-I, whereas the members of the said service, who were in Grade- III, continued to receive, from time to time, promotion to Grade-II from Grade-III. As promotions were not accorded to the members of Grade-II, they made several representations to the authorities concerned, but these representations yielded no results. (ii) With effect from 5th December, 1990, the Meghalaya Health Service Rules, 1990 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "1990 Rules") came into force repealing the 1982 Rules. Under these Rules, the post in Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III have been divided into two streams, namely, General Duty Stream and Specialist Stream, members of both the streams being entitled for promotion to the posts under different Grades meant for the two separate streams. However, from the Grade-I, the next promotional post is designated as Senior Grade. The Senior Grade is a common Grade, which is meant for promotion of the members of Grade-I of both the streams, though an early selection to Grade-I for any o f the members from any of the two streams would give him/her an edge over the seniormost member in Grade-II of the other stream. The early selection in the post of Grade-I would be one of the factors for consideration, while considering the cases of the officers for selection to Senior Grade. The gradation list for each of the two streams has accordingly been prepared separately. Rule 7 of the 1990 Rules has made provisions for direct recruitment at the level of Grade-III. Rule 9 of the 1990 Rules has laid down the minimum qualifying periods of service for members of each Grade. According to these Rules, for promotion to Grade-II from Grade-III, a member from General Duty Stream is required to put in minimum 9 years of continuous service in Grade- III, whereas the members of the Specialist Stream needs, for such promotion, 6 years if he holds Post Graduate Degree and 8 years if he holds Post Graduate Diploma. Similarly, for promotion to Grade-I from Grade-II, a member of the General Duty Stream is required to put in 18 years of continuous service in Grade-III and Grade-II taken t ogether of which a minimum period of 2 years ought to have been put in Grade-II and a member of the Specialist Stream becomes eligible for promotion to Grade-I on completion of a period of 15 years if he holds a post Graduate Degree and 17 years if he holds Post Graduate Diploma in Grade-in and Grade-II taken together, a minimum period of 2 years of continuous service in Grade- II being the pre-requisite for such promotion to Grade-I for each of these two categories of members of the Specialist Stream. (iii) Alleging apprehension that their seniority was likely to be adversely affected by introduction of the 1990 Rules, the members of the Specialist Stream filed Civil Rule No. 50(SH) of 1990, which was renumbered as Civil Rule No. 144 of 1991, but the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court, vide order, dated 6.3.91, directing the writ petitioners therein to make necessary representations to the Government and depending upon the outcome of the representations, which would be so made, the petitioners were left free to take such steps as they might be advised. (iv) Even after coming into the force of the 1990 Rules, while the Government continued to promote the members of Grade-Ill to Grade-II and from Grade-II to Grade-I in respect of General Duty Stream, the vacancies arising in Grade-I in Specialist Stream were not filled up. Thus, under the 1990 Rules, promotion has not been accorded to Grade-I posts of the Specialist Stream, although vacancies have been available for filling up the posts in Grade-I from Specialist Stream and the writ petitioners became eligible for promotion to Grade-I on different dates in the year 1 995-96, whereas the members of the General Duty Stream have been receiving promotions and even the appellants in the present writ appeals, being members of the General Duty Stream, received promotions on different dates commencing from 1992. (v) Though eligible, the petitioners, having not been given promotion either under the 1982 Rules or the 1990 Rules, have approached the Court by filing the writ petitions, which have given rise to these appeals. The petitioners have alleged, in their writ petitions, complete denial of their promotion as discriminatory, malafide and also, at the same time, challenging the validity and constitutionality of the 1990 Rules, the petitioners ought for necessary directions in the matter of their promotion. While the appellants-private respondents, except the said Association, were arrayed as parties, for their interest were involved, the said Association was, on an application made by the said Association, allowed to participate in the said writ petitions as mtervener. (vi) The respondents, while contesting the writ petitions, denied that the rules, in question, were invalid and/or that there was any discrimination in granting promotions to the private respondents. The respondents alleged that there was inordinate delay and latches on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Court and since the private respondents- appellants (except the said Association) had already received promotions, their promotions and seniority should not be affected by giving reliefs to the writ petitioners, who approached the Court belatedly and without offering any convincing reason for such delay and that the delay, which has so crept in, and the latches on the part of the writ petitioners were sufficient to deny them grant of equitable reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution. (vii) The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment and order, observed and directed as follows:

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the observations and directions contained in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the present set of Writ Appeals have been preferred by the private respondents and by the said Association.