H BIAKCHHUNGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is an Inspector of Statistics in the Government of Mizoram. challenging the final inter-se seniority list dated 10.2.1998 and for directing the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list by placing the petitioner above private respondents No. 4 to 7.

(2.) The tact in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1973 as Field Assistant in Economics and Statistics Department of Govt. of Mizorarn. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Computer on 10/5/1978 and to the post of Junior Statistician vide order dated 10/4/1984 on the basis of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) held on 29.2.84. On the basis of another selection conducted by the selection committee in its meeting dated 5.9.84 for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Statistician, recommendations were made and in pursuant to which the order of appointment dated 4.7.85 was issued appointing the private respondents along with thirteen others to the post of Junior Statistician against the quota fixed for direct recruitment. Under the relevant rules namely "Mizoram Statistician Services (Group 'C' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1982", the post of Junior Statistician is required to be filed up by promotion as well as by direct recruitment and the quota fixed is 50% each. The Rule is silent about the manner in which the inter-se-seniority between the promotee and the direct recruit is to be fixed. The post of Junior Statistician and Statistician was thereafter amalgamated into one grade of Statistician with effect from 1/1/86 and consequently the post of Junior Statistician in the department of Economics and Statistics was deemed to be abolished with effect from the said date and the incumbent of the said post was redesignated as Statistician vide order dated 9th April, 1990 issued by the Development Commissioner Government of Mizoram. The said post of Statistician was thereafter redesig- nated as Inspector. On 1/11/1990 the seniority list of Junior Statistician was published wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 21 and that of the private respondents were placed at serial No. 24 to 27. After redesignation of the post of Statistician as Inspector a provisional seniority list dated 24/7/1996 was published wherein the petitioner's name was placed at serial No. 27 and that of the private respondents at serial No. 20,22,24 and 26 respectively.The petitioner being aggrieved filed the objection on 12.8.96 before the Director, Economics and Statistics. Another provisional inter-se- seniority list of Inspector of Statistics was published on 1st August, 1997 without there being any change in the position of the petitioner and the private respondents. The petitioner, against the said provisional list, had not filed any obj ection as he has already filed the obj ection against the first provisional inter-se-seniority list. The Director, Economics and statistics on 10.2.98, published final inter-se-seniority list of Inspector of Statistic placing the petitioner at serial No. 24 and respondents at serial No. 18,20,22 and 23 respectively. The petitioner after lapse of more than two years from the date of publication of the said final inter-se-seniority list filed a representation on 31.5.2000 before the Director, Economics & Statistics objecting to the seniority list and claiming seniority over the private respondents. The said representation was disposed of by the Director vide order dated 18.9.2000 intimating him that as the petitioner and the respondents were promoted appointed against the quota fixed for the promotee and the direct recruit as per the recruitment rules, the seniority had been fixed in terms of the office memorandum dated 3.7,86 by applying the Rota rule. The petitioner again after almost two years i.e. on 3/7/02 filed a review petition seeking review of the final inter-se-seniority list of Inspectors and as nothing was done by the respondents, he has approached this court by way of the present writ petition dated 8.7.2003.

(3.) I have heard Mr. George Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. N. Sailo, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 4 to 7 despite service of notice did not appear and contest the writ proceeding.