ENGZUALI RALTU Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner challenges the inter-se-seniority list of the Assistant Superintendent of Accounts under the Food & Civil Supplies Department, Government of Mizoram as on 5.2.2003 (Annexure-17 dated 6.2.1993 to the writ petition) in which name: of the petitioner appears below the private respondent Nos. 5 to 17 who were working in the lower post of Accounts Assistants when the petitioner was appointed on direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Accounts/Accountant against regular vacant post vide order dated 25.7.1990 on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee (at Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and also for quashing the notification dated 6.2.2004 (at annexure-22 to the writ petition) for giving benefit of counting the services of the present Respondent Nos. 5 to 17 in the lower posts of Account Assistant while determining relative seniority in the higher post of Assistant Superintendent of Accounts.

(2.) Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nelson Sailo, learned GA for the official respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well as Mr.George Raju, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 5 to 17.

(3.) The fact of the petitioner's case itself will show that an injustice had been done to the writ petitioner inasmuch as private respondents who were not even born in the Grade of Assistant Superintendent of Accounts when the petitioner was appointed on direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Accounts vide order dated 25.7.1990, the private respondent Nos. 5 to 17 were working in the lower posts of Account Assistants which were feeder posts for promotion to the post of Accountant (Assistant Superintendent of Accounts). But by dint of impugned notification dated 6.2.2004 (Annexure-22) which was said to have been issued by the Governor of Mizoram in exercise of his power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India, the length of service of the private respondent Nos. 5 to 17 in the lower post of Assistant Accountant had been counted for the purpose of seniority i n the higher post of Assistant Superintendent of Accounts (Accountant). And it appears that the said impugned notification dated 6.2.2004 (at Annexure-22) had been issued for the purpose of justifying the impugned final inter-se-seniority list dated 6.2.2003 (Annexure-17) of the Assistant Superintendents of Accounts in which the name of the petitioner is placed below the names of the private respondent Nos. 5 to17.