VENNEIBERA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 30/07/2008 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 75/2007, by which the promotion of the appellants to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch) affected vide order dated 21/09/2007 has been set aside. While doing so, direction was also issued to fill up the vacancies as per the provisions of the Rules providing opportunity to all those who were within the zone of consideration. It is submitted by Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to the aforesaid directions contained in the aforesaid judgement, entire exercise for promotion was redone and by various orders, namely, orders dated 26/09/2008, 19/08/2010, 19/08/2011, 25/10/2011 and 10/09/2013, all the incumbents barring two of the writ petitioners have been promoted. He submits that in case the earlier promotion of the appellants affected vide the order dated 21/09/2007 is restored, it will only be a question of determination of seniority between the appellants who were the private respondents in the writ petition, vis-a-vis the writ petitioners.

(2.) Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel representing the newly impleaded respondents supporting the case of the appellants submits that the impugned judgement is not sustainable in law, firstly because the writ petitioners duly participated in the selection process impugned in the writ petition and thereby took a chance for favourable consideration and thus they were estopped from turning around the same so as to question the validity of the very selection in which they had participated. Secondly, the particular selection procedure having been adopted by the State respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances as a measure of policy decision and by relaxing the rules and the said policy decision and the order of relaxation of rules having not been challenged in the writ petition, the consequential action by means of holding the selection could not have been challenged.

(3.) None has appeared for the writ petitions who are the respondents in this appeal inspite of service of notice. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned AAG, Mizoram. We have also perused the entire materials on record.