HUGIE ZELIANG Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 herein were, initially, appointed, on 09.03.82 and 04.12.82, respectively, in the scale of pay of Rs. 260/-425/-, as Computer, in the Directorate of Evaluation, which falls under the Department of Planning and Coordination, Government of Nagaland. While the appellant No. 1 was promoted to the post of Evaluation Inspector/Investigator (Class-II Gazetted) on 05.12.87, in the scale of pay of Rs. 640/-1445/-, the appellant No. 2 was promoted to the post of Evaluation Inspector/Investigator on 03.07.87, with effect from 22.06.87, in the same scale of pay as mentioned hereinbefore. By Notification, dated 27.06.93, the appellant No. 2 was promoted to the post of Evaluation Officer (in short, 'EO') in the scale of pay of Rs. 1800-3700/- and has continued in the same capacity till date; whereas the appellant No. 2 was promoted, vide Notification, dated 10.06.94, to the post of EO (Class-II Gazetted) on officiating basis, in the scale of pay as indicated hereinbefore and has continued till date.

(2.) The private respondent Nos. 3 and 5, both of whom were Inspector of Statistics (Class-III Non-Gazetted), which fall under the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, came to be appointed as EO, on 31.10.86, on deputation, for a period of 2(two) years in the scale of pay of Rs. 930-2080/-. The private respondent Nos. 4 and 6, who were Assistant Teachers, came to be appointed as EO, on deputation, on 03.11.86 and 02.12.81 respectively.

(3.) By the impugned Notification, dated 19.12.02, when the private respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 were permanently absorbed in the Directorate of Evaluation, with effect from their respective dates of joining the post of E.O. on deputation, the appellants, feeling aggrieved by the absorptiion of the private respondent with retrospective effect, came to this Court with a writ application, which gave rise to W.P.(C) No.12(K) 03, and sought for inter alia setting aside and quashing of the impugned Notification, dated 19.12.02, aforesaid their case being that they were appointed, in the Directorate of Evaluation, as Computer and, thereafter, they were promoted, in course of time, to the posts of EO, but by absorbing the private respondents in the post of EO, with retrospective effect, the private respondents were made senior to the appellants.