KELHOUSATUO ANGAMI Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. C. T. Zamir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and Ms. Lucy, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 (State respondents ).

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order being No. ED/tpt/c/47/91-92 dated 19. 3. 05 issued by the Additional Director, Directorate of School Education Nagaland, Kohima by which the private respondent, who, according to the petitioner was junior to him at the relevant time, was promoted to the post of Head Driver w. e. f. 1st March, 2005 in the establishment of the said Directorate. He is also aggrieved by the tentative seniority list dated 29. 7. 05, which, according to him, was prepared illegally showing the private respondent No. 4 as the senior-most Driver amongst the Drivers attached under the establishment of the said Directorate. This writ petition has been filed praying, mainly, for quashing the above-said promotion order as well as the said tentative seniority list.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner's service, which had been started as a Driver on an ad hoc basis under an order of the Director of Education, Nagaland, Kohima dated 17. 9. 79, was regularised w. e. f. 26. 9. 79 under an order issued by the same authority. There are two seniority lists of Drivers under the Directorate of School Education. One is dated 21. 6. 85 and filed by the petitioner as Annexure-B to the writ petition and the other is dated 22. 6. 85 filled by the private respondent No. 4 as Annexure-B to his affidavit-in-opposition. In both the lists, the petitioner is above the private respondent indicating 26. 9. 79 and 3. 11. 79 as the dates from which their respective seniorities are to be counted. Accordingly, as per the above-said lists, the petitioner is senior to the private respondent. Even if the subsequent list dated 22. 6. 85 is taken as the correct one, as per the said list, the petitioner is senior to the private respondent.