STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. DEVENDRA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, we ate concerned with the seniority and promotion of officers in the Mizoram Police Service. The facts briefly are that the respondent No. 1 Debendra Prasad Sharma was initially appointed as Sub- Inspector of Police for the State of Assam in the year, 1965 and thereafter posted in the erstwhile Mizoram District Of the composite State of Assam. Mizoram was constituted into a Union Territory in the year 1971 and the respondent No. 1 ,was allocated to the Union Territory Mizoram. on 10.7,73, foe respondent No. 1 was promoted to the-rank of Inspector of Police in the Union Territory of Mizoram which subsequently, became the State of Mizoram On 25\3\82. the respondent No. 2, 3, 4, S, 6 and 7 were directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Mizoram Police Service and on 8.4.82, the respondent No, 1 was promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector of Police in Mizoram Police Service. Respondent .Nos. 8 and ,9 were also promoted from the post of Inspector of of Police to the post of Deputy Inspector of. Police on 8.4.92. Respondent No. 10 was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Mizoram Police service on 12.4.82. Provisional seniority lists of officers of the Mizoram Police Service were circulated by office Memorandum dated 10th March, 1987 and by office Memorandum dated 19th February, 1988 issued by the Secretary to the Govt of Mizoram in the Home Department. Respondent No.1 submitted his objection to the provisional seniority lists and the inter se seniority list of the officers was finaly published by We office Memorandum dated 7th September, 1988 issued by the Secretary to the Govt of Mizoram, Home Department. In the said final seniority list, the respondent No. 1 was shown below respondents No. 2 to 7 but above respondents No. 8 to 10. Thereafter- by order dated 20th October, 1988 of the Govt. of Assam, Home Department, respondent No. 2,3,5,7,9,10 and two others were promoted temporarily to the rank of the Additional Superintendent of Police.

(2.) Aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 filed Civil Rule No. 4/89 under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the final seniority list -of the officers of the Mizoram Police Service, 'to declare the respondent No. 1 as senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 7, to quash the aforesaid order dated 20.10.88 promoting the respondent Nos. 2,3,5,7,9. 10 and two others to the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police and to direct the authorities to promote the respondent No. 1 to the rank of Additional Susperintendent of Police. By the impugned judgment dated 17.6.93 the learned single Judge allowed the Civil Rule which was renumbered as Civil Rule -No. 9/92 with a direction that the resopondent No, 1 be shown above the respondent No. 2 in the seniority list and a direction that the respondent No. 1 be promoted with effect from the date on which respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police l.e. 20.10.88 and with a further direction to the authorities to promote the respondent No 1 to the post of Superintendent of Police With effect from the date on which the respondent No. 2 was promoted i.e. 14.9.92.

(3.) At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Assistant Advocate general, State of Mizoram submitted that although an affidavit-in-opposition was filed In the Civil Rule on behalf of the State of Mizoram no record was produced before the learned single Judge to show that the respondent No.1 was duly considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police jn the year 1981 and similarly considered for promotion to the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police in the year, 1988 but was not recommended for promotion by the D.P.C. As a result the learned single Judge proceeded on, the, premise that the respondent No,2 was not duly considered for promotion for a long time from the post of Inspector of Police to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and thereafter from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police to the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. Mr. Pathak produced the aforesaid records before us to show that the aforesaid premise of the learned single Judge was not factually correct and the, correct position was that the respondent No 1 was considered but not recommended for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police by the D.P.C. held on 4.2.81 and was again found to be unfit for promotion to the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police by the D.P.C. in its meeting on 6,10.88. Mr. Pathak further contended thar it would further appear from the judgment of the learned single Judge that he has taken the view that the inter se seniority between the respondent No.l and responded Nos. 2 to 10 is to be governed by sub-rule (iii).of (Rule 25) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986, which provided that the relative seniority of direct recruit and the promotees is to be determined according to rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees as per quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, hut the said sub-rule (iii) of (Rule 25) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986 applied to recruitments and promotions to the service made after the commencement of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986 and did not apply to the respondents who had all been appointed at the initial constitution of service.