MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the inter-se-seniority list of Head Constable (RM) of Mizoram Police Radio Organization (MPRO) dated 13th September, 2004 and for quashing the letter bearing No. A. 11020/68/04-SP (W ). RO/39, dated 23rd March, 2005, by which the representation of the petitioner dated 08. 11. 2004 was rejected.

(2.) THAT , in the impunged inter-se-seniority list dated 13th September, 2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 21 and the names of the private respondents are shown at Sl. Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 respectively. According to the petitioner, his name ought to have been placed at Sl. No. 16, as his initial date of appointment was 21. 11. 1989 i. e. earlier than the dates of appoinments of the private-respondents. His representation against the said seniority list was rejected by the respondent No. 3 wrongly vide letter dated 23rd March, 2005.

(3.) FACTS , in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Naik Operator in MPRO as per relevant Recruitment Rules vide Office Order No. 469 of 1989 dated 21. 11. 1989, issued by the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, with the prior approval of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner along with 13 others Naik-Operators including the private respondents, were re-mustered as Head Constables (RM), Head Constables (Cipher) and Head Constables (Fitter) respectively, and assumed their duties on different dates as shown in the order dated 29th December, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner and the private respondents except private respondent No. 6 were re-mustered as Head Constables (RM) w. e. f. 12. 12. 2000. On 13th September, 2004, the impugned inter-se-seniority list (tentative) of Head Constables (RM) was issued showing the names of the private respondents above the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the said seniority list, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3 but the same was rejected on 23rd March, 2005.