VANDANA KARKI Vs. L CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three significant questions have been raised in these two writ appeals and have been referred to the Full Bench for adjudication by the Division Bench of this Cburt in the following terms:-

(2.) Writ Appeal No. 162/97 is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.9.97 in Civil Rule No. 166 of 1990 and Writ Appeal No. 101 of 1997 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.6.97 in Civil Review petition No.7 of 1996. Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh, respondent No. 1 as petitioner, filed Civil Rule No. 166 of 1990 for regularising his officiating appointment in Manipur Police Service Grade-II w.e.f. 12.10. 83 after quashing the order of his regular appointment issued by the respondent State Government on 16.8.89, Annexure 3 of the writ petition and also for quashing the seniority list at Annexure 7 of the writ petition. Petitioner, respondent No.1 Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh joined the service in the Police Department, Government of Manipur as Sub-Inspector on 16.8.89. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on regular basis by an order of the Government dated 3.6.80. He was confirmed as Inspector of Police w.e.f. 14.1.85 by an order of the Government dated 16.9.85. It is stated that the petitioner is rendering a meritorious service in the Police department and he has earned many meritorious awards of the Government of Manipur as well as of the Government of India in recognition of his service. The petitioner along with others were appointed to the Manipur Police Service (M.P.S.) Grade-II on officiating basis by an order of the Government dated 12.10.83. From the aforesaid order it appears that the respondent No. 1, petitioner, was appointed from the select list prepared under Rule 24 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as MPS Rules) in the year 1987. The case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 24.3.87 and the DPC recommended the name of the petitioner along with others for appointment in MPS Grade-II against short term vacancy. In the DPC held on 26th, 27th and 28th April, 1989 the petitioner was again considered and he was recommended along with others for appointment on promotion to the MPS Grade-II on regular basis. Pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC held in 1989, the petitioner along with others have been promoted to MPS (Junior Grade) with immediate effect by an order of the government dated 16.8.89. Thereafter, a tentative seniority list of MPS Grade-II officers have been published on 06.12.89 and after inviting objections, the Government published a final seniority list on 30.3.90. In that final seniority list, the name of the petitioner, principal respondent No. 1, is placed at Sl. No. 71. The grievance of the respondent No. 1, petitioner, is that he was appointed in MPS Grade-II on officiating basis by an order dated 12.10.83 and his officiating appointment was followed by a regular appointment by the Government by an order dated 16.8.89 and therefore, his seniority should have been counted from his date of initial appointment in MPS Grade-II on officiating basis from 12th October, 1983. It is also asserted that by denying the benefits of officiating service of about six years of the petitioner, respondent No. 1, Government has committed an illegality and as a resulit he has been placed below the direct recruits of the MPS of the year 1988 in the seniority list.

(3.) Having felt aggrieved by the final seniority list the petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 166 of 90. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are the direct recruits to the MPS Grade-II of the year 1986 and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are the direct recruits of the year 1988. These appellants as respondents in the original Civil Rule contended that if the prayer of the respondent No. 1, peiitioner, is allowed it would not only violate the provisions of MPS Rules, but it would also affect their seniority adversely. It is also stated that the recruitment and conditions of service in the MPS, namely, selection, promotion and seniority etc. are strictly governed by the MPS Rules. It is also contended that appointment by promotion of eligible officers who are substantively born in the feeder grade of Inspector of Police, Prosecution Inspectors, etc. to MPS Grade- II has to be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5(1 )(b) and Rule 13 to 16 of the MPS Rules. It is also contended that the words," substantively born1 appearing in Rule 5(1 )(b) and Rule 14(1) of MPS Rules has been interpreted by the State Government as an officer confirmed in the feeder grade/ post since the inception of service and such interpretation is in practice and has been followed by the Government althrough. Therefore, such legal position/practice cannot be disturbed at this stage as that will create a chaotic situation in the sendee:. It is also contended that the petitioner was mot initially appointed under Rule 5( 1) (b) read with Rule 14 (1) of the MPS Rules. On the contrary, he was appointed from the panel prepared under Rule 24 and therefore he cannot: claim his seniority on the basis of officiating appointment from 12.10.83. The officiating service cannot be counted towards seniority as by such appointment the respondent No. 1 does not become a Member of the MPS. Rule 28 of the MPS Rules provides for fixing seniority in the service and as per provisions of the MPS Rules length of service: cannot be a criteria or basis for fixation of seniority in the service. The petitioner was confirmed in the grade of Inspector on 14.1.85 and his case was considered by the DPC in 1987 and 1989 along with the cases of other eligible officers. There is no illegality in the regular promotion of respondent, petitioner from 16.8.89 and from that date he is entitled to count his seniority as per provisions of Rule: 28 of the MPS Rules.