WRIT APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2008 - Gauhati High Courtwrit appeal no. 477 of 2008 ... writ appeal no. 157 of 2011 1. shri r.k. dorenchand singh, aged about 52 years old, s/o. (l) r.k. mangisana

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR:

TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

WRIT APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2008

THE STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR.

…………Appellant

-Versus-

1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGOMBAM BROJENDRO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) N. GOLAPCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAS DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OLD, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 2 of 30

10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 12. SMT. GUNIJA DEVI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ODL, D/O. LATE S. LALBABU SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 13. SHRI R.K. DORENCHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) R.K. MANGISANA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KWAKEITHEL BAZAR, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 14. SHRI Kh. MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, RESIDENT OF CHINGMEIRONG IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 15. SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. ………Respondents


SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHUREI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.


-Versus-

1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGOMBAM BROJENDRO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) N. GOLAPCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 3 of 30

4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAS DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OLD, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. ………Respondents


12. SMT. GUNIJA DEVI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ODL, D/O. LATE S. LALBABU SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.


-Versus-

1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 4 of 30

2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGOMBAM BROJENDRO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) N. GOLAPCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAS DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OLD, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 12. THE STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR, IMPHAL. 13. SHRI R.K. DORENCHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) R.K. MANGISANA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KWAKEITHEL BAZAR, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 5 of 30

14. SHRI KH. MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, RESIDENT OF CHINGMEIRONG IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 15. SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. ………Respondents


1. SHRI R.K. DORENCHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) R.K. MANGISANA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KWAKEITHEL BAZAR, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI KH. MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OLD, RESIDENT OF CHINGMEIRONG IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.2.


-Versus-

1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGTHOUJAM BROJENDRO SINGH, S/O. (LATE) N. GULAPCHAND SINGH, OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAL DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 6 of 30

8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.

Principal Respondents. 12. THE STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR, IMPHAL. 13. SMT. S. GUNIJA DEVI, D/O. (L) S. LALBABU SINGH OF SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 14. SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. ………Proforma Respondents

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL

For the Appellants : Mr. DK Misra, Senior Advocate.

Mr. N Bipin, Advocate. Ms. S Jahan, Advocate. Mr. R. Mangsatabam, Advocate Mr. Th. James Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. N Dutta, Senior Advocate.

Mr. R Piba, Advocate. Mr. A Mohendra Singh, Adcoate.

Date of Hearing : 19.07.2011, 27.07.2011, 16.08.2011, 17.08.2011 & 19.08.2011.

Date of Judgment : 01.09.2011.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 7 of 30

Judgment And Order AMITAVA ROY , J

These appeals project a challenge to the judgment and order

dated 17.11.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 55/2008 instituted by the

respondent Nos. 1 to 11 in WA No. 447/2008. By the decision impugned,

the learned Single Judge sustained the assailment of the orders dated

22.06.1999, 30.10.1999 and 04.11.1999 of the concerned State authority

regularizing the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 in the writ proceeding in the

post of Agriculture Officer of the Department of Agriculture, Manipur

w.e.f. 05.11.1988. The seniority list dated 27.11.1999 enlisting the

parties and arraying them on the basis of such regularization has been

consequentially interfered with. The order dated 08.02.1996, whereby,

the respondent No. 2 in the writ proceeding had been regularized as

Agriculture Officer w.e.f. 29.12.1980, though not impeached, the

corrigendum dated 09.02.1996 determining her position in the seniority

list of Agriculture Officers, however, has been quashed.

02. We have heard Mr. DK Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. S

Jahan, Advocate for the appellant in WA No. 155/2011, Mr. N Bipin,

learned counsel appearing for the appellants in WA No. 157/2011, Mr. N

Dutta, Senior Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in WP(C) No.

55/2008, Mr. R Piba, learned counsel for the private respondents in WA

No. 155/2011 (petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, & 9 in the writ proceeding)

and Mr. A Mohendra, Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents

in WA No. 155/2011 (petitioners No. 5, 8, 10 & 11 in the writ

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 8 of 30

proceeding). Heard Mr. BP Sahoo, learned counsel for the applicants in

MC No. 995/2011 in WA No. 477/2008.

03. The pleaded versions do not record any major dissension on

the essential facts constituting the background of the lis. As the decision

oppugned is common and the legal propositions in the admitted factual

backdrop pervade the gossamer of the appeals, this single adjudicative

pursuit would adequately address the same. The parties at the initiation

of the legal encounter with WP(C) No. 55/2000 were lodged as

Agriculture Officers in the Department of Agriculture, Manipur.

04. For the sake of convenience, they would be referred to as per

their orientations in the writ petition. The petitioners had averred that

they were first appointed as Assistant Agriculture officers (AAO) or

equivalent on ad-hoc basis on the following dates: -

09.08.1977 Petitioner No. 4







17.07.1979 Petitioner Nos. 1, 5, 7 & 11.

While they were serving as such, they were promoted to the

next higher post of Agriculture Officer (as AO) or equivalent on ad-hoc

basis on different dates, i.e 03.01.1981, 09.11.1981, 02.02.1981 and

03.02.1981.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 9 of 30

05. The respondent No. 2 was similarly appointed as AAO on ad-

hoc basis on 09.08.1977 and on the recommendation of the Manipur

Public Service Commission (for short hereafter referred to as the

Commission) was appointed as such on regular basis w.e.f. 24.05.1980.

The petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were, thereafter,

by the notification dated 02.08.1981 recommended to be appointed to

the post of AAO and equivalent. They were placed in the list of the

recommendees as hereunder: -

NAME Sl. No.

Shri RK Darendchand

Respondent No. 3

2

Shri Shri Khaidem Mohendra Singh

Respondent No. 4

7

Shri Khumanthem Jugeshora singh

Petitioner No. 1

25

Shri Pheiroijam Rajendra Singh

Respondent No. 5

31

Shri Nayanglambam Biren Singh

Petitioner No. 2

36

Ningthoujam Brojendra Singh

Petitioner No. 3

38

Shri Soibam Jaintkumar Singh

Petitioner No. 4

84

Shri Gurumayum Indramohon Sharma

Petitioner No. 5

86

Shri Yensenbam Ishwarchandra Singh

Petitioner No. 6

94

Shri Sapam Nimaichand Singh

Petitioner No. 7

96

Shri Th. Gyaneswar Singh

Petitioner No. 8

110

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 10 of 30

These recommendees were, subsequent thereto, appointed as

AAO vide order dated 02.07.1982 of the Secretary (Agri.) to the

Government of Manipur and were placed in the same order interse

therein. The Government of Manipur, vide the order dated 25.08.1982

fixed the inter-se seniority of the AAO or its equivalent appointed on

regular basis. In the final seniority list of the Assistant Agriculture Officer

in the Department of Agriculture/Horticulture & Soil conservation,

Manipur that was circulated by the order dated 14.01.1986 of the

Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Agri.), Government of Manipur, the

petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were positioned as

hereunder: -

Respondent No. 2 Sl. No. 93




Petitioner No. 1 Sl. No. 124

Petitioner no. 2 Sl. No. 135







06. Noticeably, till that stage, the petitioner Nos. 9, 10 & 11 did

not figure in the scene concerning the parties, as they were regularised

as AAO only by order dated 23.08.1986 much thereafter. Significantly,

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 11 of 30

the interse seniority of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and respondent Nos. 2

to 5 as portrayed by the seniority list dated 14.01.1986 was accepted by

all concerned.

07. Pending the process of regular appointment of the parties as

AAO, as alluded hereinabove as and claimed by the petitioners, they were

promoted as Agriculture Officer on ad-hoc basis on the following dates: -

SL. NO. NAME DATES

1. Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 & 9 03.01.1981

2. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 8 01.08.2001

3. Petitioner Nos. 1, 6, 7 & 11 02.02.1981

4. Petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 10 03.02.1981

Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 were also promoted as Agriculture

Officer on ad-hoc basis as hereinbelow: -

SL. NO. NAME DATES

1. Respondent No. 2 29.12.1980

2. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 31.12.1983

3. Respondent No. 5 13.10.1987

08. As it would be apparent from hereinabove, the respondent

Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were promoted as Agriculture Officer on ad-hoc basis after

the petitioners. Significantly, all these developments burgeoned in the

teeth of the Agriculture, Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department,

Manipur (I) Agriculture Officers/Senior Technical Asstt./Subject matter

Specialist posts with an identical scale of pay and similar duties and (2)

Assistant Agriculture Officer and with an identical scale of pay and similar

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 12 of 30

duties Recruitment Rules, 1980 (for short hereafter also referred to as

the Rules) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and

published in the issue dated 18.06.1980 of the Manipur Gazette. The

Rules proclaimed to regulate the method of recruitment to the post of

Agriculture Officer/Technical Assistant/Subject Matter Specialist etc. The

post of Agriculture Officer and those equivalent thereto were projected

thereby to be selection posts to be filled up by direct recruitment (40%)

and promotion (60%). The conditions of eligibility including the academic

qualification and the qualifying length of service of the incumbent in the

feeder post of Assistant Agriculture Officer were also recited therein.

09. As the promotions to the post of Agriculture Officer on ad-hoc

basis of the parties as referred to hereinabove were, admittedly, not in

accordance with the prescriptions of these Rules, the Government of

Manipur in the Agriculture Department, by order dated 05.11.1988

regularized the ad-hoc appointment of 35 Nos. AO and other incumbents

holding equivalent post w.e.f. 24.05.1986 pursuant to a policy for

regularization of ad-hoc appointments embodied in the office

memorandum dated 31.05.1986 of the Department of Personnel &

Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur. In

terms of the said office memorandum, ad-hoc appointees appointed upto

31.12.1984 against the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota

under Class-I & II posts could be regularized w.e.f. 24.05.1986, if they

complied with the other conditions therefor as mentioned therein. By the

order dated 05.11.1988, the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner Nos. 1

to 11 as Agriculture Officer/equivalent was thus regularized w.e.f.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 13 of 30

24.05.1986. It was, however, clarified that their seniority would be fixed

later on.

10. Stirred up by this retrospective regularization of the adhoc

promotion of the petitioners as AO, 7 (seven) Agriculture Officer, out of

whom 5 (five) had been regularised as such w.e.f. 28.10.1988, instituted

CR No. 76/1992, questioning the validity of the order dated 05.11.1988.

They claimed to have been appointed as AAO by way of direct

recruitment on ad-hoc basis and, thereafter, promoted as AO on ad-hoc

basis, following which the regularization as above had followed. They

complained that the petitioners had been promoted as AO on ad-hoc basis

by intruding into the quota of direct recruitment and if their (writ

petitioners in CR No. 76/1992) retrospective regularization, as such, was

sustained, they would illegally score a march over them. The present

petitioners also related their pending grievance in CR No. 131/1989 and

CR No. 698/1989 with this challenge and joined the fray. A Division Bench

of this Court, by judgment and order dated 27.04.1992 disposed of the

aforementioned proceedings with the following observations: -

“24. Now coming to the case on hand, the respondents

were promoted on ad-hoc basis in the year 1981 against

the quota of direct recruitment and the petitioners were

appointed on ad-hoc basis in the years 1979 and 1980.

The policy of the Government of Manipur for

regularization with effect from 24.05.1986 relates to ad-

hoc appointees against the direct recruitment quota. This

being the position, the respondents who were promoted

in the quota of direct recruits cannot be regularised under

the policy as well as quota rules. But, the 33 respondents

have been holding the posts for more than 11 years and

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 14 of 30

once they were regularised rightly or wrongly under

order dated 05.11.1988 and if they are to be reverted to

AAOs it would be not only unjust and inequitable, but

also would disturb other AAOs who had been appointed

to the vacant posts caused on promotion of the 33

respondents, and as such, their services are to be

secured by regularizing their employment. This can only

be done by relaxing the provisions relating to quota rules,

which is permissible under the Recruitment Rules

referred to above, by treating the quota of direct recruits

as promotional posts for the following reasons. The

promotees cannot be treated as direct recruits where the

recruitment is from two sources to a service in view of the

decisions of the Supreme Court in Badami’s Case (AIR

1980 SC 1561) as well as Sonal’s case (AIR 1987 SC

2389), where it has been held that where the recruitment

is from two sources to a service, the quota rules have to

be strictly enforced and it is not open to the authorities to

meddle with on the ground of administrative exigencies.

Promotees occupying direct recruit quota cannot claim

any right to hold any promotional post. That apart, if the

33 respondents who were ad-hoc promotees are

regularised treating them direct recruits w.e.f.

24.05.1986, it would affect the seniority of the petitioners

– 1 to 5 who were appointed earlier then the 33

respondents and who had been regularised in their

lawful quota in the same cadre or grade in the year

1988. Therefore, to give such a benefit to the 33

respondents would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution as all the promotees in the same cadre or

grade would not be treated equally.

25. The next question which arises for

consideration in from which date and year the 33

respondents are to be regularised. The petitioners – 1 to

5, who were appointed earlier than the 33 respondents,

were regularised w.e.f. 28.10.1988. The Government took

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 15 of 30

the decision to regularise the 33 respondents on

05.11.1988, rightly or wrongly. Therefore, we are of the

opinion that if the 33 respondents are regularized w.e.f.

05.11.1988 it would meet the ends of justice.”

11. Their Lordships therefore returned a finding that the present

petitioners, who were promoted against the quota of direct recruits,

could not be regularized under the policy as well as the quota rules.

Besides, if they were regularized treating them as direct recruits w.e.f.

24.05.1986, it would affect the seniority of the writ petitioners No. 1 to 5

in CR No.76/1992, who had been appointed earlier to them and

regularized in their lawful quota in the same cadre or grade in the year

1988. Their Lordships, however, noticing that the present petitioners had

been holding the post for more than 11 years by then, and that it would

not only be unjust and inequitable to revert them to the post of AAO, but

also that the same would disturb the other AAOs who had been appointed

to the resultant vacant post, sought to ease the stalemate by concluding

that if the present writ petitioners and other beneficiaries of the order

dated 05.11.1988 were regularized with effect from that date i.e.

05.11.1988, it would meet the ends of justice as the petitioner Nos. 1 to

5 in CR No. 76/1992 had been regularised w.e.f. 28.10.1988. The parties

are not at issue that the petitioners as a consequence stood regularised

as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988.

12. While the matter rested at that, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4

were regularised as AO w.e.f. 19.02.1993 by order dated 12.03.1993 of

the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, Agriculture

Department. The respondent No. 2 having along with three others

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 16 of 30

approached this Court with CR No. 1069/1993, she, in terms of the

judgment and order dated 05.07.1994 passed therein, was regularized as

AO with effect from the date of her initial ad-hoc appointment, as such,

i.e. 29.12.1980 vide order dated 08.02.1996 of the Under Secretary,

Government of Manipur, in the Horticulture and Soil Conservation

Department. The respondent No. 5, subsequent thereto, by order dated

05.01.1999 of the Deputy Secretary (Agri.), Government of Manipur was

appointed as Agriculture Officer on the recommendation of the DPC in

consultation with the Commission w.e.f. 04.01.1999.

13. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with their belated regularization

and that too on and from the dates posterior to that of the petitioners,

the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 instituted WP(C) No. 241/1999, WP(C)

No.1111/1999 and WP(C) No.1145/1999, respectively, seeking judicial

intervention for redress. Prior thereto, they had teamed up with

respondent No. 2 to initiate CR No. 1385/1992, CR No. 1399/1992 and CR

No. 446/1997, which stood disposed of on 18.02.1999, leaving them at

liberty to file appropriate representations before the concerned State

authority to be disposed of keeping in view of the judgment and order

dated 27.04.1992, passed in CR Nos. 131/1989, 693/1989 and CR No.

76/1992. WP(C) Nos. 1111/1999, 1145/1999 and 241/1999 were similarly

disposed of on different dates substantially in the same lines.

14. Orders dated 04.11.1999, 30.10.1999 and 22.06.1999 as

impugned in WP(C) No.55/2008 followed, regularizing the respondent

Nos. 5, 4 and the respondent No. 3 as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988 for the

purpose of seniority. By notification dated 27.11.1999, the seniority list

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 17 of 30

of Agriculture Officers and all posts equivalent thereto in the Agriculture

Department of the State was published, in which the parties were placed

as hereunder: -
















Evidently, thus following the above factual interventions, in

essence, the interse seniority of the parties as AAO was restored in the

post of AO. As it indicated hereinabove, the petitioners’ remonstrance is

mounted against the orders dated 22.06.1999, 30.10.1999, 04.11.1999

regularizing the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988, the

corrigendum dated 09.02.1996 identifying the placement of the

respondent No. 2 in the seniority list of AO following her regularization as

such, by the order dated 08.02.1996 w.e.f. 29.12.1980 as well as the

seniority list dated 27.11.1999. The order dated 08.02.1996 qua the

respondent No. 2 was not assailed in particular.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 18 of 30

15. The learned Single Judge, maintained the impugnment and

annulled the orders and the seniority list as above with a direction to

prepare a fresh seniority list in the light of the determination so made.

Relying, inter alia, on the judgment and order dated 21.05.2008, in

WP(C) No.540/2000 (Shri Th. Ranbir Singh Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of

Manipur & Ors.) and 24.06.2008 in WA No. 65/2008 between the same

parties as well as various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it

was held that seniority of an incumbent in an earlier cadre on promotion

was not of any determinative significance and further the retrospective

regularization by the Government in absence of any specific

empowerment to that effect is non est in law.

16. Mr. Misra, has argued that as admittedly, the ad-hoc

promotions to the post of AO, a selection post, were not in accordance

with the Rules then in force, the inter-se seniority of the concerned

incumbents in the earlier grade does not loose its import. He has urged

that the authorities relied upon by the learned Single Judge are

distinguishable on facts, the promotions as AO on ah-hoc basis not having

been made on a comparative evaluation of the merit and suitability of

the candidates. According to him, having regard to the nature of the

promotions made, the restoration of the inter-se seniority of the parties

as AAO on the regularization of the promotion as AO is legally

permissible. Mr. Misra referred to the Rules to indicate that the post of

AO was a selection post and drew our attention to the memorandum of

appeal of the State to reveal that the promotions of the parties as AO on

ad-hoc basis had not been in compliance of the Rules. The learned Senior

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 19 of 30

Counsel urged that a plain perusal of the operative portion of the

judgment and order dated 27.04.1992 would unambiguously demonstrate

that thereby, this Court did not direct regularization of the ad-hoc

promotion of the petitioners to be effective from 05.11.1988 and the

arrangement was wrought only to relieve them of the otherwise apparent

yet iniquitous consequences looming large in the face of the

impermissibility of their adjustment as promotees against direct

recruitment portions. Mr. Misra has contended that as this consideration

of the Court had weighed with the Government to deal with the

representations of the private respondents as well to secure their

seniority as AO, the impugned interference was uncalled for. Referring to

the Catch Up Rule dilated upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajit Singh &

Ors. (II) Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 209 as well as Article 16 (4) A

of the Constitution of India, Mr. Misra, has insisted that in the attendant

facts and circumstances, the restoration of seniority of the respondents

in the post of AAO as AO cannot be faulted with. He placed reliance on

the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Mysore Vs. C.R. Sheshadri & Ors.,

(1974) 4 SCC 308, Devendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (1997) 4

SCC 422, State of Maysore & Ors. Vs. Syed Mahmood & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 1113,

Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 368 and N. Suresh

Nathan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 692.

17. Mr. Dutta, in addition to the general ratification of the

propositions proffered on behalf of the State insisted that in any view of

the matter as the respondent No. 5 is the only incumbent among the

sparring parties to have been appointed as AAO on the recommendation

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 20 of 30

of the Commission, the order of his regularization as AO and his seniority

position in the impugned select list dated 27.11.1999 is unassailable.

Contending that the promotions of the petitioners as AO on ad-hoc basis,

had been in violation of the Rules, they not having been appointed as

AAO as respondent No. 5, the learned Senior counsel has urged that they

(petitioners) by no means can claim superior seniority over him on the

basis of the judgment and order dated 27.04.1992, which merely

delivered them on equitable considerations. He underlined that in any

view of the matter, the respondent No. 2 is senior most amongst the

parties and that her regularization as AO w.e.f. 29.11.1980, vide order

dated 08.02.1996 having been effected in terms of the judgment and

order dated 05.07.1994, passed in CR No. 1069/1993, the impugned

judgment and order vis-a-vis her is unsustainable in law and on facts. The

learned Senior counsel pointed out as well that the respondent Nos. 2, 3,

4 & 5 were not parties in the earlier process of determination culminating

in the judgment and order dated 27.04.1992.

18. Mr. Piba, while endorsing the decision impugned in the

present appeals, has heavily relied on the office memorandum dated

09.10.1992 (Annexure A/30 to the writ petition) to contend that the

retrospective regularization of the respondent No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 as AO being

in contravention thereof, they are not entitled to any consequential

benefit of seniority as sought for. He maintained that as the

regularization of the writ petitioners as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988 has

remained unchallenged, the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, in view of their

ad-hoc promotions thereto after them (writ petitioners) cannot be placed

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 21 of 30

at par on seniority favouring them with retrospective regularization. Mr.

Piba, has alleged selective treatment by the Government by applying two

varying yardsticks to confer unwarranted benefits on the respondent

Nos.2 to 5. The learned counsel argued against the application of Catch

Up Rules and referred to the decisions of this Court in WP(C) No.540/2000

and WA No. 65/2008 to urge that on the principle scripted by a co-

ordinate bench of this Court on the same issue, the present appeals ought

to be dismissed. Mr. Piba relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr.

JS Chhabra Vs. State of MP & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 203 to underline that the

office memorandum dated 09.10.1992 was binding on the Government.

19. Mr. Mohendra, while reaffirming the charge led by Mr. Piba,

pleaded that retrospective regularization, though for the purpose of

financial benefits is conceivable, but for seniority it is an antithesis to the

fundamental precepts of service jurisprudence and that the decision

impugned is beyond reproach. He pressed into service the decision of the

Apex Court in RK Mobisana Singh Vs. KH Temba Singh & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 747

to emphatically repudiated the permissibility of retrospective

regularization.

20. Mr. Sahoo, while expressing his general agreement with the

arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, has sought for vacation

of the interim restraint laid by this Court in the instant appeal. Referring

to the averments made Misc. Case No. 995/2011 in WA No. 477/2008, the

learned counsel has insisted that the status quo order dated 07.01.2009

ought to be vacated.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 22 of 30

21. We have extended our anxious consideration to the rival

pleadings and the contentious submissions emanating therefrom. The

factual backdrop is borne out by the records and therefore does not

admit of any dispute. Admittedly, the private respondents except the

Respondent No.5 were senior to the petitioners as A.A.O, the Respondent

No.5 being so, except qua petitioner No.1 who was senior to him in that

capacity. The records testify that the petitioners were promoted as A.O.

on ad-hoc basis earlier than the Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. The

Respondent No.2 was so promoted with effect from 29.12.1980 before all

of them. Admittedly, these promotions were without reference to the

Rules, which enjoin that the post of Agriculturel Officer is a selection

post to be filled up from the feeder post of Assistant Agriculturel Officer

and equivalent thereto. That the promotion to the post of Agricultural

Officer was not in compliance of the Rules, has been admitted by the

State of Manipur in its appeal memorandum in Writ Appeal No.477/2008.

The petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and the Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 however,

had been appointed as A.A.O. on due recommendation of the Commission

accorded vide notification dated 2.8.1981. The petitioner Nos. 9,10, and

11 as referred to hereinabove were regularized in the same capacity by

order dated 23.8.1986. After the promotion of the petitioners as AO on

ad-hoc basis they were sought to be regularized with effect from

24.5.1986 inconformity with the State policy to that effect. This was by

order dated 5.11.1988, the subject matter of challenge in Civil Rule

No.77/1992 which stood disposed along with Civil Rule No.131/1989 and

Civil Rule No.698/1989 by judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 whereby

this Court though was of the view that the regularization of the

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 23 of 30

promotion of the petitioners as A.O. against the direct recruit quota

could not be countenanced, noticing that they had been serving in the

same capacity for several years, permitted, in order to avoid serious

prejudice, their regularization with effect from 5.11.88 to meet the ends

of justice. Noticeably, this determination of this Court though does not

imply validation of the promotion of the petitioners as A.O. on ad-hoc

basis, the resultant seniority on their regularization with effect from

5.11.88 is an undeniable consequence. Neither this decision of this Court

nor the impact thereof has been questioned thereafter in any proceeding

and thus has attained finality. Having regard to the dates of ad-hoc

promotion of the petitioners as A.O., their regularization with effect from

5.11.1988, the above background notwithstanding, cannot be said to be

with retrospective effect. Significantly, neither the ad-hoc promotion of

the petitioners as A.O. had been assailed by the respondents for being

antecedent to theirs, nor the regularization of their promotion with

effect from 5.11.88 as referred to above, has been questioned at any

point of time.

22. The order dated 12.3.1993 of the Additional Chief Secretary

to the Govt. of Manipur regularizing the ad-hoc promotion of the

Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 as A.O. with effect from 19.2.1993 clearly

demonstrates that the same was under the guidelines issued by the

Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel

Division), Manipur vide O.M. No.12/13/92-AO/DP (Pt), dated 9.10.1992.

The O.M. dated 9.10.92 embodied the government policy for

regularization of ad-hoc appointments/promotions of the incumbents who

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 24 of 30

had been continuously serving for a period of five years as on 1.9.92

against clear vacancies subject to the norms as contained therein. Clause

4 of this O.M. recited that the regularization of such ad-hoc/officiating

employees will be one time measure and should be completed on or

before 31.3.93 and that no retrospective effect would be “allowed”. It

further stipulated that the cases, which cannot be completed on or

before 31.3.93, would be considered according to the normal procedure.

The regularization of the ad-hoc promotion of the Respondent Nos.2, 3

and 4 as A.O. was therefore consciously made with effect from 19.2.93 in

keeping with the letter and spirit of the prevailing State policy pertaining

to such regularization of ad-hoc appointment/promotion. Though by

order dated 5.1.99 of the Deputy Secretary (Agri), Government of

Manipur, the Respondent No. 5 along with others were promoted as

Agriculture Officer with effect from 4.1.99, his seniority in that post thus

cannot relate back to any date prior thereto.

22A. Spurred by the dates of the regularization of their ad-hoc

promotion as A.O. and seeking a common relief for retrospective

regularization of their ad-hoc promotion as A.O. on and from the dates

of their initial appointment as such, the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5

instituted series of writ proceedings individually as well as with others

being Civil Rule No.1385/1992, Civil Rule No.1399/1992, Civil Rule

No.446/1997, Civil Rule No.1069/1993, WP(C) No.241/1999, WP(C)

No.1111/1999 and WP(C) No.1145/1999. In Civil Rule No.1069/1993 filed

by the Respondent No.2 along with three others, a Single Bench of this

Court by order dated 5.7.1994 directed the State respondents to

regularize their appointments/promotions with retrospective effect from

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 25 of 30

the date of their appointment as A.O. on ad-hoc/officiating basis. This

direction was issued having regard to the identical orders recorded to

have been passed in Civil Rule No.112/93 and Civil Rule No.117/1992.

23. A Single Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated

18.2.99 disposed of Civil Rule No.1385/92, Civil Rule No.1399/92 and Civil

Rule No.446/97 requiring the petitioners therein to submit

representation(s) before the concerned State authorities who were

directed to consider and examine the same keeping in view inter alia the

decision dated 27.4.92 of this Court in Civil Rule No.698/89, Civil Rule

No.76/92 and Civil Rule No.131/99. By various orders being dated

23.3.99, 27.8.99 and 6.9.99, WP(C) No.241/99, WP(C) No.1111/99 and

WP(C) No.1145/99 were similarly disposed of permitting the petitioners

therein to submit representation(s) before the concerned State authority

for scrutiny and disposal.

24. It was thereafter that by the order dated 8.2.96 the ad-hoc

promotion of the Respondent No.2, in proclaimed compliance of the

judgment and order dated 5.7.94 passed in Civil Rule No.1069/1993 was

regularized with effect from her initial date of appointment i.e.

29.12.80. Similarly, by orders dated 22.6.99, 30.10.99 and 4.11.99, the

ad-hoc promotion of the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for the purpose of

seniority thereat were regularized with effect from 5.11.1988 in the

stated compliance of the orders passed in the aforementioned writ

petitions as well the judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 in Civil Rule

No.131/1989, Civil Rule No.698/93 and Civil Rule No.76/1992. The

Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 having been regularized as A.O. as such,

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 26 of 30

the impugned seniority list dated 27.11.1999 was published in which the

respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were showed to be senior to all the

petitioners and the Respondent No.5 over the petitioner Nos. 2 to 11.

25. At the first place, except in Civil Rule No.1069/93, in none of

the orders passed in other writ petitions, this Court did direct or intend

the retrospective regularization of the adhoc promotion of the

Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 on and from the dates of their initial

appointment as such. The reliance on the judgment and order dated

27.4.92 is also misplaced having regard to the framework of the pleadings

and the issues addressed therein. The Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5

were not even parties to those writ proceedings. Patently, the orders

dated 8.2.96, 22.6.99, 30.10.99 and 4.11.99 regularize the ad-hoc

promotions of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as A.O. with

retrospective effect i.e. 05.11.1988 qua the OM dated 09.10.1992. The

appellants have sought to justify this action by relating it to the superior

seniority of the Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 over the petitioners as

A.A.O. and the ad-hoc promotion dehors the Rules. They in essence

plead that as the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioners who were junior to

the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as A.O. had been without reference to

the Rules, the same amounts to unexplained and unjustified exclusion of

the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 from a similar consideration for

promotion at the relevant point of time and thus applying the Catch Up

Rules in the context of Rule 16 (4 A) of the Constitution of India as

propounded in Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) (Supra), the regularization of their

(Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5) ad-hoc promotion with effect from 5.11.88

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 27 of 30

and the restoration of their earlier seniority in the feeder post of

A.A.O. is valid.

26. This assertion though attractive at the first blush on closer

appraisal lacks persuasion. The O.M. dated 9.10.92 applied consciously by

the State authorities to regularize the ad-hoc promotion of the

Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 vide order dated 12.3.93 does not admit of

any retrospectivity. The order dated 5.2.99 pertaining to the promotion

of 50 Agricultural Officers with effect from 4.1.99 also does not endorse

the claim of respondent No. 5 for regularization of his ad-hoc promotion

as such with effect from 5.11.88.

The basis of such ad-hoc promotions of the petitioners and the

Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 dehors the Rules is undisclosed. As referred

to hereinabove, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 though senior to the

petitioners (Respondent No.5 being only senior to the petitioner Nos. 2 to

11) as A.A.O. they, (Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) had not assailed their

earlier ad-hoc promotion as A.O. prior to them (Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4

and 5). They, (Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) did not question as well the

regularization of the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioners with effect from

5.11.88. The background in which this relief was granted to the

petitioners ought not to be opened at this distant point of time to divest

them thereof. The materials on record do not substantiate with

unequivocal clarity and unimpeachable preponderance that the

petitioners had been granted ad-hoc promotion as A.O. prior to the

Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 by overlooking them or being impelled by

extraneous and collateral considerations.

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 28 of 30

27. Viewed thus, neither the Catch Up Rule nor the precedential

precept of consideration of a bypassed senior for promotion with effect

from the date of that of his junior in service is of any definitive bearing

or significance in the present factual setting. The decisions of the Apex

Court in the State of Mysore & Anr. vs. Syed Mahmood & Ors. (Supra), Devendra

Prasad Sharma (Supra), State of Mysore Vs. C.R. Sheshadri and Ors. ( Supra), Ajit

Singh and Ors. (II) (Supra) as well as S. Suresh Nathan and Ors. (Supra) are,

thus, of no avail to the appellants.

28. The Apex Court in R.K. Mobisana Singh (Supra), while

enunciating that seniority in service though not a fundamental right, but

a civil right, authoritatively propounded that though retrospective

regularization could confer other service benefits on the officer

concerned, the same cannot be held to be of any assistance for reckoning

seniority with retrospective effect.

The following extract from the decision of the Apex Court in

R.K. Mobisana Singh (Supra) is apposite: -

“42. It was obligatory on the part of the official

respondents to take into consideration that the

retrospective regularization could be granted only when

there exists such a rule. If the Rules were not followed at

the time of grant of promotion, question of grant of

regularization with retrospective effect would not arise.

Retrospective regularization, whether in terms of the

directions of the High Court or otherwise, thus, although

could confer other service benefits on the officer

concerned, but the same cannot be held to be of any

assistance for reckoning seniority with retrospective

effect.”

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 29 of 30

29. Retrospective regularization in absence of any provision to

that effect in the relevant Rules, apart from being discountenanced in

emphatic terms, the Apex Court elucidated that though on a direction to

that effect by the High Court or otherwise, other service benefits could

be conferred, the same cannot be counted for reckoning seniority with

retrospective effect. In the teeth of such unequivocal postulation of the

Apex Court on the limitations of retrospective regularization, the

assertion to the contrary projected by the appellants do not commend for

acceptance. Not only the O.M. dated 9.10.1992 engrafting the

government policy of regularization of ad-hoc appointment and

promotion invoked at the relevant point of time prohibited in clear

terms retrospective effect of such relief, this Court’s decisions referred

to in the impugned orders dated 22.6.99, 30.10. 99 and 4.11.99 did

neither direct nor intend such retrospective regularization of the ad-hoc

promotion of the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as A.O. in disregard to the

said policy. Even otherwise, in the face of the above verdict of the Apex

Court such retrospective regularization cannot be reckoned for the

purpose of seniority of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5. The omission to

challenge the order dated 08.02.1996 granting retrospective

regularization of the promotion of the respondent No. 2 with effect from

29.12.1980 is of no decisive consequence in her favour in the present

facts and circumstances.

30. We are in agreement with the ultimate conclusions recorded

in the judgment and order dated 21.5.2008 passed in WP( C) No.540/2000,

Shri Th. Ranbir Singh vs. State of Manipur instituted by two Agriculturel

WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011

WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009

Page 30 of 30

Officer of the same department claiming seniority over the petitioners

and others on the ground that they were senior as A.A.O. The contextual

facts are strikingly similar and the grievance expressed is identical. The

decision rendered in WP(C) No.540/2000 has since been affirmed by

judgment and order dated 24.6.2008 in Writ Appeal No.65/2008, a

determination which we hereby endorse. We have also perused the

impugned judgment and order rendered in WP(C) No.55/2008 and lend

our concurrence to the eventual conclusions reached.

31. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, no interference with

the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2008 passed in WP (C)

No.55/2000 is warranted. The appeals lack in substance and are

dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

Biplab/

Documents

WRIT APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2008 - Gauhati High Courtwrit appeal no. 477 of 2008 ... writ appeal no. 157 of 2011 1. shri r.k. dorenchand singh, aged about 52 years old, s/o. (l) r.k. mangisana