http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SRI DEVENDRA PRASAD SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The petitioner  was promoted  as Inspector of Police on July  10,   1973  and   was  further   promoted  as   Deputy Superintendent of  Police on  April 8,  1982. The contesting respondents    were    directly    recruited    as    Deputy Superintendents on March 25, 1982. Their inter- se seniority is regulated by Rule 25 of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986. Rules, 1986. Rules 25 reads as under:      "25. Seniority  - The Administrator      shall prepare  a list of members of      the Service  arranged in  order  of      seniority as    determined  in  the      manner specified below :-      (i) (a)  Persons recruited  on  the      results    of    the    competitive      examination in  any year  shall  be      ranked INTER  SE in  the  order  of      merit in  which they  are placed at      the competitive  examination on the      results   of    which   they    are      recruited, those  recruited on  the      basis  of  an  earlier  examination      being  ranked   senior   to   those      recruited on  the basis  of a later      examination.      (b) The relative seniority INTER SE      of persons  recruited by  selection      shall be determined on the basis of      the order  in which their names are      arranged in the list prepared under      rule 13,  those  recruited  on  the      basis of an earlier selection being      ranked senior to those recruited on      the basis of a later selection.      (ii) The  seniority of  members  of      the  Service   appointed   at   the      initial constitution of the Service      in accordance  with the  provisions      of part  VI of these rules shall be      determined by  the Administrator in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    consultation with the Board.           Provided that  in the  case of      persons appointed  under  sub  rule      (i) of  the rule 15, if two or more      persons  belonging   to  the   same      parent service  or  Department  are      thus  appointed,   they  shall   be      ranked  INTER   SE  in  the  parent      Service or  Department as  the case      may be.      (iii)  The  relative  seniority  of      direct recruits  and  of  promotees      shall be  determined  according  to      the rotation  of vacancies  between      direct recruits and promotees which      shall be  based on  the  quotas  of      vacancies   reserved   for   direct      recruitment  and   promotion  under      rule 5."      In the  matter of  fixation of  the inter  se seniority under  Rule   25(iii),  the  relative  seniority  of  direct recruits and  of promotees has to be determined according to the  rotation  of  vacancies  between  direct  recruits  and promotees which  shall be  based on  the quotas of vacancies reserved for  direct recruitment and promotion under Rule 5. The Division Bench has pointed out in the impugned order the position as under:      "Clause  (ii)  of  rule  25  quoted      above clearly  stipulated that  the      seniority of  the service appointed      at the  initial constitution of the      service shall  be determined by the      administrator in  constitution with      the   Board.    Since    all    the      Respondents have  been appointed as      members of  service at  the initial      constitution   of   service   their      seniority has  to be  determined by      the  Administrator   in  accordance      with the said rules."      Shri P.K.  Goswami,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the petitioner, contends  that in  view of  the definition under Rule 2(g)  of ‘service’  read  with  Rule  5,  the  inter-se seniority  falls  to  be  due.  We  find  no  force  in  the contention. The  statutory rule 25(iii), as indicated above, clearly postulates that the inter se seniority of the direct recruits  and   the  promotees   has  to  be  determined  in accordance with  quota and  rotation. Accordingly  seniority was rightly  determined  as  per  the  respective  dates  of appointment. Therefore, the rotation has to be considered as per the  date of  appointment and  in  accordance  with  the vacancy under  the rules.  Otherwise, the rule of rota-quota unduly gets disturbed.      When the  claims for  promotion to  the post  of  Addl. Superintendent of  Police had  come up for consideration, in the meeting  held  by  the  DPC  on  October  6,  1988,  the petitioner was  found to be unfit and contesting respondents were found to be fit as per the proceedings indicated in the judgment of the High Court. As a consequence, the petitioner could not claim right to promotion at that time on the basis of the assessment made by the DPC or to seniority over those promoted  as   per  the   recommendation  of  the  DPC.  The petitioner may  be found  fit at  a later stage of selection but he  cannot get seniority over the persons who were found fit in  the meeting  held on October 6, 1988 and promoted on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

October 20,  1988 and  have already  got promoted  to higher post i.e.  Addl. Superintendent  of Police. The seniority in lower post loses its significance.      The petition,  therefore, does  not merit interference. It is accordingly dismissed.