[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8833-8835  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19565-19567 of 2019

K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH & ORS.    APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NINGAM SIRO & ORS.    RESPONDENT(S)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8838   OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).17007 of 2019

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  8836-8837 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 19568-19569 of 2019

J U D G M E N T

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Leave Granted.

2. These matters pertain to an inter-se seniority

dispute in the Manipur Police Service Grade II Officers

Cadre, hereinafter referred to as “MPS Grade II Cadre”.

Page 1/32

The appellants before us in the SLP (C) No. 19565-67 of

2019 were few of the respondents in the W.P.(C) No. 366

of  2013.  They  are  to  be  described  hereinafter  as

“direct recruits”.  The respondents in this SLP were

the  Writ  Petitioners  in  the  High  Court  who  were

appointed on promotion to the MPS Grade II Cadre. For

clarity  and  ease  of  understanding,  they  are  being

referred as “promotees” in this judgment.

3. Prior to their induction (on 01.03.2007) to the

MPS  Grade  II  Cadre,  the  promotees were  serving  as

Inspector of Police and they were granted promotion on

the basis of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion

Committee  (DPC).  On  the  other  hand,  the  Private

Respondents 3 to 32 and no. 33 in the Writ Petition (C)

No. 366 of 2013 were directly recruited into the MPS

Grade  II  Cadre,  vide  the  respective  orders  dated

14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007.

4. Appointment and seniority in the Manipur Police

Service  is  governed  by  the  Manipur  Police  Service

Rules,  1965 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  MPS

Rules,  1965”).   After  considering  the  claims  and

objections and in compliance with the Court’s direction

Page 2/32

(18.02.2013) in W.P(C) No. 235 of 2012, the Govt. of

Manipur, applying the principle of dovetailing between

the  promotees and the direct recruit  officers, issued

the Order on 17.5.2013 publishing the final seniority

list (as on 01.04.2013), of the MPS Grade II Officers.

The promotees challenged this through the Writ Petition

(C) No. 366 of 2013 in the High Court of Manipur. By

amending  their  Writ  Petition,  the  promotees also

challenged the subsequent Govt. orders dated 20.01.2014

and 19.02.2014 where the  direct recruits were placed

above them.

5. Before the Writ Court, the  promotees contended

that they entered the MPS Grade II Cadre on 01.03.2007

whereas  the  private  respondent  nos.3  to  33  were

appointed  subsequently  (on  14.08.2007  and  24.11.2007

respectively) and, therefore, they should be regarded

as senior to the direct recruits.

6. The  direct recruits  on the other hand claimed

seniority  over  the  promotees by  contending  that

seniority  has  to  be  decided  in  accordance  with  the

year of the vacancy and not by the fortuitous date on

Page 3/32

which,  the  appointment  could  be  finalized  for  the

direct recruits.

7. In an earlier proceeding i.e., Writ Petition (C)

No.  235  of  2012,  in  an  inter-se  seniority  dispute

amongst the  direct recruits and  promotees  in the MPS

Grade II Cadre, the State in their counter affidavit

took the stand that seniority should be determined from

the date on which the person was appointed but not from

the date of vacancy. For the direct recruits appointed

on 14.08.2007 against the vacancy of 2004-2005 it was

averred that their seniority should be counted from the

date of appointment.

8. The learned Judge heard the parties, applied his

mind to the Office Memorandums produced before him and

by the common judgment dated 07.07.2017 quashed the

impugned orders. It is seen that single Judge directed

that the batch of promotees appointed on 01st of March

2007 must be given seniority above the direct recruits

appointed on 14th August, 2007 and he justified this by

stating that a direct recruit can claim seniority only

from the date of his regular appointment and cannot

claim seniority from a date when he is not borne in the

service. For this conclusion, the learned Judge had Page 4/32

relied upon, inter alia, the ratio in Jagdish Chandra

Patnaik’ vs. State of Orissa1. The Court also held that

the expression “year” must refer to financial year and

not calendar year. Support for such conclusion is based

on the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 which contains

instructions to be followed by DPC in the matter of

holding its meetings towards promotion which is one of

the methods of recruitment. This Memo specifies that

the recruitment year would be treated as the financial

year. Besides the Manipur Reservations of Vacancies in

Posts and Services (for Schedule Castes and Schedule

Tribes) Act of 1976 which was enacted on 24th February,

1977, for short “the Manipur (SC & ST) Act, 1976”,

provided that the term meant financial year. It was

also  seen  that  on  18.12.2009,  the  State  of  Manipur

amended the  Manipur Police Service Rules of 1965 by

introducing  sub-rule 2(g) defining the word “year” to

mean calendar year. This amendment had provided that it

would come into force with effect from the date of

publication in the official gazette of Manipur thereby

making it plain that the same was not intended to have

any  retrospective  effect.  The  learned  Single  Judge

relied on this to hold that prior to the date of this

1 (1998) 4 SCC 456 Page 5/32

notification, the word “year” could not be said to be

calendar year but would mean the financial year.

9. In  consequence,  the  learned  Single  Judge  held

that the  promotees get entry into the cadre in the

recruitment year 2006-2007 whereas the direct recruits

would  stand  appointed  in  the  recruitment  year  2007

-2008.  There being no overlap between the  promotees

and direct recruits as far as the year of recruitment

is concerned, applying Rule 28(iii) to dovetail the two

streams using the principle of rotation of quota, would

not  arise.  It  was  accordingly  determined  that  the

impugned seniority lists are bad in law and all action

taken  thereunder  are  rendered  null  and  void.  The

following directions were then issued by the learned

Judge in his common judgment dated 07.07.2017:-

 “........................................

(14) For  the  reasons  stated  herein above,  the  writ  petitions  being WP(C)No.366 of 2013 and WP(C)No.120 of 2014 are allowed and consequently, the Government orders dated 17-05-2013, 20- 01-2014 and 19-02-2014, impugned herein, in  respect  of  the  petitioners  and  the private respondents, are quashed and set aside with the following directions:

(a) The State Government shall prepare a seniority list afresh in respect of the MPS Officers, after taking into

Page 6/32

account  the  observations  made  by this  Court  hereinabove,  within  a period of three months from the date of  receipt  of  a  copy  of  this judgment and order;

(b) While preparing the seniority list of  MPS  Officers,  the  State Government  shall  follow  the guidelines/instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 07-02- 1986 which is adopted by the State Government  vide  its  Office Memorandum  dated  13-11-1987  as directed vide order dated 18-02-2013 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C)No.235 of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs.

    .................................”

10. Aggrieved  by  the  declaration  of  inter-se

seniority favouring the promotees, few direct recruits

including the respondent no.14 K. Meghachandra Singh

and others filed the Writ Appeal No.49 of 2017.This

Appeal in the Manipur High Court was transferred to the

Gauhati High Court and was re-numbered as Writ Appeal

No. 66 of 2018. The State Government did not however

challenge the analogous judgment (07.07.2017) rendered

in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.366 of 2013.

11. The Division Bench upheld the conclusion of the

Single  Judge  but  confined  its  justification  to  the

principle that seniority for direct recruits could not

be reckoned from a date prior to their appointment. In

Page 7/32

doing so, it approved the finding of the Learned Single

Judge to the same effect.

.12. The  Division  Bench  did  not  however  feel  it

necessary to go into the question as to whether “year”

means “calendar year” or “financial year”. They felt

that the position being very clear, there was no reason

to embark upon the interpretation of the word/words

“year” or “for that year”, as was done by the Learned

Single Judge.

13. It was also made clear that the  promotees will

naturally have seniority over the Appellants as they

had entered the cadre of MPS Grade II, before the Writ

Appellants were borne in the cadre.  

14. Following the above judgment (26.09.2018) in the

Writ Appeal No.66 of 2018 against the direct recruits,

K.  Meghachandra  Singh  and  others  filed  the  Review

Petition No. 10 of 2019. But neither on 04.04.2019 nor

on 10.04.2019, the counsel for the direct recruits were

present before the Gauhati High Court and accordingly

the Review Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution,

through the order dated 10.04.2019. The I.A.(C)No.1741

of 2019 was then filed by K. Meghachandra Singh for

Page 8/32

restoration of the Review Petition; but the restoration

was held to be unmerited and accordingly the I.A. filed

by the direct recruits was dismissed on 24.05.2019.

15. Aggrieved by rejection of their Writ Appeal and

the  related  petitions,  the  direct  recruits  have

approached this Court with the Special Leave Petition

(C) No.19565-67 of 2019 to challenge the decisions of

the High Court.

16. Assailing the impugned judgment and orders, Mr

P.S. Patwalia, the learned Senior Counsel contends that

seniority of the  direct recruits  in the MPS Grade-II

Cadre must be reckoned from the time when vacancies

occurred  and  should  relate  to  the  requisition

(29.07.2005)  made  to  the  Manipur  Public  Service

Commission, to fill up the vacancies. According to him,

the date of actual appointment of the appellants on

later  dates  (14.08.2007  and  24.11.2007),  shouldn’t

impact the inter-se seniority of the  direct recruits

vis-à-vis the promotees, who were promoted to the cadre

on 01.03.2007.

Page 9/32

17. The  Senior  Counsel  cites  Union  of  India  and

others Vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012)13 SCC 340, to argue that

when  action  was  initiated  for  filling  up  the  2005

vacancies, the administrative delay in finalization of

the recruitment leading to delayed appointment should

not deprive the individual of his due seniority. By

referring  to  the  rotation  of  quota  principle,  the

counsel  argues  that  initiation  of  action  for

recruitment  in  the  year  of  the  vacancy  would  be

sufficient, to assign seniority from that year.

18. According  to  Mr.  Patwalia,  the  Learned  Single

Judge  erroneously  interpreted  “recruitment  year” as

“financial year” in order to confer higher seniority

position to the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits as

both groups were appointed in different months of the

same year i.e. 2007. The Counsel refers to the 1989

Amendment (18.12.2009) of the  MPS Rules to point out

that recruitment year has been clarified as “calendar

year” and therefore, there is no necessity to interpret

the expression.

19. The Senior Counsel then refers to  Rule 28(iii)

of the  MPS Rules to highlight that seniority of the

direct recruits and promotees are to be determined on Page 10/32

the principle of rotation of vacancies under Rule 5 for

that year and therefore, the promotees cannot be placed

en-bloc above the direct recruits merely because, they

were  promoted  on  an  earlier  date  i.e.  01.03.2007,

particularly  when,  the  recruitment  process  for  the

direct recruits commenced in the year 2005 itself.

20. Representing  the  respondents/promotees,  the

learned Senior Counsel, Shri Jaideep Gupta refers to

the MPS Rules, 1965 to argue that the provisions of the

Rules make it abundantly clear that inter-se seniority

in the cadre of  MPS Grade-III  is to be determined by

the  order  in  which  appointments  are  made  to  the

service.  The counsel pointedly refers to Rules 28 (i)

where it is specified that the  ……. seniority in the

service  shall  be  determined  by  the  order  in  which

appointments are made to the service……. He also refers

to the later part of  Rule 28(iii), where again it is

specified that the “seniority of the officer……  shall

be counted from the date, he/she is appointed to the

service…………. The provisions in Rule 16(iii) are pressed

home by Mr Gupta to argue that only when the person is

appointed, he shall be deemed to have been appointed to

the service from the date of encadrement.  

Page 11/32

21. The judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra) is read with

equal emphasis by Mr Gupta to firstly point out that

this  case  does  not  lay  down  the  correct  law  in

determination of seniority. The counsel highlights the

incongruity in a situation where a person who entered

service  later  will  claim  seniority  above  those  who

joined  service  at  an  earlier  point  of  time.  The

applicability of the ratio in  N.R. Parmar  (Supra) to

the litigants in the present  case is also questioned

by Mr Gupta by pointing out that the provisions of MPS

Rules, 1965 applicable for the officers in the Manipur

Police Officers, was not the subject of consideration

in N.R. Parmar (Supra), and, therefore, the said ratio

relatable  to  Income  Tax  Inspectors,  with  different

Service Rules, will not apply to the present case.

22. The  learned  Senior  Counsel,  Mr  Gupta,  then

refers to the office Memorandum dated 07.02.1986 and

the illustration provided in the same Office Memorandum

to explain the carry forward principle to argue that

the judgment in  N.R. Parmar  (Supra) misconstrued the

legal implication of the OM. According to the counsel,

the MPS Rules 1965 did not refer to the financial year

Page 12/32

as was done by the learned Single Judge or even the

calendar year as was mentioned by the Division Bench in

as much as the  Rules make it abundantly clear that

inter-se seniority has to be reckoned from the date of

appointment. It is, therefore, argued that the 2005

requisition for the direct recruit vacancies, can have

no bearing on the inter-se seniority of those who were

borne in the cadre on an earlier date vis-à-vis those

who entered service later, like the direct recruits.

23. The respondent’s counsel would then submit that

reference  to  the  Office  Memorandum  and  the  other

notifications to decide the inter-se seniority in the

MPS Grade-II Cadre would be unnecessary inasmuch as the

Rules i.e.  MPS Rules, 1965 makes it amply clear that

the date of entry in service should be the basis of

reckoning the seniority of an incumbent.  

24. The State of Manipur is represented by Mr V.

Giri, the learned Senior Counsel and he refers to the

somewhat inconsistent views between the Single Judge

and the Division Bench in the matter of interpretation

of the expression “recruitment year”. He submits that

while determining the inter-se seniority of the Manipur

Page 13/32

Police Service Officer, the applicable Service Rules

should  be  the  basis  instead  of  resorting  to  an

interpretive exercise particularly when, there is no

scope for ambiguity in the Rules.

25. The learned Senior Counsel for the State then

points out that although the Single Judge interfered

with  the  impugned  seniority  lists  prepared  by  the

Manipur Government, the State did not challenge this

judgment but have filed the SLP(C) No.19568-69 of 2019

to challenge the Division Bench Judgment in the Writ

Appeal No.66 of 2018.

26. Mr  Giri  refers  to  the  MPS  Rules,  1965  (2nd

Amendment),  2009 published  vide  notification  dated

18.10.2009 which defines the recruitment year as the

“calendar  year”  but  submits  although  the  Govt.  had

issued the revised notification (29.06.2019) following

N R Parmar (Supra), it will again revisit the seniority

list as per the Court’s directions.

27. At  this  stage  it  needs  to  be  recorded  that

although  the  promotees approached  the  concerned

authority for compliance of the direction passed in

their favour, the Manipur Government did not take any

Page 14/32

action. Then the respondents filed the Contempt Case(C)

No.224 of 2018 where the Government Advocate appeared

and requested for time for reporting compliance. The

State’s Advocate General thereafter informed the Court

that the seniority list has been revised and sought

time for submitting compliance report.  On the next

date,  the  Advocate  General  produced  a  copy  of

proceeding No.22/2/1989–MPS/DP(PT-II), dated 29.06.2019

issued  by  the  Under  Secretary  (DP),  Government  of

Manipur and submitted that the order of the High Court

has  been  complied.  Accepting  this  submission,  the

closure  of  the  Contempt  Case(C)  No.224  of  2018  was

ordered on 02.07.2019. As this case was filed by one of

the  promotees  i.e., Ningam Siro, the aggrieved party

has filed the Special Leave Petition No.17007 of 2019

to  challenge  the  High  Court’s  closure  Order.

Representing him, the learned Senior Counsel Mr Jaideep

Gupta submits that the High Court should have examined

the  purport  of  the  proceedings  dated  29.06.2019  to

satisfy itself about the actual compliance instead of

blindly  accepting  the  submission  of  the  Advocate

General, to order closure of the contempt case.

Page 15/32

28. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for

the  parties  have  been  considered  and  the  impugned

orders and the relevant materials on record have been

perused.

29. Before proceeding to deal with the contention of

the appellants’ Counsel vis-à-vis the judgment in N.R.

Parmar (Supra), it is necessary to observe that the Law

is fairly well settled in a series of cases, that a

person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he

was  not  borne  in  service.   For  example,  in  J.C.

Patnaik  (Supra)  the  Court  considered  the  question

whether the year in which the vacancy accrues can have

any  bearing  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the

seniority irrespective of the fact when the person is

actually recruited. The Court observed that there could

be time lag between the year when the vacancy accrues

and  the  year  when  the  final  recruitment  is  made.

Referring  to  the  word  “recruited”  occurring  in  the

Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941  the Supreme

Court held in J.C. Patnaik (Supra) that person cannot

be said to have been recruited to the service only on

the basis of initiation of process of recruitment but

Page 16/32

he is borne in the post only when, formal appointment

order is issued.

30. The  above  ratio  in  J.C.  Patnaik  (Supra) is

followed by this Court in several subsequent cases. It

would  however  be  appropriate  to  make  specific

reference  considering  the  seniority  dispute  in

reference  to  the  Arunachal  Pradesh  Rules which  are

pari materia to the  MPS Rules, 1965, (vide (2007) 15

SCC  406  -  Nani  Sha  &  Ors.  Vs.  State  of  Arunachal

Pradesh  &  Ors.).  Having  regard  to  the  similar

provisions, the Court approved the view that seniority

is to be reckoned not from the date when vacancy arose

but from the date on which the appointment is made to

the  post.  The  Court  particularly  held  that

retrospective seniority should not be granted from a

day when an employee is not even borne in the cadre so

as to adversely impact those who were validly appointed

in the meantime.

31. We may also benefit by referring to the Judgment

in  State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Ashok Kumar

Srivastava and Anr2. This judgment is significant since

this  is  rendered  after  the  N.R.  Parmar (Supra)

2(2014) 14 SCC 720 Page 17/32

decision.  Here the Court approved the ratio in Pawan

Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. Reevan Singh & Ors.3, and

concurred with the view that seniority should not be

reckoned  retrospectively  unless  it  is  so  expressly

provided by the relevant service Rules. The Supreme

Court   held  that  seniority  cannot  be  given  for  an

employee who is yet to be borne in the cadre and by

doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have

been appointed validly in the meantime.  The law so

declared in Ashok Kumar Srivastava  (supra) being the

one  appealing  to  us,  is  profitably  extracted  as

follows:

24.   The  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the appellants  has  drawn  inspiration  from  the recent authority in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh where the Court after referring to  earlier  authorities  in  the  field  has culled out certain principles out of which the  following  being  the  relevant  are produced below:

“45.   (ii)  Inter  se  seniority  in  a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules.  The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between  one  officer  or  the  other  or between  one  group  of  officers  and  the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules,  executive  instructions  or otherwise  must  be  consistent  with  the

3(2011) 3 SCC 267 Page 18/32

requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45. (iv)  The  seniority  cannot  be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the  vacancy  and  cannot  be  given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It  is  so  because  seniority  cannot  be given  on  retrospective  basis  when  an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect  the  employees  who  have  been appointed validly in the meantime.”

32. With  the  above  understanding  of  the  law  on

seniority, the provisions of the  MPS Rules, 1965 and

more specifically  Rule 28(i), Rule 28 (iii) and Rule

16  (iii)  will  now  bear  consideration.  For  ready

reference they are extracted: -

Rule 28(i)

In the case of persons appointed on the result of competitive examination or by selection under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, seniority in the Service shall  be  determined  by  the  Order  in which  appointments  are  made  to  the service.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rule 28(iii)

The  relative  seniority  of  direct recruits  and  promotees  shall  be determined  according  to  rotation  of vacancies  between  direct  recruits  and promotees  as  determined  under  Rule  5

Page 19/32

for that year and the additional direct recruits  selected  against  the  carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed enbloc below the last promotees  (or  direct  recruits  as  the case may be).

The  seniority  of  the  officer  so appointed  under  sub-rule  (3)  of  the Rule  16,  shall  be  counted  from  the date,  he/she  is  appointed  to  the Service.

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Rule 16(iii)

In the case of a person who had been appointed  to  a  post  which  is subsequently declared as duty post he shall be deemed to have been appointed to  the  Service  from  the  date  of encadrement  of  the  post  in  the  MPS Schedule.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33. As can be seen from above, the MPS Rules, 1965

never provided that seniority should be counted from

the  date  of  vacancy.  For  those  covered  by  the  MPS

Rules 1965 the seniority for them will be reckoned only

from the date of appointment and not from the stage

when requisition for appointment was given.

34. In the above context, it is also necessary to

refer to the relevant advertisement issued in 2005 for

Page 20/32

direct recruitment which allowed the aspirants to apply

even if, their result in the qualification examination

is awaited.  Even more intriguing and significant is

the relaxation that those proposing to appear in the

qualifying examination are also allowed to respond to

the advertisement. If such be the nature of the process

initiated  (in  the  year  2005)  for  making  direct

recruitment, we can easily visualize a situation where,

in the event of granting seniority from the stage of

commencing  the  process,  a  person  when  eventually

appointed, would get seniority from a date even before

obtaining the qualification, for holding the post.

35. The judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra) is now to be

considered in some detail as this is heavily relied by

the appellants’ counsel.  At the outset it must however

be cleared that the cited case had nothing to do with

the MPS Rules, 1965 and that litigation related to the

Income Tax Inspectors who were claiming benefits of

various  Central  Government  OMs  (dated  22.12.1959,

07.02.1986,  03.07.1986  and  03.03.2008).  The  judgment

was rendered in respect of Central Government employees

having their own Service Rules. The applicable Rules

for the litigants in the present case however provide

Page 21/32

that the seniority in the service shall be determined

by the order in which appointments are made to the

service.  Therefore, the concerned Memorandums referred

to  in  N.R.  Parmar (Supra) which  deal  with  general

principles for determination of seniority of persons in

the Central Government service, should not according to

us, have any overriding effect for the police officers

serving in the State of Manipur.

36. After the judgment in  N.R. Parmar (Supra) was

delivered,  the  Union  of  India  issued  the  Office

Memorandum on 04.03.2014 defining the recruitment year

to be the year of initiating the recruitment process

against  the  vacancy  year  and  that  the  rotation  of

quota, would continue to operate for determination of

inter-se  seniority  between  direct  recruits and

promotees.  This Memo was not made applicable to the

State of Manipur till the issuance of the OM dated

21.12.2017,  adopting  the  OM  dated  04.03.2014

prospectively  with  effect  from  01.01.2018.

Significantly, the said OM specifically provided that

“……………appointments/promotions made before the issue of

this OM will not be covered by this OM. The seniority

already fixed as per existing rules followed earlier Page 22/32

in the State prior to the issue of this OM may not be

reopened.” It was also specifically stated therein that

“this OM will come into effect from 01.01.2018 with

the publication in the Gazette…………”

37. From above, it is not only apparent that the

above OM was only to be given prospective effect from

1.1.2018  but  it  contains  an  express  acknowledgement

that this was not the position prior to the issuance of

the OM and that a different Rule was followed earlier

in the State. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable

that at least prior to 1.1.2018, direct recruits cannot

claim that their seniority should be reckoned from the

date of initiation of recruitment proceedings and not

from the date of actual appointment.

38. When we carefully read the judgment in  N. R.

Parmar (Supra), it appears to us that the referred OMs

(dated  07.02.1986  and  03.07.1986)  were  not  properly

construed in the judgment.  Contrary to the eventual

finding,  the  said  two  OMs  had  made  it  clear  that

seniority of the direct recruits be declared only from

the  date  of  appointment  and  not  from  the  date  of

initiation  of  recruitment  process.  But  surprisingly,

the judgment while referring to the illustration given Page 23/32

in the OM in fact overlooks the effect of the said

illustration.  According  to  us,  the  illustration

extracted in the  N.R. Parmar (Supra) itself, makes it

clear that the vacancies which were intended for direct

recruitment  in  a  particular  year  (1986)  which  were

filled in the next year (1987) could be taken into

consideration only in the subsequent year’s seniority

list but not in the seniority list of 1986.  In fact,

this was indicated in the two OMs dated 07.02.1986 and

03.07.1986 and that is why the Government issued the

subsequent OM on 03.03.2008 by way of clarification of

the two earlier OMs.   

39. At this stage, we must also emphasize that the

Court in  N. R. Parmar (Supra) need not have observed

that  the  selected  candidate  cannot  be  blamed  for

administrative delay and the gap between initiation of

process and appointment. Such observation is fallacious

in  as  much  as  none  can  be  identified  as  being  a

selected  candidate  on  the  date  when  the  process  of

recruitment  had  commenced.  On  that  day,  a  body  of

persons  aspiring  to  be  appointed  to  the  vacancy

intended for direct recruits was not in existence. The

persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot

Page 24/32

have any service-related rights, not to talk of right

to have their seniority counted from the date of the

advertisement. In other words, only on completion of

the  process,  the  applicant  morphs  into  a  selected

candidate and, therefore, unnecessary observation was

made in  N. R. Parmar (Supra) to the effect that the

selected  candidate  cannot  be  blamed  for  the

administrative  delay.  In  the  same  context,  we  may

usefully refer to the ratio in vs. Shankarsan Dash Vs.

Union  of  India4,  where  it  was  held  even  upon

empanelment, an appointee does not acquire any right.

40. The Judgment in N. R. Parmar (Supra) relating to

the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion,

automatically  apply  to  the  Manipur  State  Police

Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel

that N.R. Parmar (Supra) had incorrectly distinguished

the  long-standing  seniority  determination  principles

propounded in, inter-alia, J.C. Patnaik (Supra), Suraj

Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors.5 and Pawan

Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Reevan Singh & Ors.(Supra).

These  three  judgments  and  several  others  with  like

enunciation on the law for determination of seniority

4(1991) 3 SCC 47 5(2000) 7 SCC 561

Page 25/32

makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  under  Service

Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date

when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre.  In

our  considered  opinion,  the  law  on  the  issue  is

correctly  declared  in  J.C.  Patnaik (Supra)  and

consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of

inter-se seniority, suggested in N. R. Parmar (Supra).

Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar is overruled.

However, it is made clear that this decision will not

affect the inter-se seniority already based on N.R.

Parmar and the same is protected. This decision will

apply prospectively except where seniority is to be

fixed  under  the  relevant  Rules  from  the  date  of

vacancy/the date of advertisement.

41. As noted earlier, the Learned Single Judge based

his judgment on two propositions but the Division Bench

was of the view that result would be the same merely on

the  basis  of  one  of  the  two  propositions  and,

therefore, it was unnecessary to pronounce upon the

other proposition. Such an approach cannot therefore be

described  as  a  conflict  (as  has  been  suggested),

between the two judgments. Both Benches were absolutely

consistent  in  their  conclusion  that  promotees would

Page 26/32

have to be given seniority over  direct recruits. It

cannot  therefore  be  argued  that  by  some  convoluted

reasoning, it is possible to come to the conclusion

that the orders passed by the two Courts would result

in  diametrically  opposite  situation  namely,  that

direct recruits would have to be given seniority over

promotees.

42. The  Learned  Single  Judge  in  his  Judgment

interpreted  the  Office  Memorandum  (07.02.1986),  as

adopted  by  the  State  Government  vide  its  OM  dated

13.11.1987 to mean that direct recruits could be given

seniority  only  from  the  date  of  appointment.  The

Judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra) was not cited and the

principle contained therein cannot therefore be said to

have been intended to be applied by the Learned Judge.

43. That apart, the paragraph (14) of the judgment

(7.7.2017) expressly refers to the earlier WP(C) No.235

of 2012 and the 18.02.2013 order passed therein. In

that case, the State of Manipur filed counter affidavit

categorically  stating  that,  seniority  of  direct

recruits would  be  counted  from  their  date  of

appointment and not from the date of initiation of the

recruitment process. Page 27/32

44. The Learned Single Judge in paragraph 14 of the

judgment directed the State Government to prepare the

seniority  list  after  taking  into  account  the

observations  made  by  the  Court where  the  Court  had

clearly observed that the  direct recruits cannot get

seniority over and above the  promotees  and that the

principle  of  dovetailing  cannot  be  applied  while

determining  the  inter-se  seniority  between  the

appellants   and   the  private  respondents.  This

observation  is  undoubtedly  a  part  of  the  Court’s

directions  and  while  implementing  this  order,  the

Government  could  not  have  given  seniority  to  the

direct recruits over the promotees.  By doing so, they

have acted in violation of the Court Orders and not in

conformity therewith.

45. It is now necessary to deal with Mr Patwalia’s

final contentions in reply, placing reliance on  All

India Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India and

Ors.6. He emphasizes the following passage in paragraph

29 of the Judgment:-

“……Hardly  if  ever  there  has  been  a litigation  amongst  the  members  of  the service after their recruitment as per

6(2002) 4 SCC 247 Page 28/32

the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the  roster  points  and  irrespective  of the  fact  as  to  when  a  person  is recruited……”

46. The above would however refer to an incumbent

whose  roster  points  have  been  fixed  after  their

recruitment as per the prescribed quotas.  The cited

judgment  does  not  propose  to  say  that  seniority  by

roster points be fixed, ignoring the date, when the

person is recruited.  The judgment obviously was not

considering  a  situation,  where  seniority  is  being

fixed even before the incumbent is borne in service.

In any case, having regard to the specification made

in  the  MPS  Rules,  1965,  which  squarely  governs  the

litigants  here,  the  ratio  in  the  All  India  Judges

Association’  (Supra) would be of no assistance, for

the appellants.

47. As earlier discussed, the  Rule 28 of the  MPS

Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall

be determined based on the date of appointment to the

service. In particular  Rule 28(i) of the  MPS Rules,

1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct

recruits, provides that seniority shall be determined

by the order in which the appointments are made to the

Page 29/32

service.  If  seniority  under  Rule  28(i) is  to  be

determined based on the date of appointment, it cannot

be  said  that  for  the  purpose  of  Rule  28(iii), the

seniority of  direct recruits should be determined on

the basis of the date of initiation of the recruitment

process.  The  term  “Recruitment  Year”  does  not  and

cannot mean the year in which, the recruitment process

is initiated or the year in which vacancy arises. The

contrary declaration in N.R. Parmar2 in our considered

opinion, is not a correct view.

48. In view of the foregoing, let us now consider

the  Government  order  (29.06.2019)  produced  by  the

Manipur Advocate General in the Contempt Case. As it

appears  the  seniority  list  published  on  29.06.2019

could not be an independent exercise but its purpose

should be to give effect to the judgments passed by

the  High  Court.  Since  the  judgment  of  the  learned

single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench, the

seniority list must be prepared in accordance with the

High  Court’s  direction.  It  is  certainly  not

permissible to prepare a fresh seniority list as an

independent  exercise,  without  reference  to  the

decisions of the Court. When we test the validity of

Page 30/32

the  list  (29.06.2019),  there  is  no  escape  from  the

conclusion that the list ignores the decision of the

single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench. It is

declared so accordingly.

49. In consequence, the appeals arising out of SLP

(C)No.19565-67 of 2019 filed by the  direct recruits

are  dismissed.  On  the  same  reasoning,  the  appeals

arising out of SLP (C)No. 19568-69 of 2019, filed by

the State of Manipur are not entertained and the same

shall stand dismissed. With the above finding on the

Contempt  Case  No.224  of  2018  and  quashment  of  the

29.06.2019 proceeding produced in that case before the

High  Court,  the  appeals  arising  out  of  SLP  (C)No.

17007 of 2019 filed by Ningam Siro against the High

Court’s  order  in  the  Contempt  Case  No.224/2018  is

disposed of.

50. In view of the foregoing, the orders of the High

Court in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal are

upheld.  The State of Manipur is accordingly directed

to prepare a revised inter-se seniority list in the

MPS Grade-II cadre in light of the above discussion

Page 31/32

and  the  High  Court’s  Orders.  This shall be done

within 8 weeks from today. All consequential actions

will  follow  from  this  judgment.  It  is  ordered

accordingly.

………………………………………………J.  [R.BANUMATHI]

………………………………………………J.  [A.S.BOPANNA]

………………………………………………J.      [HRISHIKESH ROY]

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 19, 2019

Page 32/32