JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Additional AG appearing for the State respondents. 2. Office order dated 9.12.2003 (Annexure-9) of the Director of Health Services, Mizoram, Aizawl, Office order dated 5 2.2008 (Annexure-11) of the Director of Health Services, Mizoram Aizawl and a letter dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-13) addressed to Smt. Lalbiaktluangi by the Director of Health Services, Mizoram, Aizawl are the subject matters of challenge in this writ petition under Article 226of the Constitution. 3. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition may be summarised as under: The Director of Health Services, Mizoram, Aizawl vide office order No. 106/1984 dated 30.5.1984 (Annexure-1) appointed the writ petitioners as officiating Staff Nurse in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-640/- pm plus other allowances under the rules with effect from the date of joining at their posting place shown against their names. Vide office order No. 333/1984 dated 3.9.1984, Director of Health Services, Mizoram, Aizawl appointed the private respondent Nos. 3-14 as officiating Staff Nurse in the scale as aforesaid and other allowances under the Rules with effect from the date of joining of their posting place as shown against their names. Respondents Nos. 15 and 16 were appointed as Staff Nurse in the year 1985 joined their post on 18.2.1985. A Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, DPC) held on 19.8.1987 prepared a list of 93 candidates out of 110 for the post of Staff Nurses and Health Workers (Female) in order of merit whereby the respondents are put above the writ petitioners (Annexure-3). Office order No. 732/1988 dated 8.1.1988 was issued by the respondent No. 2 appointing the petitioners and the private respondents as Staff Nurses in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- wherein it is specifically stated that in pursuant to the minutes of the DPC held on 19.8.1987, the petitioners and the private respondents were appointed subject to police verification and medical fitness certificate with effect from their dates of joining at their services in the officiating capacity. On 1.5.1989 respondent No. 2 issued a circular with a view to fix the inter-se-seniority amongst the Nursing Staff serving in Mizoram indicating that the date of joining of the Nursing Staff as shown against their names in the Appendix (Annexure-5). On 1.5.1989 respondent No. 2 issued a circular with a view to fix the inter-se-seniority amongst the Nursing Staff serving in Mizoram indicating that the date of joining of the Nursing Staff as shown against their names in the Appendix (Annexure-5). Liberty was given to make complaint within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the circular failing which, it will be presumed that the concerned nursing personnel have accepted the seniority fixed by the Government. 4. The Governor of Mizoram, in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution made rules relating to recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse under nomenclature "Mizoram Health and Family Welfare Department (Group 'C') Recruitment Rules, 1989" (hereinafter referred to "1989 Rules") which came into force on and from 26.10.1989. Respondent No. 2, on 13.4.1992 again issued another notification indicating inter-se-seniority of Nursing Staff as per DPC held on 19.8.1987. By this notification, liberty was also given to submit complaint if aggrieved with the inter-se-seniority list (Annexure-7). In the inter-se-seniority list prepared by the respondent No. 2, all respondents are placed above the writ petitioners except respondent No. 6 namely, Zothanmawii Hmar. Thereafter, vide office order No. 262/1995 dated 31.5.1995 (Annexure-8), respondent No. 2 confirmed 192 Staff Nurses in their posts with effect from the date of issue of the order i.e. 31.5.1995. By the office order dated 9.12.2003, respondent No. 2 published the final seniority list of the Staff Nurses appointed on and from 1.5.1997 fixed as per the DPC (Annexure-9) wherein the private respondents are placed above the petitioners. By another office order dated 5.12.2008, respondent No. 2 again published another final seniority list as per DPC in respect of the Staff Nurses appointed w.e.f. 1.5.1975 to 8.10.2007. In the inter-se-seniority list (Annexure-11) the private respondents are placed above the petitioners. It is to be noticed that one of the petitioners namely Pi Lalbiaktluangi made a complaint regarding the provisional inter-se-seniority list on account of her placement below to the juniors to her. In reply to the complaint, respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-13) intimated that the officiating appointment was not made in accordance with the established DPC and the inter-se-seniority list issued by the Director of Health Services vide memo No. C.18015/1/2006-DHSN dated 5.2.2008 is based on DPC merit which is recommended to stand. In reply to the complaint, respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-13) intimated that the officiating appointment was not made in accordance with the established DPC and the inter-se-seniority list issued by the Director of Health Services vide memo No. C.18015/1/2006-DHSN dated 5.2.2008 is based on DPC merit which is recommended to stand. It is further informed that her officiating period will be counted for the purpose of ACP and pensionary benefits in view of rendering services on officiating basis and stagnation in promotion but not for counting of her seniority. 5. Now, all these petitioners, in view of the above facts and placement of themselves in the inter-se-seniority list below the private respondents have approached this Court challenging the seniority list published on 9.12.2003 (Annexure-8), final inter-se-seniority list dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure-11) and a letter dated' 7.5.2008 (Annexure-13). 6. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resisted this writ petition by filing counter. It is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The decision of the DPC was held on 19.8.1987 and the present writ petition has been filed after more then 20 (twenty) years from the date of holding of the DPC. The explanation offered for cause of delay according to the respondents is unreasonable and on this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the Recruitment Rules being came into existence on 26.10.1989, respondent No. 2 fixed the inter-se-seniority list as per DPC recommendation held on 19.8.1987 which does not indicate that it was for the purpose of regularization only. Private respondents, however, did not file counter affidavit despite service of notice. 7. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petition submits that during the time of appointment of the writ petitioners as well as the respondents, the department did not have the Recruitment Rules, only in the year 1989 the Recruitment Rules came into force. Therefore, apparently, the appointments so made prior to framing of the Recruitment Rules were made without following any definite rules. Therefore, apparently, the appointments so made prior to framing of the Recruitment Rules were made without following any definite rules. The DPC held on 19.8.1987 while placing the candidates for the post of Staff Nurses and Health Workers in order of merit must have followed some criteria for placing the private respondents above the petitioners but, the minutes of the meeting of the DPC held on 19.8.1987 is silent in respect of the criteria so considered for preparing the merit list. In this context. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Additional AG representing the State respondents vide order dated 2.6.2009 was requested to place before this Court the records of the DPC held on 19.8.1987 for the purpose of scrutiny in the context of preparation of the list in order of merit of the Staff Nurses numbering 93 out of 110. But, unfortunately, the learned Additional AG failed to produce the records of the DPC rather submits that such records are not available. Therefore, in the face of such facts, the list prepared by the DPC held on 19.8.1987 of the Staff Nurses and Health Workers numbering 93 out of 110 in order of merit cannot receive any sanction from this Court. For preparation of a list of candidates in order of merit, the DPC held on 19.8.1987 must have followed some criteria in absence of the Rules. Learned Additional AG while submitting before this Court also expresses his inability to make available of the records of the DPC held on 19.8.1987 for scrutiny of the Court. 8. It has been argued by Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the petitioners that in absence of such records, it would be appropriate for this Court to maintain the seniority of the petitioners according to the appointment letter (Exhibit-1). All the petitioners were appointed as Staff Nurse vide office order No. 106/1984 dated 30.5.1984 while the private respondents were appointed as such vide office order No. 333/1984 dated 3.9.1984. Therefore, according to Mr. Michael that the writ petitioners got their appointments in the post prior to the private respondents. Therefore, in absence of any rule in the context of preparing inter-se-seniority amongst the employees of the same cadre, the seniority should be maintained as per appointment and not otherwise since the State respondent Nos. Therefore, according to Mr. Michael that the writ petitioners got their appointments in the post prior to the private respondents. Therefore, in absence of any rule in the context of preparing inter-se-seniority amongst the employees of the same cadre, the seniority should be maintained as per appointment and not otherwise since the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to place records of the DPC to make a scrutiny of the list prepared allegedly in order of merit. While preparing such a list in order of merit, what are the factors considered by the DPC are required to be looked into in absence of any rule. The learned Additional AG in his usual fairness submits that in absence of the records of the DPC, it would not be possible on his part to place before the Court what criteria/factors the DPC had considered for preparing the list in order of merit. 9. It is noticed in Annexure-4 dated 8.1.1988 that the Staff Nurses appointed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules appointed per minutes of the DPC held on 19.8.1987 subject to medical fitness certificate and police verification, their appointments shall take effect from the dates of joining at their continuous service in the officiating capacity. Mr. Michael relying on the Annexure- 4 submits that, if considered, the date of joining in his or her continuous services in the officiating capacity; each of the petitioner will be senior to the private respondents. Therefore, the final inter-se-seniority list prepared by the respondent No. 2 is in conflict of Annexure-4 dated 8.1.1988. 10. Since the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to place the minutes of the DPC held on 19.8.1987, this Court is constrained to hold that in absence of any rule available during the relevant period, the inter-se-seniority be guided by the date of appointment. 11. In the case between G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 329 , in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under: 5. 11. In the case between G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 329 , in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under: 5. When a seniority list is challenged as being violative of the guarantee of equality enshrined in Articles14 and 16 and prima facie it appears that those who came into the cadre later on scored a march over those who were already in the cadre, it would be for the authority justifying the seniority list to plead and point out the rule for determining seniority on the basis of which the list is drawn up. If any such rule is pleaded, it would be for those impugning the seniority list to aver and establish that the alleged seniority rule is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16. 12. Again in paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that in absence of any specific rule of seniority governing a cadre or a service, it is well settled that the length of continuous officiation will provide more objective and fair rule of seniority. In paragraph 15, it was also held by the Apex Court that when there is no binding rule of seniority, it is well settled that the length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, there was no recruitment rule for the department of health, only in the year 1989, the rules came into existence. Appointments were made of the petitioners as well as the private respondents in the year 1984 of course on different dates. The DPC held on 19.8.1987 prepared a merit list but the minutes of the DPC is found silent in respect of the rider taken into consideration as well as the criteria adopted. Therefore, in absence of the records of the DPC and rule governing the seniority in a cadre, it would be justifiable to record the seniority of the employees in a cadre as per dates of appointment. 13. From a careful scrutiny of the matter in its entirety, this Court finds that the final inter-se-seniority list prepared by the respondent No. 2 dated 9.12.2003 and 5.2.2008 cannot stand legally. 13. From a careful scrutiny of the matter in its entirety, this Court finds that the final inter-se-seniority list prepared by the respondent No. 2 dated 9.12.2003 and 5.2.2008 cannot stand legally. Accordingly, the final inter-se-seniority list dated 9.12.2003 (Annexure-3), office order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure-11) and a letter dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-13) are set aside and quashed. 14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The State respondents are directed to prepare an inter-se-seniority list of the petitioners as well as the private respondents as per their dates of appointment. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment and order. 15. No order as to cost. Petition allowed