Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 731 (GAU)

State of Manipur v. Khumanthem Jugeshwar Singh

2011-09-01

AMITAVA ROY, B.D.AGARWAL

body2011
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 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 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 11.08.1977 Petitioner No. 3 06.10.1978 Petitioner No. 9 12.10.1978 Petitioner No. 8 17.10.1978 Petitioner No. 6 13.11.1978 Petitioner No. 2 18.11.1978 Petitioner No. 10 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. 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 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. 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 Respondent No. 3 Sl. No. 102 Respondent No. 4 Sl. No. 106 Respondent No. 5 Sl. No. 130 Petitioner No. 1 Sl. No. 124 Petitioner no. 2 Sl. No. 135 Petitioner No. 3 Sl. No. 137 Petitioner No. 4 Sl. No. 182 Petitioner No. 5 Sl. No. 184 Petitioner No. 6 Sl. No. 192 Petitioner No. 7 Sl. No. 194 Petitioner No. 8 Sl. No. 208 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, 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. 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 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. 24.05.1986. It was, however, clarified that their seniority would be fixed later on. 10. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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: - Respondent No. 2 Sl. No. 20 Respondent No. 3 Sl. No. 22 Respondent No. 4 Sl. No. 23 Petitioner No. 1 Sl. No. 24 Respondent No. 5 Sl. No. 25 Petitioner No. 2 Sl. No. 26 Petitioner No. 3 Sl. No. 27 Petitioner No. 4 Sl. No. 28 Petitioner No. 5 Sl. No. 29 Petitioner No. 6 Sl. No. 30 Petitioner No. 7 Sl. No. 31 Petitioner No. 8 Sl. No. 32 Petitioner No. 9 Sl. No. 33 Petitioner No. 10 Sl. No. 34 Petitioner No. 11 Sl. No. 35 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. 15. The order dated 08.02.1996 qua the respondent No. 2 was not assailed in particular. 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 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. 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 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 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. 21. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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, 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. 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 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. 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. 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.” 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. 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 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.