Lichumbeni Kikon v. Nagaland Public Service Commission
2016-04-20
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Irak, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 14, Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Nagaland Public Service Commission, and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. An advertisement, being advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.02.2005, was published by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (in short, "NPSC"), amongst others, for recruitment to 6 (six) posts of Lecturers in English, 8 (eight) posts of Lecturers in Science and 3 (three) posts of Lecturers in Social Science, which are Class-I Gazetted posts, to be appointed in State Council of Educational Research and Training (in short, "SCERT"). The present dispute relates to inter-se-seniority in between the appointees, who were appointed pursuant to the interview conducted under advertisement No. 5/2004-05. Dates for holding the interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, Science and Social Science was notified by the NPSC vide notification dated 13.5.2005, on 21.6.2005, 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, respectively Petitioner No. 6, though eligible under the terms of the advertisement, was not issued call letter and accordingly, she along with some others, had approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP (C) No. 160(K)/2005. By an order dated 20.6.2005, this Court directed that oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English and Education in terms of the advertisement dated 17.02.2005, shall not be processed by the NFSC without permission of the Court. 3. In view of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 20.06.2005, oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, scheduled on 21.6.2005, was not held. On 23.06.2005, NPSC intimated the petitioner No. 6 that because of clerical mistake, her application for the post of Lecturer in English was rejected, though she was eligible and accordingly, she was called upon to appear before the Interview Board and a call letter was also issued to her with a specific roll number indicating that the date of interview would be notified later on.
In view of the aforesaid development, the petitioner No. 6 herein, filed a miscellaneous application, which was registered as CMC No. 148(K)/2005, to allow her to withdraw from the aforesaid writ petition, in which she was the petitioner No. 3. This Court, by an order dated 26.08.2005 passed in the aforesaid CMC No. 148(K)/2005, allowed the prayer of the present petitioner No. 6 and struck off her name from the array of parties. 4. Subsequently, on 16.09.2005, call letters were issued by the NPSC fixing the date of interview for the posts of Lecturers in English on 01.10.2005. In the meantime, interview for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Social Science had taken place, as notified earlier vide notification dated 13.05.2005, on 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, respectively. On 29.06.2005, a notification was issued by the NPSC, selecting, amongst others, 8 (eight) Lecturers in Science and 3 (three) Lecturers in Social Science. On the very date of interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, i.e., on 01.10.2005, a notification was issued selecting and recommending 6 (six) candidates, as indicated therein, for appointment. These 6 (six) persons recommended for appointment as Lecturers in English are the writ petitioners. On 19.04.2006, on the recommendation of the NPSC, the writ petitioners as well as the private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 were appointed as Lecturers in their respective Branches in District Institute of Education & Training (in short, "DIET") under SCERT. In the said appointment order, the Lecturers in English had been placed at serial Nos. 12 to 17, Lecturers in Science at serial Nos. 1 to 8 and Lecturers in Social Science at serial Nos. 9 to 11. 5. Making a grievance that after their appointments, no provisional seniority list was published for almost 4 (four) years and yet on 27.09.2010, a tentative seniority list as on 01.10.2010, was published indicating that serial wise seniority of the officers would not be entertained as the Government had issued a notification in 2006 fixing inter-se-seniority after incorporating the objections/observations made by all concerned, the present writ petition came to be filed. It is pleaded that the so called seniority list attached to the letter dated 27.09.2010 was never circulated and was not received by the petitioners and it came to the knowledge of the petitioners only in the year 2012. In the said tentative seniority list, the petitioners were placed at serial Nos.
It is pleaded that the so called seniority list attached to the letter dated 27.09.2010 was never circulated and was not received by the petitioners and it came to the knowledge of the petitioners only in the year 2012. In the said tentative seniority list, the petitioners were placed at serial Nos. 26 to 31 and the private respondents at serial Nos. 15 to 25. Alerter dated 5.11.2009 was issued by Secretary, NPSC addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, SCERT Branch, enclosing an inter-se merit list of Lecturers, which included candidates selected on 5.2.2005, 29.6.2005 and 03.11.2005. Representations were filed by the petitioners questioning the legitimacy of the tentative seniority list and by letter dated 01.05.2012, Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, requested the Secretary of NPSC to furnish the merit list of the Lecturers in Science, Social Science and English, which formed part of the advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.02.2005. 6. It is agreed at the bar that the date 03.11.2005 is not correct and the date ought to have been recorded in the letter dated 05.11.2009 as 01.10.2005. It is also not in dispute that the candidates were selected on 05.02.2005 in an altogether different selection process. 7. Again a tentative seniority list was published on 31.7.2012, inviting objections within a period of 30 (thirty) days, to which objections were filed by the petitioners but without considering their objections/representations, final seniority list was published on 12.9.2012. 8. The writ petition has undergone amendments. In the writ petition as was originally filed, the petitioners prayed for quashing of NPSC's letter dated (1) 05.11.2009, (2) the Final Seniority List dated 12.09.2012 and (3) a direction to the NPSC to prepare an overall merit list of the 17 (seventeen) Lecturers who been recommended by the NPSC pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.02.2005 for the purpose of determining the inter-se-seniority of the 17 (seventeen) Lecturers. 9. A letter dated 17.08.2012 was issued by NPSC in response to a Government letter dated 01.05.2012 by which the NPSC was requested to furnish the merit list of 17 (seventeen) Lecturers. In the said letter, while indicating the marks obtained by the candidates, the merit list was prepared based on the date of results dated 29.06.2005 and 01.10.2005 in 2 (two) separate blocks. 10. Thereafter, the writ petition was amended and the consolidated amended petition was filed on 02.11.2013.
In the said letter, while indicating the marks obtained by the candidates, the merit list was prepared based on the date of results dated 29.06.2005 and 01.10.2005 in 2 (two) separate blocks. 10. Thereafter, the writ petition was amended and the consolidated amended petition was filed on 02.11.2013. In the said consolidated amended petition, in terms of the amendment, Paragraphs 22A and 22B were inserted along with a prayer challenging NPSC's merit list dated 17.08.2012. 11. The writ petition came to be amended once again and new Paragraphs, i.e., 11A, 11B, 25A, 28A and 28B along with the prayer for quashing the final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 were inserted. The aforesaid seniority list dated 17.11.2006 had reflected the final seniority list of officers under SCERT/DIET as on 01.07.2006. It is contended that the said select list dated 17.11.2006 had never been circulated. In the said seniority list, the petitioners were placed at serial Nos. 17 to 22 and the private respondents at serial Nos. 6 to 16. Prior to that, by an order dated 10.4.2015 in CMC No. 34(K)/2015, this Court ordered deletion of the word 'proforma' in the cause-title as well as in Paragraph 14 of the writ petition by hand. 12. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed an affidavit on 23.07.2015, dealing with the amendments allowed till 10.04.2015. After insertion of Paragraphs 11A, 11B, 25A, 28A and 28B and the prayer made to quash the final seniority list of the year 2006, no further affidavit was filed. 13. The writ petitioners filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 denying the contentions of the State respondents regarding publication and circulation of the final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 as on 1.7.2006. It is contended that even the tentative seniority list dated 1.10.2010 was also not circulated and they could come to know about the same only through some of their senior colleagues. In the seniority list dated 1.10.2010, dates of appointment of the petitioners and the private respondents were wrongly shown as 1.10.2006 and 29.06.2006 whereas their date of appointment was 19.04.2006. An additional affidavit was also filed by the writ petitioners on 5.2.2016 to bring on record a set of Rules called the Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil and other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008. 14. The respondent Nos.
An additional affidavit was also filed by the writ petitioners on 5.2.2016 to bring on record a set of Rules called the Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil and other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008. 14. The respondent Nos. 4 to 14 had filed their affidavit on 12.11.2013 contending that criteria for determination of seniority of candidates who are appointed by a common order, but whose dates of selection and recommendation are different, is laid down by a Memorandum dated 9.6.1966. They also placed on record an Office Memorandum dated 24.06.1978 on the subject. It is pleaded that the seniority list dated 12.9.2012 calls for no interference as the same was prepared in strict compliance of the Office Memorandum dated 24.06.1978 and the Memorandum dated 09.06.1966. It is also pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the writ petitioners had not made all the officers party respondents though they had prayed for quashing the seniority list dated 12.9.2012. It is also pleaded that some of the writ petitioners obtained lesser marks than the private respondents and as such those petitioners who secured lesser marks have no right to question the position of the private respondents who are above them. It is further pleaded that tentative seniority list dated 01.10.2010 was issued and served on the private respondents and as the petitioners did not raise any objection, the seniority dispute may not be entertained by this Court at this point of time. 15. Though the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 was filed after the amendment was effected inserting Paragraphs 22A and 22B, such paragraphs were not dealt with. Subsequent to that also, no affidavit was filed by the private respondents with regard to the aforesaid paragraphs as well as the Paragraphs 11A, 11B, 25A, 28A and 28B which were subsequently inserted. 16. Mr. Iralu, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the purported seniority list dated 17.09.2006 was never published and, that is why, the petitioners were not aware of the publication of such seniority list. It is also pointed out by him that prior to publication of the final seniority list dated 17.09.2006, no tentative seniority list had also been published and circulated inviting objections.
It is also pointed out by him that prior to publication of the final seniority list dated 17.09.2006, no tentative seniority list had also been published and circulated inviting objections. He submits that the NPSC had mistakenly rejected the candidature of the petitioner No. 6 herein as a result of which she had to approach this Court and, realizing the mistake, the NPSC itself had issued interview call letter to the petitioner No. 6. He submits that interview for the posts of Lecturers in English could not be held because of the interim order passed by this Court at the instance of petitioner No. 6 and some other candidates and the same had to be held subsequently though, according to the original schedule, interview for the posts of Lecturers in English was to be held first in point of time. It is not on record as to on that date the recommendation was sent by the NPSC to the State Government based on the results declared on 29.6.2005 and 1.10.2005. Drawing attention of the Court to the letter dated 05.11.2009, learned senior counsel submits that the NPSC was wholly in error in segregating the results based on the declaration of the results on 2 (two) dates, namely, 29.6.2005 and 1.10.2005. Though the merit list had been published based on the interview held on 2 (two) dates, the fact remains that it was the part of the same selection process initiated by the same advertisement. He has argued that based on a non-existent rule, the NPSC had issued the letter dated 17.08.2012 indicating that the inter-se-seniority of the selected candidates recruited in one batch would be fixed in order of merit list, as published, and as the second 01.10.2005, the recruits of the first batch would rank senior to the recruits of the second batch and the same is clearly without jurisdiction as it is entirely for the State Government to determine the Inter-se-seniority of the appointees. It is submitted that there was no such rule at the relevant point of time when the interview was conducted in the year 2005 and, much later, on 29.02.2008 only, the Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil and Other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008 came into beings based on which, ex-facie, such observations were made by the NPSC.
It is submitted that there was no such rule at the relevant point of time when the interview was conducted in the year 2005 and, much later, on 29.02.2008 only, the Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil and Other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008 came into beings based on which, ex-facie, such observations were made by the NPSC. He has submitted that if, based on the declaration of result, appointments had taken place, it may have been permissible for the State respondents to place candidates, whose results were declared earlier, ahead of the subsequent appointees but, in the instant case, the appointments of the petitioners and the private respondents had taken place on the very same date and, therefore, splitting up of the list in 2 (two) parts based on the dates of interview is wholly misconceived. According to him, seniority should be determined on the dates of interview is wholly misconceived. According to him, seniority should be determined on the basis of merit in terms of the selection process undertaken. He has also submitted that the State respondents had fixed the inter-se-seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents on the same principle which had been canvassed by the NPSC and, therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with and directions should be issued to the State respondents to re-determine the inter-se-seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents based on the marks obtained by them in the selection process. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the role of the NPSC, in terms of the Nagaland Public Service Commission Regulations, after announcement of the result, is only to send the names of all the successful candidates to the Government and they have not been assigned the task of determining the issues relating to inter-se-seniority of the selected candidates. In support of his submissions, Mr. Iralu has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Pratap Singh Vs. Reevan Singh, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267 , with particular reference to paragraph 46 thereof, as well as in the case of Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 728 , with emphasis on paragraph 9 thereof. 17. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.
Reevan Singh, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267 , with particular reference to paragraph 46 thereof, as well as in the case of Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 728 , with emphasis on paragraph 9 thereof. 17. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 14, at the outset, submits that the petitioners having questioned the final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 only in the year 2013, i.e., after a lapse of 7 (seven) years, that too, without any explanation, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He has submitted that the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of the notification dated 5.11.2009 of the NPSC, also suffers from gross delay. It is contended by him that without making all the persons, whose names had appeared in the seniority list dated 12.9.2012, parties to the instant proceeding, prayer is made for setting aside and quashing of the said select list dated 12.9.2012 and, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. He has submitted that the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 were already declared successful on 29.06.2005 and a list was accordingly published by the NPSC and, therefore, the selection of the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 has to be construed to be complete. The writ petitioners were finally selected on 01.10.2005 and, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the selection. had taken place in 2 (two) batches though covered under the same advertisement and, as such, the NPSC had rightly sent the names by way of recommendation on the basis of the selection held in 2 (two) batches. It is also submitted by him that paragraph 2 of the Memorandum dated 09.06.1966 issued by the Department of Home, Government of Nagaland, is squarely applicable in the facts of the case. Conceding that merit does have a role to play when there is one selection, it is contended by Mr. Jamir that since there are 2 (two) batches of selections, the prayer made by the petitioners for publishing a common merit list on the basis of marks obtained in separate selection process is wholly misconceived.
Conceding that merit does have a role to play when there is one selection, it is contended by Mr. Jamir that since there are 2 (two) batches of selections, the prayer made by the petitioners for publishing a common merit list on the basis of marks obtained in separate selection process is wholly misconceived. It is submitted by him that the Memorandum dated 09.06.1966 very categorically visualizes that persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection will be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. May be, the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 had been appointed on the very same date, i.e., 19.4.2006, but that does not detract the fact that the petitioners were selected and recommended on 1.10.2005, i.e., much later than the publication of the result of the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 on 29.6.2005. The petitioners having been selected in a subsequent selection, naturally, in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum, their names had to figure subsequent to the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 14. It is also submitted by him that the Court has to bear in mind that the decision making process is not under challenge. Mr. Jamir has argued that the decisions of the Apex Court cited by Mr. Iralu are rendered in the context of the factual matrix therein and the same will not be attracted to the fact situation that is confronting the Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 18. Drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-A of the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the NPSC, submits that because typographical errors had crept in the last paragraph of the said letter dated 17.08.2012, a letter was again issued on 27.08.2012 (Annexure-B of the affidavit) correcting the dates as 29.06.2005 and 01.10.2005, which were earlier reflected in the letter dated 17.08.2012 as "29.06.2005" and "01.10.2005" and that rest of the contents had remained the same. It is submitted by him that immediately after the interview had been held, the NPSC declared the result and that is how, after the interviews for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Social Science were held on 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, respectively, the result was published on 29.06.2005.
It is submitted by him that immediately after the interview had been held, the NPSC declared the result and that is how, after the interviews for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Social Science were held on 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, respectively, the result was published on 29.06.2005. Likewise, after the selection for the posts of Lecturers in English was held on 01.10.2005, on that very day, the results were published to maintain transparency in the selection process. As the results were published separately, when the NPSC was asked for by the Government to furnish the merit list, the NPSC had forwarded 2 (two) lists, one dated 05.11.2009, and the other dated 17.08.2012 (corrected on 27.08.2012). He fairly submits that the observations made by the NPSC in the letter dated 17.08.2012 and also in the letter dated 27.08.2012, after the chart of the candidates, cannot be supported because, at the relevant point of time, Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil and other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008 had not come into force. However, he adopts the submission of Mr. Jamir that in any view of the matter, the Memorandum dated 09.06.1966 would be applicable. It is also conceded by him that the NPSC as such has no role to play in fixation of inter-se-seniority of the employees of the State Government It is submitted by him that since the candidates selected on 29.6.2005 were already recommended, there was no question of again preparing a combined select list of the persons selected on 29.06.2005 and 01.10.2005. 19. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned State counsel has submitted that the plea taken by the petitioners that there was no tentative seniority list and that final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 had not been published, are false pleas made for the purpose of this case and in this connection, she has placed reliance in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. During the course of argument, on the basis of the stand taken in the affidavit, she has submitted that the Memorandum dated 9.6.1966 clearly applies to the facts of the case as the NPSC had submitted inter-se merit list in 2 (two) batches.
2 and 3. During the course of argument, on the basis of the stand taken in the affidavit, she has submitted that the Memorandum dated 9.6.1966 clearly applies to the facts of the case as the NPSC had submitted inter-se merit list in 2 (two) batches. She contends that the first batch comprises of the Lecturers of Social Science and Lecturers of Science, whose results were declared on 29.06.2005, and the second batch is that of Lecturers in English, whose results were declared on 01.10.2005. In view of the above, Ms. Suokhrie, learned State counsel submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and as such, the same may be dismissed. 20. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 21. The marks obtained by the petitioners and the private respondents are reflected in letter dated 17.08.2012 (also in the letter dated 27.08.2012) of NPSC. They are as follows: 22. It will be appropriate, having regard to the arguments advanced, to extract herein below, the relevant portion of the Memorandum dated 09.06.1966; "2. When recruitment is made directly through open competition through the Nagaland Public Service Commission or other approved Selection Boards, the relative seniority of direct recruits shall be determined by the other of merit in which they are selected for appointment on the recommendation of the Commission or other Selecting Authority. Persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection will be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent Selection." 23. The Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil and other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008 came into effect on 29th February, 2008. Rule 25(2) of the aforesaid Rules provides as follows: "(2) The inter-se-seniority of the selected candidates recruited in one batch will be fixed in the order of the merit list as published in the notification of the results. Provided that the conditions in the Service Rules concerned regarding the time prescribed for joining service are fulfilled by the candidates. .................." 24. In the final seniority list dated 12.9.2012 as on 31.3.2012, the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 14 are placed as follows: 25. The names of the petitioners in the said list dated 12.9.2012 appear as follows: 26. The argument of Mr.
.................." 24. In the final seniority list dated 12.9.2012 as on 31.3.2012, the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 14 are placed as follows: 25. The names of the petitioners in the said list dated 12.9.2012 appear as follows: 26. The argument of Mr. Iralu is that the combined merit list ought to have been prepared and if the same was prepared, the position would have been reflected as follows: 27. After production of the records by Ms. V. Suokhrie on 18.03.2016 and on perusal of the same, the Court, by order passed on that date, had observed as follows: "It appears from the said records that an Office Memorandum dated 1st August, 2006 was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland on the subject of tentative seniority list of the officers under SCERT and DIET as on 1st July, 2006. In the said list at Annexure-III, names of present respondent Nos. 4 to 14 appeared at serial Nos. 6 to 16 and that of the writ petitioners from serial Nos. 17 to 22. Letter bearing No. SCERT/Seniority-1/2005-06/901 dated 8th September, 2006 indicates that 19 (nineteen) employees of SCERT and 35 (thirty-five) employees of DIET had submitted their representations including Smti. Nukshinaro and Keduwe U-Tsuhah, whose names figured at serial Nos. 3 & 5 of Annexure-III of the tentative seniority list dated 1st August, 2006. Thereafter, by Office Memorandum dated 17th November, 2006, final seniority of the Officers under SCERT/DIET, as on 1st July, 2006, was published indicating that no further representations shall be entertained in this regard." 28. It is important to note that private respondents had filed affidavit on 12.11.2013, prior to the filing of affidavit by the State respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in which the private respondents did not even make a whisper about existence of a seniority list dated 17.11.2006 and it is contended that the impugned seniority list dated 12.09.2012 was prepared in accordance with the standing memoranda and guidelines issued by the Government of Nagaland. In the context of the case, non-mentioning of aforesaid seniority list dated 17.11.2006 assumes great significance. The categorical case of the writ petitioners is that neither the tentative seniority list nor the so-called final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 was published and the petitioners were kept in complete dark.
In the context of the case, non-mentioning of aforesaid seniority list dated 17.11.2006 assumes great significance. The categorical case of the writ petitioners is that neither the tentative seniority list nor the so-called final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 was published and the petitioners were kept in complete dark. Records produced by the respondents do not indicate that the seniority list was served upon the petitioners though the letter dated 17.11.2006 indicated copies had been given to all concerned officers under SCERT. The petitioners and the private respondent list was published on 01.08.2006. Another important feature is that the private respondents did not file any affidavit even after the amendments were effected but arguments have been advanced by Mr. Jamir that challenge made to the seniority list dated 17.11.2006 suffers from delay and laches. The fact that private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 did not raise the issue of publication of the seniority list dated 17.11.2006 in their affidavit would lead credence to the case of the petitioners that the same was not circulated, at least, amongst the newly recruited officers. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Jamir that the petitioners had lodged a very belated protest, more so, in view of the fact that in the interregnum, no promotion, etc. had taken place from amongst the petitioners and the private respondents. None of the parties have placed on record what happened after the tentative seniority list dated 27.09.2010 was issued. On the contrary, another tentative list was published on 31.07.2012 which came to be finalized with publication of the final seniority list on 12.9.2012. The said final seniority list dated 12.9.2012 came to be challenged immediately thereafter. It may be noted that the dispute of seniority is, essentially, confined only to the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 and even if the Court interferes with the final seniority list, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same will not amount to upsetting a long settled position of seniority. Therefore, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches and delay. 29. It is to be noted that while oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English was scheduled on 21.06.2005, oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Social Science were notified to be held on 27.6.2005 and 28.6.2005.
Therefore, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches and delay. 29. It is to be noted that while oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English was scheduled on 21.06.2005, oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Social Science were notified to be held on 27.6.2005 and 28.6.2005. For holding of interviews for the aforesaid subjects, there was common advertisement dated 17.02.2005. It is only under fortuitous circumstances, as noticed earlier, interview for the posts of Lecturers in English came to be held on 1.10.2005. The result dated 29.6.2005 contains the names of candidates on the basis of merit in respect of both the subjects, that is to say, list was prepared depending on the marks scored in the interview held on 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005. To illustrate, it can be pointed out that serial Nos. 1 and 2 were selected for the posts of Lecturers in Science and serial No. 3 for the posts of Lecturer of Social Science. As the interview for the posts of Lecturers in English was held on 1.10.2005, result of such selection was declared on 1.10.2005. 30. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether publication of result on different dates initiated by a common advertisement for the posts of same cadre would result in 2 (two) separate selection processes. 31. The Memorandum dated 09.06.1966 makes it abundantly clear that the related seniority of direct recruits shall be determined by order of merit in which they are selected on the recommendation of the Commission. The State counsel as well as Mr. Jamir have submitted that with the declaration of the result, one selection process had come an end and there being 2 (two) dates of result, it is to be construed that 2 (two) selection processes had taken place and therefore, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1966, persons appointed on the basis of declaration of result on 29.06.2005 will rank senior to those who were selected on 01.10.2005. 32. In Pawan Pratap (supra), the Apex Court observed that appointees in 1991 would rank senior to appointees in 1994 even though appointment of 1994 appointees was for earlier vacancies.
32. In Pawan Pratap (supra), the Apex Court observed that appointees in 1991 would rank senior to appointees in 1994 even though appointment of 1994 appointees was for earlier vacancies. In Balwant Singh (supra), it was held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. 33. Process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, conducting examinations and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the word selection only as the factum of preparation of select list Date of interview is a variable factor. One must not forget that it is a common interview process for a common cadre and publication of the list by NPSC for a particular subject for the vacancies in question will not determine inter-se-seniority as a contrary view will have the potential to destroy the very sanctity of the selection process. It may, be a good thing for the purpose of transparency to declare the result immediately after holding of the interview for a particular subject. Mandate of the Commission is to prepare the select list and preparation of the select list is not complete till such time interviews are held for all the subjects in question. The Commission cannot, on its own, divide and sub-divide a common selection process initiated by a single advertisement on the basis of declaration of results on different dates. It is, however, to be placed on record that it is not the case of either of the parties that the Commission had deliberately or with an oblique motive published the list on 2 (two) dates. It would have been better if the Commission had published the list of selected candidates separately for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Lecturers of Social Science instead of clubbing it together on the basis of merit when it declared the result on 29.06.2005 because at that time, interview for the posts of Lecturers in English had not taken place. That way the NPSC could have maintained utmost transparency in the selection process.
That way the NPSC could have maintained utmost transparency in the selection process. After the interview for the subjects for which the advertisement was issued, a composite merit list ought to have been published. In absence of any separate advertisement for the posts of Lecturers in English, which is the first step in a selection process, in the scenario that has been depicted, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that 2 (two) selection processes, one of the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 and one in respect of the petitioners, had taken place and this Court is of the considered opinion that there is only one selection process in which the candidates had been assessed. 34. All the persons who are likely to be effected are made parties in the proceeding. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Jamir that the select list of 12.09.2012 having been challenged in its entirety and all the persons having not been arrayed as parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Technically, having regard to the prayer made, all the persons ought to have been made parties but the Court has to consider the essence of the challenge. Substratum of the challenge is the position of the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 in the select list. The Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for interest of justice, can mould the relief and, therefore, the impugned seniority list dated 12.09.2012 as well as other seniority lists are interfered with only with regard to the petitioners and private respondent Nos. 4 to 14. 35. This Court is of the considered opinion that direction to the NPSC to prepare a composite merit list of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 will be redundant as the marks obtained by them have become part of this judgment. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to fix the inter-se-seniority of the petitioners and the respondents on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioners and three private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 considering the result dated 29.6.2005 and 01.10.2005 to be out of one selection process in the light of the directions and observations made in this writ petition. 36. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of these above.
4 to 14 considering the result dated 29.6.2005 and 01.10.2005 to be out of one selection process in the light of the directions and observations made in this writ petition. 36. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of these above. No cost. 37. Registry will immediately transmit the records to Kohima Bench.