Supreme Court Overrules N.R. Parmar on Seniority: Direct Recruits vs. Promotees in Manipur Police Service (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 19 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1234
Judges: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. The judgment was authored by Hrishikesh Roy, J.

When does seniority begin for government employees – from the date of vacancy or the date of appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this complex issue in a dispute between direct recruits and promotees in the Manipur Police Service. The core question was whether seniority should be determined by the date of appointment or the date when the vacancy arose. This judgment clarifies the principles governing seniority disputes in service law, particularly concerning direct recruits and promotees.

Case Background

The case involves a seniority dispute within the Manipur Police Service (MPS) Grade II cadre. The dispute is between officers who were directly recruited and those who were promoted to the MPS Grade II cadre. The promotees were serving as Inspectors of Police before their promotion on March 1, 2007. The direct recruits were appointed later, on August 14, 2007, and November 24, 2007.

The core of the dispute is that the promotees claimed seniority based on their earlier entry into the MPS Grade II cadre, while the direct recruits argued that their seniority should relate back to the year when the vacancies occurred, not the actual date of appointment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The promotees initially challenged the seniority list of May 17, 2013, through Writ Petition (C) No. 366 of 2013 in the High Court of Manipur. They later amended their petition to include challenges to subsequent government orders of January 20, 2014, and February 19, 2014, which placed direct recruits above them. The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the promotees, stating that seniority should be based on the date of regular appointment, not the date of vacancy. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, emphasizing that seniority for direct recruits could not be reckoned from a date prior to their appointment.

The direct recruits then filed a review petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Their application for restoration was also rejected. Aggrieved, the direct recruits appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, govern appointments and seniority in the Manipur Police Service. Key provisions include:

• Rule 28(i): “In the case of persons appointed on the result of competitive examination or by selection under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, seniority in the Service shall be determined by the Order in which appointments are made to the service.” This rule specifies that seniority is determined by the order in which appointments are made.
• Rule 28(iii): “The relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees as determined under Rule 5 for that year and the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed enbloc below the last promotees (or direct recruits as the case may be). The seniority of the officer so appointed under sub-rule (3) of the Rule 16, shall be counted from the date, he/she is appointed to the Service.” This rule addresses the seniority of direct recruits and promotees, stating that seniority is counted from the date of appointment.
• Rule 16(iii): “In the case of a person who had been appointed to a post which is subsequently declared as duty post he shall be deemed to have been appointed to the Service from the date of encadrement of the post in the MPS Schedule.” This rule deals with the deemed appointment date when a post is declared as a duty post.

Arguments

Arguments of the Direct Recruits:

• The direct recruits argued that their seniority should be reckoned from the date when vacancies occurred, not their actual date of appointment. They contended that the delay in finalizing their appointments should not deprive them of their due seniority.
• They cited Union of India and others Vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340, to argue that seniority should relate back to the year of the vacancy. They argued that the initiation of the recruitment process in the year of the vacancy should be sufficient to assign seniority from that year.
• They also referred to the 1989 Amendment of the MPS Rules, which clarified that the recruitment year is a “calendar year,” not a “financial year.”
• They argued that the principle of rotation of vacancies should be applied, and the promotees should not be placed en-bloc above the direct recruits.

Arguments of the Promotees:

• The promotees argued that the MPS Rules, 1965, clearly state that seniority is determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service. They emphasized that seniority should be counted from the date of appointment to the service.
• They contended that the judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra) does not lay down the correct law in determining seniority and that it is not applicable to the present case since the MPS Rules were not considered in that judgment.
• They argued that the reference to Office Memorandums is unnecessary because the MPS Rules clearly specify that the date of entry into service should be the basis for reckoning seniority.
• They highlighted the incongruity of a person who entered service later claiming seniority over those who joined earlier.

Arguments of the State of Manipur:

• The State acknowledged the inconsistent views between the Single Judge and the Division Bench regarding the interpretation of “recruitment year.”
• The State submitted that the applicable Service Rules should be the basis for determining seniority, rather than resorting to an interpretive exercise.
• The State referred to the 2009 Amendment of the MPS Rules, which defines the recruitment year as the “calendar year.”

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the seniority of direct recruits in the MPS Grade-II Cadre should be reckoned from the date when vacancies occurred or from the date of their actual appointment.
2. Whether the judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra) correctly interprets the principles of seniority determination.
3. Whether the term “recruitment year” means the financial year or the calendar year.
4. Whether the principle of dovetailing can be applied while determining the inter-se seniority between the appellants and the private respondents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Rule 28(i) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965: Seniority is determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service.
• Rule 28(iii) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965: Seniority of an officer is counted from the date of appointment to the service.
• Rule 16(iii) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965: A person is deemed to have been appointed to the service from the date of encadrement of the post.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court approved and followed the ratio in Jagdish Chandra Patnaik vs. State of Orissa, [(1998) 4 SCC 456], holding that a person cannot claim seniority from a date when they were not yet in service.
• The Supreme Court approved and followed the ratio in Nani Sha & Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., [(2007) 15 SCC 406], holding that seniority is reckoned from the date of appointment, not the date of vacancy.
• The Supreme Court approved and followed the ratio in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Anr, [(2014) 14 SCC 720], holding that seniority cannot be given retrospectively unless expressly provided by service rules.
• The Supreme Court approved and followed the ratio in Pawan Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. Reevan Singh & Ors., [(2011) 3 SCC 267], holding that seniority should not be reckoned retrospectively unless it is expressly provided by the relevant service rules.
• The Supreme Court overruled the decision in Union of India and others Vs. N.R. Parmar, [(2012) 13 SCC 340], stating that it incorrectly interpreted the principles of seniority determination.
• The Supreme Court referred to the ratio in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, [(1991) 3 SCC 475], to emphasize that a person does not have any service related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement.
• The Supreme Court referred to the ratio in Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors., [(2000) 7 SCC 561], to hold that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the ratio in All India Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., [(2002) 4 SCC 247], holding that the judgment does not propose to say that seniority by roster points be fixed, ignoring the date, when the person is recruited.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Adherence to Service Rules: The Court emphasized that the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, clearly specify that seniority is determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service. This was a crucial factor in the Court’s reasoning.
• Rejection of Retrospective Seniority: The Court reiterated that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when a person was not yet in service. The principle that seniority cannot be granted retrospectively unless expressly provided by service rules was a key consideration.
• Overruling of N.R. Parmar: The Court explicitly overruled the judgment in N.R. Parmar, finding that it incorrectly interpreted the principles of seniority determination and was not applicable to the MPS Rules.
• Consistency with Precedents: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to long-standing principles of service jurisprudence, as established in cases like J.C. Patnaik and Ashok Kumar Srivastava.
• Practical Considerations: The Court noted the practical difficulties and incongruities that could arise if seniority were to be determined from the date of vacancy rather than the date of appointment.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Ratio of Fact:Law

The court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations and the interpretation of service rules, with a smaller emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the seniority of direct recruits in the Manipur Police Service (MPS) Grade II cadre should be reckoned from the date of their actual appointment, not from the date when the vacancies occurred. The Court emphasized that the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, clearly specify that seniority is determined by the order in which appointments are made to the service. The Court found that the judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra) was not applicable to the MPS Rules and that it incorrectly interpreted the principles of seniority determination. The Court also emphasized that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when a person was not yet in service. The Court overruled the decision in N.R. Parmar, but clarified that this decision will not affect the inter-se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar, and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the MPS Rules and the long-standing principles of service jurisprudence. The Court noted that the MPS Rules do not provide for seniority to be counted from the date of vacancy. The Court also highlighted the practical difficulties that could arise if seniority were to be determined from the date of vacancy rather than the date of appointment. The Court observed that “a person is disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne in service.”

The Court observed that “the seniority for them will be reckoned only from the date of appointment and not from the stage when requisition for appointment was given.” The Court also noted that “the term ‘Recruitment Year’ does not and cannot mean the year in which, the recruitment process is initiated or the year in which vacancy arises.”

The Court also addressed the issue of the government order dated June 29, 2019, which was produced in the contempt case. The Court held that this order was not in compliance with the High Court’s directions and that it ignored the High Court’s decision. The Court declared that this seniority list was invalid.

The Court upheld the orders of the High Court in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal. The State of Manipur was directed to prepare a revised inter-se seniority list in the MPS Grade-II cadre within 8 weeks, in light of the Court’s discussion and the High Court’s orders. All consequential actions will follow from this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Seniority from Date of Appointment: The judgment clarifies that seniority in the Manipur Police Service (and similar services) should be reckoned from the date of actual appointment, not the date of vacancy or the initiation of the recruitment process.
• Overruling of N.R. Parmar: The Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in N.R. Parmar, which had suggested that seniority could be linked to the year of vacancy. This decision sets a new precedent for seniority disputes.
• Adherence to Service Rules: The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific service rules of the organization when determining seniority.
• Prospective Application: The overruling of N.R. Parmar will apply prospectively, except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment will have a significant impact on future seniority disputes, especially in cases involving direct recruits and promotees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Manipur to prepare a revised inter-se seniority list in the MPS Grade-II cadre within 8 weeks, in light of the Court’s discussion and the High Court’s orders. All consequential actions will follow from this judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that seniority in service should be determined by the date of appointment to the service, as specified in the relevant service rules, and not by the date of vacancy or the initiation of the recruitment process. The Supreme Court explicitly overruled the decision in N.R. Parmar, which had previously suggested that seniority could be linked to the year of vacancy. This decision reinforces the principle that seniority cannot be claimed retrospectively from a date when a person was not yet in service.

Change in Legal Position: The judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh represents a significant shift in the legal position regarding seniority disputes. The overruling of N.R. Parmar has clarified that seniority should be determined based on the date of appointment, aligning with long-standing principles of service jurisprudence and the specific rules of the organization. This decision has brought about a change in the legal position as it has overruled the earlier judgment in N.R. Parmar. This will have a significant impact on future seniority disputes, especially in cases involving direct recruits and promotees.