Supreme Court Upholds Seniority Based on Regularization Date in Nagaland Education Department: Imlikokla Longchar & Ors. vs. The State of Nagaland & Ors. (2022)

Case Background

The dispute began in 2007, involving multiple rounds of litigation. The core issue is the seniority of the appellants and respondent no. 4 (Keruupfeu, referred to as “K”) in the cadre of senior lecturer at the SCERT, Nagaland. The appellants sought seniority over K. The educational authorities of Nagaland supported the appellants.

The appellants were initially appointed as lecturers on a contract basis in 1992-1993, and were later regularized as lecturers with effect from January 15, 2001. They were then given officiating promotions as senior lecturers at different times. K was appointed as a senior lecturer on contract in March 2005, with regularization effective from January 16, 2004. The appellants were regularized as senior lecturers later, in 2007, but with retrospective effect.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The dispute led to multiple rounds of litigation. Initially, K’s objections to the draft seniority list were rejected, and a final list was published on November 17, 2006, placing the appellants above K. K filed two writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court (W.P (C) No. 169 (K) of 2016 and W.P (C) No. 231(K) of 2015), challenging the DPC proceedings and seeking a review of the regularization of the appellants.

Earlier, K had filed writ petitions in 2007, which were dismissed. In a subsequent writ petition (W.P (C) No. 126(K) of 2014), the High Court remanded the matter to the DPC, holding that the DPC’s recommendation did not consider the Nagaland State Council on Educational Training Service Rules, 2003 (“2003 Rules”). The DPC then reaffirmed their earlier decision, leading to the writ petitions in 2015 and 2016.

The High Court, in a common judgment on September 14, 2012, had quashed the DPC’s recommendations, stating that the DPC did not consider the 2003 Rules, which came into effect on April 30, 2007. The High Court directed the DPC to reconvene and make fresh recommendations for regularization of the appellants as Senior Lecturers in strict observance of the rules.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, holding that the DPC cannot overrule the High Court’s previous pronouncements and must adhere to the 2003 Rules.

Legal Framework

The Nagaland State Council on Educational Training Service Rules, 2003, were made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and became operative from April 30, 2007. Rule 3 of these Rules defines the constitution of the service, including:

• Persons holding substantive posts as specified in Schedule-I at the commencement of these rules.
• Persons recruited to this service before the commencement of these rules.
• Persons recruited to this service in accordance with the provisions of these rules.

Schedule II of the 2003 Rules specifies the requirements for various posts. For the post of Senior Lecturer, it stipulates that 75% of the posts are to be filled by departmental promotion from serving candidates with 5 years of continuous service in the grade of Research Associate/Assistant Planning Officer/Assistant Project Officer/Lecturers in DIETs, and 25% by direct recruitment through NPSC.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their seniority should be counted from the date of their officiating promotions as senior lecturers, which was prior to K’s regularisation.
• They relied on Clause 4.2 of the Memorandum issued in March 2005, which stated that regular lecturers with officiating promotions to senior lecturer posts would be senior to contract appointees and deputationists.
  “4(2). There are some regular lecturers who were given
  officiating promotions to the posts of Sr. Lecturers subject
  to regularization by the DPC. This group of officers would
  be   senior   to   those   of   contract   appointees   and
  deputationists.”
• They contended that the DPC’s consistent view since 2007 was that seniority should be computed based on the period they were officiating as senior lecturers.
• They argued that the 2003 Rules were not in force when they were promoted, and thus their promotions should be considered valid.

Respondent (K)’s Arguments:

• K argued that the appellants could not be senior to her because their entry into the cadre of senior lecturer was subsequent to her entry into the said cadre.
• She contended that the appellants’ ad-hoc period in the feeder cadre could not be counted for eligibility for promotion.
• She argued that the 2003 Rules require five years of continuous service in the feeder grade for promotion to senior lecturer, and the appellants did not meet this requirement.
• She pointed out that the High Court had already held that the DPC had not considered the 2003 Rules in their earlier recommendations.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellants’ position, arguing that the officiating period should be considered for seniority.
• The State also relied on Clause 4.2 of the Memorandum.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the seniority of the appellants should be determined based on their officiating promotions as senior lecturers or on their regularisation in the post.
2. Whether the 2003 Rules were correctly applied in determining seniority in the cadre of Senior Lecturer.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Union Public Service Commission vs. L.P. Tiwari and Others [(2006) 12 SCC 317] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to support the principle of limited judicial review of DPC recommendations.
• Union of India & Another vs. S.K. Goel and Others [(2007) 14 SCC 641] – Supreme Court of India. This case was also cited to support the principle of limited judicial review of DPC recommendations.
• Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others [(2000) 8 SCC 395] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to establish that judicial intervention is inevitable in exceptional cases.
• Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Others [(1990) 2 SCC 715] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to support the principle that time spent on a stop-gap or ad-hoc basis should not be counted for determining the length of service.
• Swapan Kumar Pal and Others vs. Samitabhar Chakraborty and Others [(2001) 5 SCC 581] – Supreme Court of India. This case was also cited to support the principle that time spent on a stop-gap or ad-hoc basis should not be counted for determining the length of service.
• State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi [(2009) 12 SCC 49] – Supreme Court of India. This case was also cited to support the principle that time spent on a stop-gap or ad-hoc basis should not be counted for determining the length of service.
• Amarjeet Singh and Others vs. Devi Ratan and Others [(2010) 1 SCC 417] – Supreme Court of India. This case was also cited to support the principle that time spent on a stop-gap or ad-hoc basis should not be counted for determining the length of service.
• Malook Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 876] – Supreme Court of India. This case was also cited to support the principle that time spent on a stop-gap or ad-hoc basis should not be counted for determining the length of service.
• Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2019) 6 SCC 647] – Supreme Court of India. This case was distinguished by the court, stating that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India – This article empowers the legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• Rule 3 of the Nagaland State Council on Educational Training Service Rules, 2003 – This rule defines the constitution of the service.
• Schedule II of the Nagaland State Council on Educational Training Service Rules, 2003 – This schedule specifies the requirements for various posts, including the post of Senior Lecturer.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the general principle of service jurisprudence is that time spent in a superior grade on a stop-gap or ad-hoc basis should not be computed for determining the length of service in that cadre, unless the applicable rules provide otherwise. The Court found that no such provision was shown in this case. The Court emphasized that computation of the appellants’ period of service in the feeder grade could only be from the date of their regular appointment in that cadre.

The Court also held that the 2003 Rules, which came into effect on April 30, 2007, could not be overridden by a clause in the Memorandum issued in March 2005. The 2003 Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, supersede any contrary provisions in earlier legal instruments. The Court found that the appellants did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of five years of continuous service in the feeder post. The Court stated, “Birth in the cadre takes place only upon regularisation in a grade and there is no provision in the 2003 Rules which prescribes encadering a person in the post of senior lecturer during the period such person officiates in the said post.”

The Court also stated, “At the time the appellants were regularised with retrospective effect, the 2003 Rules had come into existence. Thus, the requirement of the Schedule to the said Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India could not be overridden by a clause contained in the Memorandum promoting K.”

The Court further stated, “The general principle of service jurisprudence is that the time spent in the immediate superior grade on stop-gap or ad-hoc basis ought not to be computed for determining the length of service of an incumbent in that cadre. This is of course, subject to any contrary provision made in the applicable Rules itself.”

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that seniority should be determined based on the date of regular appointment to the post, not the period of officiating service. The Court found that the appellants did not meet the eligibility criteria of five years of continuous service in the feeder post as required by the 2003 Rules.

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 the importance of strictly adhering to the service rules, particularly the 2003 Rules, which were in effect at the time of the appellants’ regularization. The court noted that these rules could not be overridden by earlier memorandums or practices.
• Regularization as the Basis of Seniority: The Court reiterated the principle that seniority in a cadre is determined by the date of regular appointment, not by the period of officiating or ad-hoc service. This principle is a cornerstone of service jurisprudence and was consistently applied throughout the judgment.
• Eligibility Criteria: The Court highlighted that the appellants did not meet the eligibility criteria for promotion to senior lecturer, specifically the requirement of five years of continuous service in the feeder grade. This was a critical factor in the Court’s decision to uphold the High Court’s judgment.
• Rejection of Retrospective Regularization: While the appellants were regularized with retrospective effect, the Court did not allow this to override the eligibility criteria or the seniority of those already in the cadre. The Court clarified that retrospective regularization cannot be used to circumvent the rules.
• Consistency with Precedents: The Court relied on several precedents that supported the principle of not counting ad-hoc service for seniority. This demonstrated a commitment to consistent application of legal principles.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Seniority is Determined by Regularization: This judgment reaffirms that seniority in a particular cadre is primarily determined by the date of regular appointment to that post, not by the period of officiating or ad-hoc service.
• Strict Adherence to Service Rules: The judgment underscores the importance of strictly adhering to service rules and regulations. Any deviations or interpretations that contradict the rules will not be upheld by the courts.
• Eligibility Criteria Must be Met: The judgment emphasizes that eligibility criteria for promotion must be strictly met. Retrospective regularizations cannot be used to circumvent these criteria.
• Implications for Future Cases: This judgment provides a clear precedent for similar cases involving seniority disputes. It clarifies that officiating service cannot be counted for seniority unless explicitly provided in the applicable rules.
• Importance of Regularization: The judgment highlights the importance of regularizing appointments in a timely manner. Regularization not only secures an employee’s position but also establishes a clear basis for determining seniority.