Shillong, Feb 12: The Meghalaya High Court has called state government’s decision to put Meghalaya Civil Service (MCS) officers recruited in 2010 and 2012 in the same seniority list as defying ‘logic and reason’ and called the justification of the same as ‘ludicrous’. The Court ruled that the 2010 recruits to the entry level post have to be regarded as senior to the 2012 recruits, to the same entry level post, irrespective of whatever future considerations may arise in determining their cases for promotion to the next level.
“It is completely outlandish to suggest that since the candidate recruited in 2012 obtained more marks than the candidate recruited in 2010 or ranked higher in the merit list of September 7, 2010 such subsequently inducted employees would stand on the same footing as the earlier recruited employees of 2010,” observed Chief Justice of Meghalaya Sanjib Banerjee while passing his judgment in the case related to the MCS seniority list moved by 4 MCS officers here on Thursday (Feb 10, 2022).
The 4 MCS Officers appointed in the year 2010 were aggrieved by the inter-se Gradation List prepared by the Department giving the Seniority to the late comers who were appointed in the year 2012 on a ground of Rule 16 (4) of the Meghalaya Civil Service Rules, 1975.
Hearing the matter, Chief Justice Banerjee said, “There is no doubt that in view of the reservation policy, open or unreserved category candidates who fared much better than the reserved category candidates could not be appointed in the year 2010. Some of such candidates may have got the appointment in 2012. But it is completely outlandish to suggest that since the candidate recruited in 2012 obtained more marks than the candidate recruited in 2010 or ranked higher in the merit list of September 7, 2010 such subsequently inducted employees would stand on the same footing as the earlier recruited employees of 2010 or there would be any need for determining the inter-se seniority between the persons appointed in 2010 and the persons appointed in 2012. It completely defies logic and reason.”
He said the Seniority in a particular post, in a sense, indicates who had occupied that post earlier. The need for determining the inter-se seniority arises when several persons are appointed to the post simultaneously or on the same day or in course of the same exercise. Such determination may be necessary for future promotion.
“When the two sets of appointments are so distinct and different in points of time as in 2010 and 2012, there is no question of apples and orange being put in the same basket for the inter-se seniority or to completely distinct classes of persons to the attempted to be ascertained. The State Government should have known better,” he said in his judgement passed on Thursday.
At the same time, the Chief Justice came down heavily on the state government saying that “the tragedy is not in the State Government having acted foolishly, the real tragedy is that such ludicrous action is sought to be justified.”
