Jharkhand High Court
The Director General vs Prawesh Kumar on 24 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:8639-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1118 of 2026
1. The Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg, P.O. New Delhi, P.S. New Delhi, Dist.
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Regional Office, P.O., P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834010.
3. The Assistant Director, ESI Corporation, Regional Office,
Administration Branch, P.O., P.S. Namkum, District -Ranchi, Jharkhand
834010.
All represented by Ajeet Neelam Bhengra, S/o. Alber Bhengra, aged
about 44 years, R/o. Torpa, Siramtoli, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, Dist. Ranchi
presently working as Assistant Director (Legal), in Regional Office,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum,
Dist. Ranchi.
........... Petitioners
Versus
1. Prawesh Kumar, son of Sri Ramdeo Prasad Singh, aged about 38
years, permanent resident of Village Parsurai, P.O. Panhar, P.S. Islampur,
District Nalanda. Bihar 801303, currently posted and working as UDC at
ESIC, Model Hospital, P.O., P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi-834010.
2. Tarun Kumar, son of Sri Nand Kishore Prasad, aged about 32 years,
permanent resident of Mohalla Shiv Nagar, P.O. P.S. Hilsa, District
Nalanda, Bihar-801302, currently posted and working as UDC at ESIC,
Model Hospital, P.O., P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi-834010.
3. Anand Kishore, son of Sri Shambhu Prasad, aged about 34 years
Village- Mohanpur, P.O. Nalanda, District Nalanda, Bihar-803111
currently posted and working as UDC at Regional Office, Panchdeep
Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi-834010.
4. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, s/o Late Suresh Prasad, aged about 34 years,
permanent resident of Village Kalyanpur, P.O. Suhabanpur, P.S-Islampur,
District-Nalanda, Bihar- 803116 currently posted and working as UDC at
Branch office, ESIC, City Centre, P.O., P.S. Sector 4, Dist. Bokaro,
Jharkhand-827001.
....... Respondents
5. Union of India, through its Secretary, to the Government of India,
Ministry of Department Labor and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, P.O. New Delhi, P.S. New Delhi, Dist. New Delhi-110001.
6. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension
Department of Personnel & Training Govt. of India, North Block, P.O.
New Delhi, P.S. New Delhi, Dist. New Delhi 110001.
7. Miss. Medha Kumari d/o Shri Apsar Nath Mishra Presently posted and
working as UDC at ESIC, Regional Office, P.O., P.S. Namkum, District
Ranchi-834010.
8. Shri Roby Kumar, Son of Shri Mannu Singh Presently posted and
working as UDC at ESIC, Regional Office, P.O., P.S. Namkum, District
Ranchi-834010.
1
2026:JHHC:8639-DB
9. Mrs. Saba Tarannum, Daughter of Md. Shaukat Ali Presently posted
and working as UDC at ESIC, Branch Office, Durga Mandir Road, Near
Town Hall, P.O., P.S. Hirapur, District Dhanbad-826001.
10.Shri Surendra Kumar, Son of Shri Gouri Shankar Yadav Presently
posted and working as UDC at ESIC, Branch Office, Mahanand Vatika,
Upper Bilasi Town, Near Amantran Vatika, P.O., P.S. District Deoghar-
814113.
11.Shri Deepak Kumar Rajak, Son of Shri Ram Bilash Rajak Presently
posted and working as Assistant at ESIC, Regional Office, P.O., P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi-834010.
12.Shri Kumar Varun Raj, Son of Shri Ram Pratap Singh Presently
posted and working as UDC at ESIC, Regional Office, P.O., P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi 834010.
13.Shri Vishnu Deo Das, Son of Shri Vijay Das Presently posted and
working as Assistant at ESIC, Hospital Adityapur, Jamshedpur, P.O., P.S.
Adityapur, Dist. East Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 831013.
14.Shri Ashok Kumar Barwa, Son of Shri Mukund Oraon, presently
posted and working as UDC at ESIC, Regional Office, P.O., P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi-834010.
15.Shri Deepen Mickey Dungdung, Son of Late Isidore Dungdung.
Presently posted and working as UDC at ESIC Model Hospital, P.O., P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi-834010.
16.Shri David Oliver Dungdung, Son of Late Isidore Dungdung,
Presently posted and working as UDC at ESIC Regional Office, P.O., P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi 834010.
17.Shri Ravi Ranjan Pandey, Son of Shri Nawal Kishore Pandey.
Presently posted and working as UDC at ESIC Hospital, P.O., P.S.
Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831013
................ Proforma Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 1 : In Person
For the Resp. Nos. 5 & 6: Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate
---------
Order No. 07/Dated:24th March, 2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed in O.A No.051/00317/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna 2 2026:JHHC:8639-DB Bench [Circuit Bench at Ranchi] (in short, the learned Tribunal) whereby and whereunder while allowing the O.A No.051/00317/2021 a direction has been passed upon the respondents (petitioners herein) to prepare a fresh final seniority list in respect to the Upper Division Clerk in Jharkhand region for the recruitment year(s) in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. V. Ningam Siro and Ors." reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689 and order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur in O.A No.291/194/2020 which attains its finality after dismissal of W.P No.351 of 2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and further the S.L.P filed against the said order being being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s). 25050 of 2022 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which has been incorporated from the O.A being O.A No. OA/051/00317/2021 filed before the learned Tribunal by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein reads as under:
(i) The applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, have joined their service in the month of December 2009 as LDC in ESIC Corporation at Rajasthan and after merger of LDC and UDC, applicants were upgraded to the post of UDC in December 2011 whereas applicant of OA 348/2021 initially appointed as UDC in Maharashtra Region and transferred to Jharkhand Region on 30.06.2017 and posted at Ranchi.
(ii) As per IRT Policy dated 05.03.2013 contained in Annexure A/1, 3 2026:JHHC:8639-DB applicants were transferred to Jharkhand Region in the year 2016 and 2017. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 (petitioner herein) on 13.12.2019 published Regional Seniority list of UDC as on 31.03.2016 in which name of the applicants figured as 49, 47, 50 and 48 but again the same respondent published another seniority list on 16.12.2019 as on 31.03.2016 in which, name of the applicants was not figured. Again, revised seniority list published on 14.09.2020 as on 31.03.2016 but in this list also, the name of the applicant does not figure.
(iii) Applicants were raised objection but without considering the objection, again published final seniority list on 13.11.2020 in which also, name of the applicants were missing and applicants were put below the employees who are joined their service in the year 2016 and DPC were held on 29-31.08.2016.
(iv) It is further case of the applicants that the respondents vide letter dated 13.11.2020 rejected the claims of the applicants stating therein that revised seniority list were prepared as per instruction issued by DoPT Om dated 04.03.2014.
(v) It is further pleaded in the OA that Jammu Bench of the Tribunal in OA 658/2020 having exactly similar facts and circumstances held that direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been considered while preparing of the seniority list. The respondents are duty bound to obey the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8853/2019 in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra). Besides this, so 4 2026:JHHC:8639-DB many orders passed by the different Bench of the Tribunal has also been referred.
(vi) It is further pleaded that name of the applicants was not included in the final list dated 13.11.2020 and from that list one Deepak Kumar and Vishnu Deo Das have been-promoted on the post of Assistant, hence, the OA.
(vii) The respondents, who are petitioners herein have contested the case by filing written statement in OA 317/2021 and no W.S. has been filed in OA 348/2021 as prayers are same in both the OAs. In W.S., the respondents have stated that draft seniority list were published on 31.03.2016 in respect of UDCs of Jharkhand Region in which name of the applicants finds place but later Jharkhand Region in year 2016-17 and one official who joined it was detected that six officials including applicants who joined Meritorious Sports Person quota in year 2016-17 have also included. As such, revised draft seniority list was published and objections were called for from person concerned.
(viii) The respondents have further stated that after receiving objections, they are examined the same in light of DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 and again revised draft seniority list and included the name of 16 UDCs from Sl. No. 47 to 62 who were recruited against the vacancies of 2015-16 and recruitment process started in year 2015. As such, names of the applicants in draft seniority list dated 14.09.2020 were not included in view of the fact that they joined the Jharkhand Region after 31.03.2016 while the said seniority list was 5 2026:JHHC:8639-DB for the year 2015-16 ending on 31.03.2016 and conveyed to the applicants.
(ix) The respondents have further stated in their written statement that while issuing guidelines in the case of N.R. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 7514-7515 of 2005, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the OM dated 04.03.2014 therefore, contention of the applicants that respondents have not considered the judicial pronouncement is not correct since respondents have prepared the seniority list in complete consonance with the Government of India's directions pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(x) The respondents have further stated that after joining of the applicants from Rajasthan Region, their respective seniority in final seniority list dated 03.08.2021 was assigned in light of the instructions of OM dated 04.03.2014.
3. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival submission made on behalf of the parties and after going through the law as laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) has passed the order in favour of the original applicants- respondent nos.1 to 4 herein while disposing of the O.A filed by the original applicants and directed the respondent-writ petitioners herein to prepare a fresh final seniority list in respect to the Upper Division Clerk in Jharkhand region for the recruitment year(s) in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" 6
2026:JHHC:8639-DB (supra).
4. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner-respondent has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the order impugned.
5. The grievance of the applicants, respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, is that they have been inducted in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk but posted beyond the territory of State of Jharkhand. Subsequent thereto, they have made an application sometime in the year 2012 for their transfer on request. The same has been accepted in two phases, i.e., in the month of August, 2016 and September, 2017.
6. It is the grievance of the applicants that although they have joined their service under the Upper Division Clerk cadre but they have not been put in the seniority list. Hence, they have raised the grievance to recognize them of a public servant in a particular cadre of Upper Division Clerk having not redressed they have approached the learned Tribunal by filing O.A No.051/00317/2021 making therein the following prayers:
"8.1 For quashing the final seniority list dated 13.11.2020 contained in File No. 60-33/16/UDC/Estt- (Part File) issued by the Respondent No. 5, which is final seniority list of regular UDC of Jharkhand Region as on 31.03.2016 and the name of the applicants have been removed from the list without considering the Clause 5
(a) of the Inter Regional Transfer Policy (hereinafter to be referred as IRT Policy) in its true letter and spirit and rejected the claim of the applicants on wholly erroneous ground that it has been considered and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as many other co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in different States are not applicable in the instant case.
8.2 Upon quashing the aforesaid seniority list, for a direction upon the respondent no. 5 to prepare the final seniority list in respect to the Upper Division Clerks in Jharkhand Region for the recruitment 7 2026:JHHC:8639-DB year in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Others Vs. Ningam Siro & Others as well as the Clause 5 (a) of the IRT Policy.
8.3 For directions upon the respondents to consider and pass orders on the Annexure-5 (the objections through representations made by the applicants) in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Others vs. Ningam Siro & Others. 8.4 For directions upon the respondents to forthwith grant promotion along with all consequential benefits to the applicants against the vacancies of the year.
8.5 Any other relief or reliefs to which the applicants are entitled to be granted."
7. The learned Tribunal has called upon the respondents, the writ petitioners herein, who have filed written statement stating inter alia therein that they cannot be put in the seniority list prepared up to 31.03.2016. The ground has also been taken that they can also not be placed above the direct recruits who have been recruited in the month of December, 2017, since, the direct recruits who have been appointed in the month of December, 2017 have been appointed against the vacancy of the year 2015 and, as such, they will automatically be senior to these applicants.
8. The learned Tribunal has not accepted the ground taken on behalf of the writ petitioners-respondents and has come to the conclusive finding that the direct recruits who have been appointed in the month of December, 2017, i.e, subsequent to the transfer of the applicants they cannot be said to be senior to them on the principle that the public servant cannot be allowed to take advantage of seniority even though having not taken birth in the 8 2026:JHHC:8639-DB cadre.
9. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, passed an order by quashing the final seniority list dated 13.11.2020 with a direction upon the respondents to pass a fresh order in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra), which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
10. The respondent no.1 appeared in person upon issuance of notice by this Court. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 have not chosen to appear.
11. It appears from the service report that the respondent nos.1 to 4, applicants before the learned Tribunal have received their notices as per the service report as available at Flag-X.
12. This Court, therefore, has proceeded to hear the matter on merit in view of the notice having been served validly upon the respondent nos.2 to 4 herein who chosen not to appear in the present proceeding. Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
13. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing the order/judgment has not taken into consideration the fact that the direct recruits of the month of December, 2017 cannot be given go bye so far as the fixation of the seniority list is concerned, in view of the fact that they have been appointed against the vacancy of the year 2015 and automatically they will become senior basing upon the seniority from the date of availability of vacancy, i.e., the year 2015.
14. The sole ground taken by Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel 9 2026:JHHC:8639-DB appearing for the writ petitioners is that the Tribunal while passing the order, which is impugned in the present writ petition, has directed to insert the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the list prepared based upon the cut-off date of March 2016.
15. It has been submitted that respondent nos. 1 to 4 have joined their services on their own request from another territory and, as such, they are to be placed in the bottom of the seniority list having joined their services in the months of August and September 2016.
16. It has been submitted that the aforesaid fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. It has further been submitted that the original applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 cannot be inserted in the seniority list which has been prepared on the basis of the cut-off date of 31.03.2016.
Submission on behalf of the respondent no.1:
17. The respondent no.1, namely, Prawesh Kumar, who appears in person, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment reason being that the law has already been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) wherein it has been carved out that the seniority cannot be granted to an employee from the date when such employee has not been taken birth in the cadre.
The similar issue has been decided by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur in O.A No.291/194/2020 and based upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) a positive direction was passed redressing the grievance of the applicants therein, identical to the present applicants herein, and the 10 2026:JHHC:8639-DB aforesaid order attains its finality after dismissal of the writ petition being W.P No.351 of 2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench and further dismissal of S.L.P preferred against the order passed in W.P No.351 of 2021 being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s). 25050 of 2022 by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
18. It has been submitted that since the learned Tribunal has only considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, as such, detailed order passed in O.A No.291/194/2020 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur and, as such, no interference may be given to the impugned order.
19. The party-in-person has submitted straightway that they are not concerned as to whether they are to be put in the list of the year 2016 or 2017, rather their only grievance is that they are to be put in the seniority list above than the direct recruits who have been directly recruited after their joining in the territory of the State of Jharkhand. Analysis:
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal as also the pleading made as available in the writ petition.
21. The learned Tribunal has passed the order in favour of the applicants- respondents in the surrounding facts of the case that the employee cannot take benefit of seniority without taking birth in the cadre. The aforesaid ratio has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra).
11
2026:JHHC:8639-DB
22. The factual aspect of the said case needs to be referred herein in order to look into the applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) as applicable in the facts of the present case. The factual aspect has been dealt with at paragraphs- 1 to 14, for ready reference the same is being referred hereunder as:
1. Leave granted. These matters pertain to an inter se seniority dispute in the Manipur Police Service Grade II Officers Cadre (hereinafter referred to as "MPS Grade II Cadre"). The appellants before us in SLPs (C) Nos. 19565-67 of 2019 were few of the respondents in WP (C) No. 366 of 2013. They are to be described hereinafter as "direct recruits". The respondents in this SLP were the writ petitioners in the High Court who were appointed on promotion to the MPS Grade II Cadre. For clarity and ease of understanding, they are being referred to as "promotees" in this judgment.
2. Prior to their induction (on 1-3-2007) to the MPS Grade II Cadre, the promotees were serving as Inspector of Police and they were granted promotion on the basis of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). On the other hand, the private Respondents 3 to 32 and 33 in Writ Petition (C) No. 366 of 2013 were directly recruited into the MPS Grade II Cadre, vide the respective orders dated 14-8-2007 and 24-11-2007.
3. Appointment and seniority in the Manipur Police Service is governed by the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the MPS Rules, 1965"). After considering the claims and objections and in compliance with the Court's direction (18-2-
2013) in H. Balram Singh v. State of Manipur [H. Balram Singh v. State of Manipur, WP (C) No. 235 of 2012, order dated 18-2- 2013 (Mani)] , the Government of Manipur, applying the principle of dovetailing between the promotees and the direct recruit officers, issued the Order on 17-5-2013 publishing the final seniority list (as on 1-4-2013), of the MPS Grade II Officers. The promotees challenged this through Writ Petition (C) No. 366 of 2013 in the High Court of Manipur. By amending their writ petition, the promotees also 12 2026:JHHC:8639-DB challenged the subsequent Government Orders dated 20-1-2014 and 19-2-2014 where the direct recruits were placed above them.
4. Before the writ court, the promotees contended that they entered the MPS Grade II Cadre on 1-3-2007 whereas the private Respondents 3 to 33 were appointed subsequently (on 14-8-2007 and 24-11-2007 respectively) and, therefore, they should be regarded as senior to the direct recruits.
5. The direct recruits, on the other hand, claimed seniority over the promotees by contending that seniority has to be decided in accordance with the year of the vacancy and not by the fortuitous date on which, the appointment could be finalised for the direct recruits.
6. In an earlier proceeding i.e. Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012, in an inter se seniority dispute amongst the direct recruits and promotees in the MPS Grade II Cadre, the State in their counter-affidavit took the stand that seniority should be determined from the date on which the person was appointed but not from the date of vacancy. For the direct recruits appointed on 14-8-2007 against the vacancy of 2004- 2005 it was averred that their seniority should be counted from the date of appointment.
7. The learned Judge heard the parties, applied his mind to the office memorandums produced before him and by the common judgment dated 7-7-2017 [Ningam Siro v. State of Manipur, 2017 SCC OnLine Mani 83 : 2017 Lab IC 3725] quashed the impugned orders. It is seen that the Single Judge directed that the batch of promotees appointed on 1-3-2007 must be given seniority above the direct recruits appointed on 14-8-2007 and he justified this by stating that a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment and cannot claim seniority from a date when he is not borne in the service. For this conclusion, the learned Judge had relied upon, inter alia, the ratio in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 1156] . The Court also held that the expression "year" must refer to financial year and not calendar year. Support for such conclusion is based on the Office Memorandum dated 29-4-1999 which contains instructions to be followed by DPC in the matter of holding its meetings towards promotion which is one of the methods of recruitment. This Memo specifies that the recruitment year would be treated as the financial year. Besides, the Manipur Reservations of 13 2026:JHHC:8639-DB Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 which was enacted on 24-2-1977 [for short "the Manipur (SC & ST) Act, 1976"] provided that the term meant financial year. It was also seen that on 18-12-2009, the State of Manipur amended the Manipur Police Service Rules of 1965 by introducing sub-rule (2)(g) defining the word "year" to mean calendar year. This amendment had provided that it would come into force with effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Manipur thereby making it plain that the same was not intended to have any retrospective effect. The learned Single Judge relied on this to hold that prior to the date of this notification, the word "year" could not be said to be calendar year but would mean the financial year.
8. In consequence, the learned Single Judge held that the promotees get entry into the cadre in the recruitment year 2006-2007 whereas the direct recruits would stand appointed in the recruitment year 2007- 2008. There being no overlap between the promotees and direct recruits as far as the year of recruitment is concerned, applying Rule 28(iii) to dovetail the two streams using the principle of rotation of quota, would not arise. It was accordingly determined that the impugned seniority lists are bad in law and all action taken thereunder are rendered null and void. The following directions were then issued by the learned Judge in his common judgment dated 7-7- 2017 [Ningam Siro v. State of Manipur, 2017 SCC OnLine Mani 83 :
2017 Lab IC 3725] : (Ningam Siro case [Ningam Siro v. State of Manipur, 2017 SCC OnLine Mani 83 : 2017 Lab IC 3725] , SCC OnLine Mani para 23) "23. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions being WP (C) No. 366 of 2013 and WP (C) No. 120 of 2014 are allowed and consequently, the Government Orders dated 17-5-2013, 20-1-2014 and 19-2-2014, impugned herein, in respect of the petitioners and the private respondents, are quashed and set aside with the following directions:
(a) The State Government shall prepare a seniority list afresh in respect of the MPS Officers, after taking into account the observations made by this Court hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order;
(b) While preparing the seniority list of MPS Officers, the State 14 2026:JHHC:8639-DB Government shall follow the guidelines/instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 7-2-1986 which is adopted by the State Government vide its Office Memorandum dated 13-11-1987 as directed vide order dated 18-2-2013 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP (C) No. 235 of 2012. There shall be no order as to costs."
9. Aggrieved by the declaration of inter se seniority favouring the promotees, few direct recruits including Respondent 14 K. Meghachandra Singh and others filed Writ Appeal No. 49 of 2017. This appeal in the Manipur High Court was transferred to the Gauhati High Court and was renumbered as Writ Appeal No. 66 of 2018. The State Government did not, however, challenge the analogous judgment (7-7-2017) rendered in Ningam Siro v. State of Manipur [Ningam Siro v. State of Manipur, 2017 SCC OnLine Mani 83 : 2017 Lab IC 3725] .
10. The Division Bench upheld [K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 2061 : (2019) 2 Gau LR 1] the conclusion of the Single Judge but confined its justification to the principle that seniority for direct recruits could not be reckoned from a date prior to their appointment. In doing so, it approved the finding of the learned Single Judge to the same effect.
11. The Division Bench did not, however, feel it necessary to go into the question as to whether "year" means "calendar year" or "financial year". They felt that the position being very clear, there was no reason to embark upon the interpretation of the word/words "year" or "for that year", as was done by the learned Single Judge.
12. It was also made clear that the promotees will naturally have seniority over the appellants as they had entered the cadre of MPS Grade II, before the writ appellants were borne in the cadre.
13. Following the above judgment (26-9-2018) in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro [K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 2061 : (2019) 2 Gau LR 1] against the direct recruits, K. Meghachandra Singh and others filed Review Petition No. 10 of 2019. But neither on 4-4-2019 nor on 10-4-2019, the counsel for the direct recruits were present before the Gauhati High Court and accordingly the review petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, through the order dated 10-4-2019 [K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, Review Petition No. 10 of 2019, order dated 10- 15 2026:JHHC:8639-DB 4-2019 (Gau)] . IA (C) No. 1741 of 2019 was then filed by K. Meghachandra Singh for restoration of the review petition; but the restoration was held to be unmerited and accordingly the IA filed by the direct recruits was dismissed on 24-5-2019 [K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, IA (Civil) No. 1741 of 2019, order dated 24-5- 2019 (Gau)] .
14. Aggrieved by rejection of their writ appeal and the related petitions, the direct recruits have approached this Court with Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 19565-67 of 2019 to challenge the decisions of the High Court.
23. It is evident from the factual aspect that the issue for contest in that case was as to whether an employee even if not taken birth in the cadre can get the seniority merely on the basis of the availability of vacancies.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the proposition as under
paragraph-30, 39, 45 which is being referred hereunder as:
30. We may also benefit by referring to the judgment in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava [State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 536] . This judgment is significant since this is rendered after the N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] decision. Here the Court approved the ratio in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh [Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 481] , and concurred with the view that seniority should not be reckoned retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant Service Rules. The Supreme Court held that seniority cannot be given to an employee who is yet to be borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime. The law so declared in Ashok Kumar Srivastava [State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 536] being the one appealing to us, is profitably extracted as follows : (SCC p.
730, para 24) "24. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has drawn inspiration from the recent authority in Pawan Pratap 16 2026:JHHC:8639-DB Singh v. Reevan Singh [Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 481] where the Court after referring to earlier authorities in the field has culled out certain principles out of which the following being the relevant are produced below : (SCC pp. 281-82, para 45) '45. (ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
***
(iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant service rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime.' "
39. The judgment in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Manipur State Police Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] had incorrectly distinguished the long-standing seniority determination principles propounded in, inter alia, Jagdish Ch.
Patnaik [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1156] , Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K [Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, (2000) 7 SCC 561 :
2000 SCC (L&S) 977] and Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh [Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 481] . These three judgments and several others with like enunciation on the law for determination of seniority makes it abundantly clear that under service 17 2026:JHHC:8639-DB jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. In our considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in Jagdish Ch.
Patnaik [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1156] and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] . Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 :
(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] is overruled. However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] 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.
45. The above would, however, refer to an incumbent whose roster points have been fixed after their recruitment as per the prescribed quotas. The cited judgment does not propose to say that seniority by roster points be fixed, ignoring the date, when the person is recruited. The judgment obviously was not considering a situation, where seniority is being fixed even before the incumbent is borne in service. In any case, having regard to the specification made in the MPS Rules, 1965, which squarely governs the litigants here, the ratio in All India Judges' Assn. (3) [All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508] would be of no assistance, for the appellants."
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court has propounded in proposition that if no seniority can be granted to an employee if not taken birth in the cadre, rather the seniority is to be counted from the date of entering into the cadre.
26. The identical issue has been raised against the learned Tribunal of its Jaipur Bench being O.A No.291/194/2020 and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) the same was disposed of which has been upheld by the 18 2026:JHHC:8639-DB Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and S.L.P preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s). 25050 of 2022.
27. Adverting to the factual aspect in order to assess as to whether the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not.
28. Herein, the admitted fact is that the original applicants have joined their services in territory of the State of Rajasthan and on the basis of the request they have been transferred to Jharkhand territory in the month of August, 2016 and September, 2016. They resumed their duties but they have not found their place in the seniority list. The seniority list was prepared based upon the cut-off date of 31.3.2016.
29. The applicants have raised the grievance that they are entitled to be placed in the seniority list, but ignoring their cases the direct recruits who have been appointed in the month of December, 2017 have been inserted in the seniority list prepared up to 31.03.2016.
30. The grievance of the applicants has multiplied that on the one hand, they are not being allowed to enter in the seniority list being shown non- existence to the cadre while the others employees who have entered into the service by direct recruits even after joining of the applicants have been inserted in the seniority list prepared up to 31.03.2016.
31. The plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the original applicants cannot be allowed to be inducted in 19 2026:JHHC:8639-DB the seniority list, since, the same is based upon the cut-off date of 31.03.2016.
32. The justification has been given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the reason of insertion of the direct recruits although they have been appointed in the month of December, 2017 in the list prepared up to cut-off date of 31.03.2016 is that the direct recruits have been appointed against the vacancy of the year 2015.
33. This Court has posed a question that as to whether the subsequent list has been prepared or not?
34. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that no further list based upon the cut-off date of 31.03.2016 has been prepared.
35. The question is that if the original applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, if have been transferred although on their request, then are they not entitled to have the position in the seniority list for their existence in the cadre.
36. The answer of this Court is that the moment a public servant has entered into a cadre and if the seniority list is being prepared on the basis of territory wise, then he is entitled to be inserted in the seniority list for the purpose of showing as an employee of a particular cadre.
37. The very peculiar thing which has been done by the writ petitioners is that the direct recruits who have been appointed in the month of December, 2017 have been inserted in the seniority list prepared on the basis of cut-off date of 31.03.2016 merely, on the basis of the availability of 20 2026:JHHC:8639-DB vacancy.
38. Here the question of applicability of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) has got bearing wherein it has been laid down that the seniority cannot be given to an employee from the date when such employee has not taken birth in the cadre, exactly the fact of the present case is.
39. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the factual aspect as available in the present case is squarely applicable on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) wherein also the identical fact was there.
40. Further, similar issues have been decided by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur in I.A No.291/194/2020 which attains finality up to the Hon'ble Apex Court after dismissal of the S.L.P being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s). 25050 of 2022 and, hence, it was not available for the learned Tribunal to take contrary view as has been taken in the present case.
41. The fact about the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners herein.
42. The only reason has been assigned that the seniority list is being prepared year wise making the cut-off date of 31st March of the particular year, however, no such rule has been placed for its perusal.
43. It has also been admitted that the subsequent seniority list is to be prepared on the basis of the cut-off date of 31.03.2017, in which certainly 21 2026:JHHC:8639-DB the name of the original applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, is required to be inserted. But the seniority list by taking the cut-off date of 31.03.2017, since, has not been prepared and, as such, their name had not been inserted in the seniority list.
44. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has admitted the ratio as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra), has prayed for modification of the order passed by the learned Tribunal to consider by revisiting the seniority list dated 13.11.2020 prepared on the basis of the cut-off date of 31.03.2016 so as to take out the name of the direct recruits on the aforesaid list on the principle as laid down in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra), i.e., an employee cannot get the benefit of seniority even though not taken birth in the cadre.
45. It has further been submitted that the writ petitioners, since, are duty bound to prepare seniority list on the basis of the cut-off date of 31st March of each year in which the name of the original applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, is to be included on the basis of entering into the cadre of Upper Division Clerk in the territory of State of Jharkhand and if the order passed by the learned Tribunal will be modified after giving such liberty to the writ petitioners a fresh decision will be taken based upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra).
46. The party in person, the respondent no.1 herein, has not disputed the aforesaid fact, rather it has been submitted that their only grievance is that 22 2026:JHHC:8639-DB they be inserted in the seniority list to be prepared after their joining in the territory of State of Jharkhand, but they be placed above in the seniority list from the direct recruits who have entered into the cadre after joining the service in the month of December, 2017.
47. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has not disputed the aforesaid submission advanced by party in person, the respondent no.1 herein.
48. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the plea which has been taken before this Court that the seniority list is to be prepared year wise.
49. The learned Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the fact that if the seniority list is being prepared year wise as per the rule, then a direction to the effect of inserting the name of the applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 herein in the list prepared on the basis of cut-off date of 31.03.2016 cannot be said to be just and proper since the applicants have come into the territory of State of Jharkhand under the cadre of Upper Division Clerk in the month of August, 2016 and September, 2016.
50. As such, they cannot be allowed to be entered in the seniority list prepared on the basis of cut-off date of 31.03.2016 being inducted in the cadre in the territory of State of Jharkhand subsequent to 31.03.2020.
51. The concern of the original applicants-respondent nos. 1 to 4 is only that they be placed in the seniority list making them senior to direct recruits but that does not mean that they will be placed in the seniority list prepared on the basis of cut-off date of 31.03.2016.
23
2026:JHHC:8639-DB
52. This Court, considering the aforesaid submission, is of the view that the learned Tribunal although has applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra), but the aforesaid consideration is lacking in the impugned judgment/order and, as such, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Tribunal needs modification by passing the following directions:
(i) That the writ petitioner is to take appropriate steps by revisiting the seniority list dated 13.11.2020 prepared on the basis of the cut-off date of 13.03.2016 so as to make out strictly in adherence to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra).
(ii) Such revisiting is necessary due to the admitted fact that the direct recruits who have been entered in the cadre in the month of December, 2017 has been inserted in the seniority list prepared based upon the cut-off date of 31.03.2016 on the basis of vacancy of the year 2015.
(iii) The writ petitioner is directed to prepare the fresh list inserting the name of the transferee who have joined the territory of Jharkhand including the respondent no.1 herein based upon their date of joining in the cadre in the territory of Jharkhand.
(iv) The writ petitioner is further directed that while passing the fresh order for the purpose of deciding the inter se seniority in between the direct recruits and the applicants-respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 24 2026:JHHC:8639-DB the case of "K. Meghachandra Singh" (supra) is strictly to be followed.
53. Since the direct recruits are not before this Court and, as such, we are not passing any direction against them, rather relegating the matter before the writ petitioners to pass appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to them.
54. Let the entire exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
55. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
56. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) March 24, 2026 Sudhir AFR 25