KH. NOBIN SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent No. 3 and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing for the Chief Engineer.
(2.) THE instant application has been filed by the respondent No. 3 praying for modifying/vacating/discontinuing the interim order dated 04.01.2016 passed by this Court in M.C.(W.P.(C)) No. 1 of 2016 on the inter -alia ground that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, vide its order dated 2.6.2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 545 of 2009, has observed the following: "(3) ........ It is not dispute that the rule regulating the service conditions of Section Officer Grade I and administrative instructions issued by the Government in this regard, do not recognize bifurcation or trifurcation of the cadre of S.O Grade I as (i) appointees by a direct recruitment on the recommendation of a Selection Committee/DPC, (ii) appointees by regularization to the post of S.O. Grade I on the basis of Selection Committee, and (iii) appointees by absorption to the post as direct recruits. Once a person has been appointed under any of the methodologies mentioned above, he is to be treated as an officer born to the cadre of Section Officer Grade I from the date on which he is appointed/absorbed or regularized. (6) On consideration of the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties and the documents available on record, this court is of the opinion that the communication dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure A/16) which seeks to lay down certain conditions for determination of seniority of S.O. Grade I, is an obstacle in the finalization of seniority list of S.O. Grade I and as such, the communication dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure A/16) is hereby interfered with. (7) In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to finalize the tentative seniority list dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure A/16), after disposing of objection/representation filed by the concerned incumbents, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that while determining the final seniority list of S.O. Grade I, the authority shall be guided by the administrative orders issued in this regard by the Department of Personnel and law laid down by this court as well as by the Apex Court." It is submitted by Shri H.S.Paonam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant that the communication dated 31.08.2009 publishing the Final Seniority List of Section Officer Grade -I had already been interfered with by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench vide its order dated 02.06.2010 which had attained finality since the same had not been challenged by any one as well as the State Government.
(3.) THE instant application is contested by the petitioner by filing an affidavit -in -opposition contending inter -alia that the application is not maintainable; that the State Government has taken a policy decision, as recorded in the Note No. 74 ante in Govt. File bearing No. 3/3/2007 -IFC to the effect that there is no provision for inclusion of work -charged employees converted into regular establishment in the seniority list, which has been disclosed by way of filing an affidavit -in -opposition in W.P. (C) No. 1 of 2012; that it is not clear as to whether the said policy decision of the State Government was placed before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench for consideration by the State Government at the time of hearing the W.P. (C) No. 545 of 2009 or not and that the applicant and the private respondents in the writ petition have no right to include their names in the seniority list of the Section Officer Grade -I. In the writ petition, the legality and correctness of the combined Seniority List published vide Office Order dated 25.11.2015 is challenged on the inter -alia ground that the private respondents including the applicant who were converted into regular establishment, have no right to include their names in the Seniority list. On 11.12.2015 when the above writ petition was listed for motion, this court was pleased to issue notice and direct that interim prayer would be considered after the service was completed. With the apprehension that the DPC was to be held on the basis of the said impugned Seniority List, M.C.(W.P.(C)) No. 1 of 2016 came to be mentioned before the Vacation Bench on 04.01.2016 with the prayer that the same be taken up for consideration as unlisted item and since the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents could not get instructions for want of time, the application was directed to be listed on 11.01.2016, i.e., on the reopening of the court. In the meantime, the State respondents were restrained from holding DPC for promotion only in respect of the Assistant Engineer (Mech.) in the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control. On 11.1.2016 when the above writ petition was listed again for consideration, the same was adjourned to 15.01.2016 on the request of the learned Government Advocate and the interim order passed on 04.01.2016 was directed to be continued.;