P.K.MUSAHARY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Kekriengulle, learned counsel for the petitioner. HEARD also Ms. Y. Longkumar learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate and Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Sr. Lecturer on contract basis for a period of 1 (one) year vide an order dated 30.03.1993 which was extended from time to time till her contract service was regularised by an order dated 15.06.2005 pursuant to Memoranda dated 18.02.2004 and 12.05.2004. But regularisation was made effective from 16.01.2004. By an order dated 16.11.2006, the Government decided to grant past contract service benefits to those employees regularised in accordance with the aforesaid Memoranda dated 18.02.2004 and 12.05.2004 in the ratio of 3:1. THE said benefit as denied to the petitioner. THE petitioner alleged that contract services of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Lecturers was regularized by an order dated 28.03.2001. THE respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7, who were on deputation, were absorbed by an order dated 28.03.2001, with retrospective effect from 15.01.2001. By an order dated 20.09.2002, the respondent No. 3, was given officiating promotion to the post of Sr. Lecturer with restrospective effect from 20.01.2001. By another order dated 02.09.2002, the respondent No.2, who was appointed on deputation to the post of Sr. Lecturer, was absorbed with retrospective effect from 08.04.97. THE respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were also given officiating promotions to the post of Senior Lecturer with retrospective effect from 20.01.2001. By and order dated 20.11.2003 similarly, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were given officiating promotion by an order dated 20.11.2003 with retrospective effect 14.11.2003. However, the promotion of private respondents to the post of Lecturer was made subject to regularization by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') and till date, except respondent No. 3, officiating promotion of other respondents, is yet to be regularized. THE officiating promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Sr. Lecturer stood regularized with retrospective effect from 20.01.2001 issued under notification dated 10.03.2005. A tenative Seniority list of the officers of SCERT/DIET was published on 01.08.2006, in which the petitioner was placed below the respondents in the grade of Sr. Lecturer, despite the fact that the private respondents are still on officiating promotion. Against the aforesaid tentative Seniority list, the petitioner submitted representation but without considering the grievances of the petitioner, the final select list was prepared by an O.M. dated 17.11.06 placing the petitioner below private respondents, thereby the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 were again given further officiating promotion to the post of Principal, DIET, without considering the petitioner's case, through she is Senior to the said respondent Nos. 3 and 6 in rank as Sr. Lecturer. In the aforesaid background of the case, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the following orders:- (a) Order dated 20.09.2002 granting initiating promotion to the private respondents to the post of Sr. Lecturers with retrospective effect from 20.01.2001; (b) Order dated 10.03.2005 regularizing the services of Respondent No. 3 with retrospective effect from 20.01.2001; (c) Order dated 20.11.03 giving retrospective officiating promotion to the post of Sr. Lecturer w.e.f. 20.01.2001 in respect of respeondent Nos. 6 and 7; (d) Officiating promotion order dated 22.01.07 in respect of respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to the post of Principal, DIET; (e) Final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 as on 01.07.2006 and re-adujstment in the final seniority list and for consideration of petitioner's promotion to the post of Principal, DIET and; (f) the benefits of past contract service pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2006.
(3.) AS against the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, the private respondents by filing affidavit-in oppostion, raised the following preliminary objections:- (A) The petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the promotion of private respondents inasmuch she was appointed to the post of Sr. Lecturer on 30.03.93on contract basis for a period of 1 year which was extended from time to time and regularized consequent upon a Cabinet approval on 16.05.05 and she was born as a regular employee in a department in the cadre of Sr. Lecturer only on 15.06.2005 whereas the services of the private respondents were regularized in the year 2002-2003; (B) The petitioner has made omnibus prayer in the writ petition and as such, the Court would be slow in moulding relief (s) inasmuch as, the prayer for quashing the final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 and re-adjustment of the final seniority list by granting the petitioner benefits of past contract service by applying the ratio 3:1 under Notification dated 16.11.2006 is under challenge in WP (C) No. 289(K) and the same is pending disposal and as the said notification has been revoked by subsequent notification dated 07.03.2008, no claim for benefits can be made by the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (C) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as, if the impugned order dated 10.03.05 (Annexure H/1A) by which as many as 17 officers in different posts were regularized including the respondent No.3, set aside and quashed, it would cause prejudice to them affecting their interest. The other stands taken by the private respondents are:- (i) At the time of initial appointment as Sr. Lecturer on contract basis, the petitioner did not possess B. Ed degree and 5 years teaching experience, which are the mandatory requirement for the post of Sr.Lecturer. She obtained B. Ed. degree only when she was serving as Sr. Lecturer in DIET. The initial appointment of petitioner as Sr. Lecturer was, therefore, in violation of Rules and it was through backdoor method; (ii) The cut off date of counting of years of service for consideration of regularization was fixed on 26.02.2001 but subsequently it was modified and fixed on 16.01.2004. The cut off dates namely, 26.02.2001 and 16.01.2004 had been fixed for counting the years of services of contract/ad hoc employees under 3:1 scheme and therefore, it is not correct for the petitioner to claim that she was born in the cadre from January, 2004. The notification dated 16.11.2006 granting service benefits in the ratio of 3:1 has been revoked by the Government by subsequent notification dated 07.03.08 and as such, the representation dated 15.12.06 submitted by the petitioner claiming benefits under the scheme and raising her objections to the tentative seniority list published on 17.11.06 is irrelevant and redundant. As per notification dated 07.03.08, the seniority of the petitioner should be counted from the date of regularization i.e. from 15.06.05. Moreover, the writ petition being WP (C) 289 (K)/07 challenging the scheme of granting 3:1 ratio vide notification dated 16.11.06 is still pending; (iii) The initial appointments of private respondents were made through selection process conducted by the Selection Committee constituted by the Government for selection/appointment on contract basis and their services were subsequently regularized and absorbed on the recommendation of the Selection committee we.f. 15.01.01. After being regularized as Lecturers, the private respondents were appointed as Sr. Lecturers on 20.09.02 w.e.f. 15.01.2001 and as such they have become cadre officers w.e.f. 15.01.01. After being regularized as Lecturers, the private respondents were appointed as Sr. Lecturers on 20.09.02 w.e.f 15.01.01. The respondent No. 3 was regularized on 14.11.03 and the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 on 20.01.01, whereas the petitioner was regularized w.e.f.16.01.04. It means that the private respondents became cadre officers in the post of Sr. Lecturers much before the petitioner was encadred as Sr. Lecturer. (iv) The officiating promotion of private respondents to the post of Sr. Lecturers except in case of respondent No.3, was regularized vide notification dated 08.11.07 on the basis of recommendation of the D.P.C. held on 04.10.07. The promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Sr. Lecturer was regularized by a common notifiation dated 01.03.05 w.e.f 20.01.01 on the basis of the recommendation of the D.P.C. held on 17.01.05; (v) In respect of regularization of petitioner's service in the post of Sr. Lecturer, it was made efffective from 06.01.04 by notification dated 15.06.05 allegedly on the basis of Cabinet approval dated 16.05.05 but the said Cabinet approved her regularization on 16.05.05 only and there was no recommendation by the D.P.C. Her such regularization was done on the basis of 3:1 scheme recommended by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (for short, 'P&AR'). It was not accepted/approved by the State Cabinet. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be treated as senior to the private respondents I the posts of Sr. Lecturer. ;