N.SURJAMANI SINGH, J. - (1.)In this writ petition, the petitioner namely, Shri Y. Chaoba Singh made a prayer for setting aside or quashing the whole proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 19.4.97 in connection with the recommendation and appointment by promotion to the post of Block Development Officer (Junior) on the Director of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Manipur, coupled with a nrayer for setting aside the promotion order dated 2.9.96 as in Annexure A/5 to the writ petition, by contending inter-alia that, the writ petitioner was initially appointed in the post of Progress Assistant on regular basis on 27.12.68 in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj and he had already rendered 28 years of service without any stigma and he also procured a very good service record, but, a junior Project Assistant namely Shri N. Sharatchandra Singh, the respondent No.3 had been given ad-hoc promotion/appointment to the post of Block Development Officer (Junior) Kakching C. D. Block Langmeidong by superseding the writ petitioner vide order dated 2.9.% as in Annexure - A/5 to the writ petition.
(2.)According to the writ petitioner, in the related combined final seniority list as in Annexure A/3, the name of the petitioner is shown as against serial No. 5 whereas , the name of respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 are shown as against serial No. 6, 7 and 8 respectively and, as such, the 'writ petitioner is senior to all those private respondents but the competent authority without considering the seniority position of the writ petitioner prepared another unpublished seniority list as in Annexwe A/4 to the writ petition showing the name of the writ petitioner below the names of the respondent Nos. 3 and 5, which is prepared and used by the present respondent No.2 namely the Secretary /Commissioner, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Manipur, with some extraneous reasons in collusion with the private respondents in order to accommodate: the junior incumbents to the exclusion of a senior person like the writ petitioner. It is also the case of the writ petitioner, that the competent authority had recommended the names of the private respondents for appointment to the post of Block Development Officer (Junior) and, accordingly, they have been given appointment in the said posts vide order dated 2.5.97 (Annexure-A/7 (a)) and order dated 4.6.97 as in Annexure A/7. It is also urged, that at the time when the respondent No. 3 was given ad-hoc promotion by virtue of the order dated 2.9.96 as om AnnexureA/5 to the writ petition, the writ petitioner raised objection and also made representation with the competent authority for review of the said order of 2.9.96. as seen in the document marked as Annexure A/6 to the writ petition out, the competent authority paid no heed too. Having no alternative, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition for an appropriate order and direction from end of this court.
(3.)The case of the writ petitioner is contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit and contending interalia that, the said inter-se seniority list as in Annexure A/4 has been prepared on the basis of the date from which the incumbents/ officials holding the feeder posts became eligible for consideration for promotion to EDO (Jr.) and this was done by taking into account the date of their regular appointments and the length of qualifying service as prescribed by the related Recruitment Rules as in Annexure A/2 to the writ petition. It is also asserted that the post of BDO (Jr.) is a selection post and as such, all the persons falling in the zone of consideration whose cases were duly considered by the DPC concerned on the basis of merit and service records including seniority positions and, that the said inter-se seniority list was prepared for the use by the DPC concerned and it was confidential, hence, it cannot be expected to be widely published like other documents. The concerned DPC duly considered the case of the eligible candidates who are in the feeder list for promotion to the post of BDO (Jr.) and me DPC recommended the case of the duly selected, candidates for appointment to the post of BDO. The respondent No.4, being a Scheduled Tribe has been recommended against the Reserved (ST) quota as the appointment of respondent No. 4 falls on the reserved seats of scheduled Tribe according to the 100 point Roster. It is also the case of the State-respondents, that the respondent No.3 was not given ad-hoc promotion in the post of BDO (Jr.) at any point of time but he was simply allowed to look after the charge of BDO to meet the administrative requirements and exigencies of services and, such arrangement does not confer any automatic right of promotion to the respondent No.3 to the said post of BDO (Jr.).