- (1.) The petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police on July 10, 1973 and was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on April 8, 1982. The contesting respondents were directly recruited as Deputy Superintendents on March 25, 1982. Their inter se seniority is regulated by Rule 25 of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986. Rule 25 reads as under : "25. Seniority - The Administrator shall prepare a list of members of the Service arranged in order of seniority as determined in the manner specified below :- (i)(a) Person recruited on the results of the competitive examination in any year shall be ranked inter se in the order of merit in which they are placed at the competitive examination on the results of which they are recruited, those recruited on the basis of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of a later examination. (b) The relative seniority inter se of persons recruited by selection shall be determined on the basis of the order in which their names are arranged in the list prepared under R. 13, those recruited on the basis of an earlier selection being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of a later selection. (ii) The seniority of members of the Service appointed at the initial constitution of the Service in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of these rules shall be determined by the Administrator in consultation with the Board. Provided that in the case of persons appointed under sub-rule (i) of the R. 15, if two or more persons belonging to the same parent service or Department are thus appointed, they shall be ranked inter se in the order of their relative seniority in the parent Service or Department as the case may be. (iii) The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under R. 5."
(2.) In the matter of fixation of the inter se seniority under R. 25(iii), the relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees has to be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under R. 5. The Division Bench has pointed out in the impugned order the position as under: "Clause (ii) of R. 25 quoted above clearly stipulated that the seniority of the service appointed at the initial constitution of the service shall be determined by the administrator in consultation with the Board. Since all the respondents have been appointed as members of the service at the initial constitution of service their seniority has to be determined by the Administrator in accordance with the said rules."
(3.) Shri P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the definition under R. 2(g) of 'Service' read with R. 5, the inter se seniority of the direct recruits and promotees is required to be determined with reference to the date when the seniority falls to be due. We find no force in the contention. The statutory rule 25(iii), as indicated above, clearly postulates that the inter seseniority of the direct recruits and the promotees has to be determined in accordance with quota and rotation. Accordingly, seniority was rightly determined as per the respective dates of appointment. Therefore, the rotation has to be considered as per the date of appointment and in accordance with the vacancy under the rules. Otherwise, the rule of rota-quota unduly gets disturbed.;