Mhabemo Ovung and Ors. Vs. M. Moanungba and Ors.

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 3

CITATION	2024 INSC 641
DATE OF JUDGMENT	28.08.2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Mhabemo Ovung & Ors.State of Nagaland & Ors.
RESPONDENT	M. Moanungba & Ors.
BENCH	Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Rajesh Bindal

INTRODUCTION

Judgement Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors. decided by the Supreme Court of India on August 28, 2024, depicts a remarkable disagreement regarding inter se seniority between the employees appointed via direct recruitment and those whose posts were upgraded from Sectional Officer, Grade I to Junior Engineers. The case is about whether the upgradation of posts affects seniority and what principles the authorities must apply under the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997. The appellants were Junior Engineers directly appointed via the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), while the respondents were the incumbents, first Sectional Officers and later upgraded to Junior Engineers, who were engaged in a legal tussle over their respective places on the seniority list. The dispute arose out of a final seniority list of March 2018 that gave precedence to the direct recruits over the upgraded respondents, triggering a petition for redress by the latter. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, but the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court upheld the respondents’ view. The State and the direct recruits of Nagaland, aggrieved, sought to approach the Supreme Court against the Division Bench for what they considered an incorrect interpretation of seniority principles.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Junior Engineer’s Appointment: The appellants were directly recruited on May 1, 2003, through a competitive examination held by the Nagaland Public Service Commission, under the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997. They had been appointed, according to prescribed procedures, and served in the cadre since then.

Sectional Officers-Upgraded: Petitioners worked as Sectional Officers Grade-I and were upgraded as Junior Engineers by the Government of Nagaland on October 11, 2007. Since this was an upgrade, they had previously served in lower-grade posts than direct recruits.
Dispute Regarding The Seniority List: The final seniority list, released on March 26, 2018, placed civil Junior Engineers above the upgraded Sectional Officers, according to their respective dates of joining the Junior Engineer cadre. The Sectional Officers were aggrieved by the list and, therefore, filed two writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court seeking a setting aside of the seniority arrangement.
High Court Proceedings: The writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge in favor of the seniority list, but the Division Bench, upon the appeal of the respondents, set aside the decision of the Single Judge and directed a re-examination of the seniority. The Division Bench ruled in favor of the upgraded Sectional Officers, which is what invited the direct recruits and the State of Nagaland to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the respondents (upgraded Sectional Officers) could claim seniority over the directly recruited Junior Engineers?
Whether the final seniority list dated March 26, 2018, was correctly issued based on the dates of entry into the Junior Engineer cadre?
Does upgradation of a post confer retrospective seniority upon the incumbents upgraded to a higher cadre?
What is the correct interpretation of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997, concerning inter-se seniority between direct recruits and upgraded employees?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

Direct Recruitment Process: The appellants contended that, after passing through a competitive examination held by the NPSC, they came to be appointed as Junior Engineers. Their appointment was based purely on the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules 1997, and they were in a higher post that theoretically should have a higher salary than the earlier Sectional Officers and that the latter held a non-gazetted and hence lower ranking.
Seniority Based on Entry into Cadre: It was argued that seniority should be by the date of entry into the Junior Engineer cadre. The direct recruits entered the cadre on May 1, 2003. The respondents only reached Junior Engineer status through upgradation in October 2007. Hence, the respondents cannot claim seniority over the appellants who were already in the cadre.
There Is No Retrospective Seniority Because Upgradation Does Not Render It So: The appellants submitted that the upgradation of a post shall not have the effect of conferring upon the incumbent thereof any retrospective seniority. When the direct recruits were by then already in post, the two respondents could only count their seniority as from the date of upgradation.
Erroneous High Court Judgment: The Division Bench of the High Court erred in fixing the seniority of respondents prior to their upgradation. The appellants submitted that such action was impermissible in law and ran counter to well-established principles of service law.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

Deemed promotion of Sectional Officer-Grade-I: The respondents claimed, in fact, that their offer for promotion as Sectional Officer, Grade-I, had been converted through an office order dated March 31, 2007; hence, their posts subsequently upgraded to Junior Engineers. They thus asserted that their promotion by way of deeming should be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority, putting them ahead of the direct recruits.
Challenge to the seniority list: The respondents further challenged the March 2018 list of seniority itself, asserting that their previous services as Sectional Officers duly promote them higher in seniority within the cadre of Junior Engineer.
High Court judgment support: The respondents relied on the division bench judgment, thus finding merit in their behalf for seniority based on their deemed date of promotion and quite accordingly arguing that the division bench had reasonably interpreted the relativity of rules and facts.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the direct recruits and the State of Nagaland and set aside the Division Bench’s judgment for them. The Court upheld the March 2018 seniority list, putting as more senior the directly recruited Junior Engineers over their upgraded Sectional Officer counterparts. The Court decided that seniority is determined by the date of entry into the cadre and that the respondents, whose posts had been upgraded in October 2007, could not claim seniority from a date had they not even been members of the Junior Engineer cadre. Appeals were allowed. The seniority list was restored, with no order as to costs.

ANALYSIS

It is the interpretation of the seniority rules, whether for the purposes of direct recruitment or for upgradation of posts, upon which the judgment of the Supreme Court is premised. The Court reiterates that seniority is determined according to the date of entry in the cadre. In this instance, the direct recruits entered the Junior Engineer cadre through competitive examination held in 2003, while the respondents, who were originally Sectional Officers, were upgraded to Junior Engineers only in 2007. The Court underlined that upgradation of a post does not confer retrospective seniority. The respondents were not in the cadre when the appellants were appointed; hence seniority could not be interpreted as going retroactive to the time when the respondents were working on the earlier post.

The reliance of the Division Bench on promotions and regularizations of service of the respondents as Sectional Officers was strongly criticized by the Supreme Court. The Court said these were irrelevant facts with respect to considering seniority within the Junior Engineer cadre. The 1997 Rules, under which recruitment and promotion are regulated in the Nagaland Engineering Service, provided a clear distinction between direct recruits and promoted employees. Thus, the respondents could not claim seniority over the direct recruits based on the fact they had serviced their positions earlier.

The Court further noted that the Division Bench erred in assigning seniority to the respondents from a date when they were not even part of the Junior Engineer cadre. This approach, the Court said, was legally unsupportable and contrary to the tenets of service jurisprudence, which provide that length of service in a cadre is measured from the date of appointment or promotion to that cadre. So by enforcing the March 2018 seniority list, the Court affirmed the true meaning of the seniority rules, and it allowed the appellants, who had been working as Junior Engineers since 2003, to be placed in the proper order above the respondents, who didn’t even join the cadre until 2007.

This verdict once again reiterates the settled law that upgradation does not carry with it retrospective seniority and that controversies regarding seniority have to be decided on the basis of the date of entry into the relevant cadre. This ruling will serve as a significant precedent for any future litigation involving seniority disputes between direct recruitment and upgradation.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors. clarifies a fundamental aspect of service law the determination of seniority based on the date of entry into the cadre. The Court has unequivocally ruled that upgradation of a post does not retrospectively affect the seniority of those already in the post vis a vis those directly recruited into the higher cadre. This ruling emphasizes the necessity of following the law in hiring and also makes sure that seniority conflicts are settled by measurable standards and not to the advantage of those already in that cadre but who joined later by upgrading. This case provides a comprehensive and reasoned analysis of the legal principles governing seniority and sets a significant precedent for resolving inter se seniority disputes in public employment.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Gemini Patel student of Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.