SHILLONG:
Days after the state government kept in abeyance the promotion of three Meghalaya Civil Services (MCS) officers after a contempt of court was filed against them by other officers questioning the promotion system, a Single Bench of the Meghalaya High Court, on February 10, held that the 2010 MCS recruits to the entry-level post have to be regarded as senior to the 2012 recruits to the same entry-level post, irrespective of whatever future considerations may arise in determining their cases for promotion to the next level.
The High Court, in its order, stated that seniority in a particular post, in a sense, indicates who had occupied that post earlier.
“The need for determining the inter-se seniority arises when several persons are appointed to the post simultaneously or on the same day or in the course of the same exercise. Such determination may be necessary for future promotion,” the High Court said.
The High Court added that the state government has acted “foolishly” in promoting the three MCS officers, and that they should have known the promotion system better.
Appearing for the Petitioners/Appellant(s), one of the advocates, AG Momin told The Meghalayan that the matter was pertaining to the inter-se accreditation list, and the petitioners were appointed in the year 2010.
In the year 2012, another batch of MCS officers were appointed, and in 2014 inter-se accreditation (for promotion) was out, wherein the 2012 batch MCS officers were given precedence of the 2010 batch and were made seniors.
Momin said that the petitioners and the respondents cleared the exam in the same year (2010), but because of the Garo-Khasi quota system, the Garo candidates were appointed earlier, and the latter were appointed in the year 2012.
“Later, when the seniority accreditation list was out in 2014, the 2012 batch was made senior to the 2010 batch on the ground of Rule 16 (4) stating that merit list will prevail,” he said.
“Aggrieved by the inter-se aggradation list, the four petitioners approached the High Court saying that they were appointed earlier, so the Chief Justice, while passing the judgement, categorically stated that since they were appointed in 2010, they should be in the promotion list,” he further added.
Momin maintained that by promoting the respondents earlier, the government had violated the court order, subsequent to which, a notice was sent to the concerned order, the order was reverted and taken for hearing in the High Court.