Page No.# 1/21 GAHC030003522019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Linked Case : WP(C)/127/2019 H. Lalramliana and 4 Others Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS State of Mizoram and 49 Others Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Anil Rinliana Malhotra Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram for R1 to R2 Page No.# 2/21 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Date of hearing : 21st, 27th& 28th November, 2024 Date of Judgment & Order : 25th March, 2025 J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (CAV) Heard Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel, Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC) for the respondent MPSC and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the private respondents except for private respondent Nos. 13, 14 & 43. None appears for respondent Nos. 13, 14 & 43 despite notice. [2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the final inter-se-seniority list of Mizoram Civil Service (MCS) Officers in the Junior Grade appointed/inducted on 15.01.2015 published vide Notification dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure-17) and also the final inter-se-seniority list of the MCS Officers in the Junior Grade as on 01.04.2018 published vide Notification dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure-20). [3.] It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent initiated the process of filling up of 5 (five) posts of Junior Grade of the MCS by way of induction and at the same time, 10 (ten) posts of Junior Grade of MCS by way of direct recruitment vide Communication dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure-3) which was addressed to the Secretary, MPSC by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Civil Service Wing, (DP & AR CSW), while the process for direct recruitment was carried on with, Page No.# 3/21 the respondent authorities vide Communication dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure-5) asked the MPSC to stall the process for filing up 5 vacant posts by induction in view of the MCS Rules being in the process of being amended. Thereafter, vide Communication dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure-6), the filling up of 5 posts of Junior Grade of the MCS by way of induction came to be withdrawn/cancelled while the 10 posts of Junior Grade of the MCS carried on to be processed. [4.] Being aggrieved with the said action, two eligible candidates to be considered for induction to the MCS Junior Grade approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 127 of 2013 with the grievance that their case for promotion to the post of Junior Grade of the MCS should be done in accordance with the provisions of the MCS Rules, 2002 and that the 2 (two) communications dated 22.03.2011 and 10.05.2011 by which the process for filling up of 5 (five) post of MCS by induction was directed to be stalled and subsequently withdrawn/cancelled respectively should be set aside. The writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2014 by setting aside with the 2 (two) impugned communications with a further direction to the respondents concerned to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the relevant provisions of the MCS Rules, 2002 within a period of 3 (three) months by following the procedure prescribed. [5.] Pursuant to the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the present 5 (five) petitioners came to be selected and inducted in the Junior Grade of the MCS vide Notification dated 15.01.2015 (Annexture-9). However, prior to their induction, the process for filling up of 10 posts of Junior Grade of MCS as was initiated vide Communication dated 09.08.2010 had already been completed by appointing 10 persons through direct recruitment vide Communication dated Page No.# 4/21 16.04.2012 (Annexture-10). The said 10 (ten) appointed persons are arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in the present writ petition. [6.] In the final inter-se-seniority list published vide Notification dated 04.09.2015, the petitioners have been interspaced with those who were recruited directly on 15.01.2015. Thereafter, two provisional inter-se-seniority lists of Junior Grade of the MCS were published vide Notifications dated 03.10.2017 and 24.04.2018 which included those appointed in the said grade w.e.f. 14.09.2001 to 16.01.2017. In the two notifications it was provided that any officer feeling aggrieved with their seniority position may submit representation within the time prescribed in this regard. Thereafter, the final inter-se-seniority list was published vide Notification dated 21.06.2018, where the petitioners were placed below those appointed on 16.04.2012 and interspaced with those appointed directly on 15.01.2015. It is the case of the petitioners that the process of filling up of the posts of Junior Grade of the MCS i.e., 10+5=15 posts by direct recruitment and by induction respectively was initiated at the same time vide Notification dated 09.08.2010 for the vacancy year 2010-2011 and therefore, they are to be interspaced with the private respondent Nos. 4 to 10. The same having not been done, they are before this Court. [7.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the process for filling up of the Junior Grade of the MCS both by way of direct recruitment and by way of induction was initiated at the same time on 09.08.2010, the petitioners although inducted later than the direct recruits, should be given their place of seniority alongside the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 who were directly appointed on 16.04.2012. He submits that both the Page No.# 5/21 petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 were appointed in terms of the MCS Rules of 2002, whereas, those who were appointed directly vide Notification dated 15.01.2015 were appointed in terms of the MCS Rules, 2012 and therefore, the petitioners cannot be interspaced with them. He therefore submits that the impugned seniority list dated 21.06.2018 should set aside and the petitioners should be placed in their rightful position by drawing a fresh inter-se-seniority list. [8.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in N.R. Parmar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 13 SCC 340, the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training has issued O.M. dated 04.03.2014 by which it has been clearly provided that the initiation of recruitment process by any of the modes namely, direct recruitment or promotion would be deemed to be the initiation of recruitment process for the other mode as well. This provision has been provided under paragraph No. 5 (f) of the said O.M. He submits that a combined reading of Paragraph No. 5 (a) to Paragraph No. 5 (i) clearly goes to show that the petitioners having been inducted as Junior Grade Officers of the MCS by a recruitment process dated 09.08.2010, which is common for both direct recruits and inductees, the petitioners should be given their seniority by interspacing them with the direct recruits who were appointed pursuant to the process initiated on 09.08.2010. However, the respondents have misinterpreted paragraph No. 5 of the O.M. dated 04.03.2014 by taking the stand that the process of recruitment through induction can only be said to be complete upon receipt of the ACRs. That the same is only a wrong interpretation and that Clause 5 (a) to 5 (i) has to be all read together. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents have deprived the Page No.# 6/21 petitioners of their rightful position by misconstruing the provision of Paragraph No. 5 of the O.M. dated 04.03.2014. [9.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that there is no delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. He submits that the inter- se-seniority list said to be finalized vide Notification dated 04.09.2015 is only in respect of the direct and inductees to the Junior Grade of the MCS on 15.01.2015. Thereafter, 2 (two) provisional inter-se-seniority list came to be published on 03.10.2017 and 24.04.2018 and against which the petitioners had submitted that their representation being aggrieved with their seniority position. However, their grievances were not addressed and a final seniority list was prepared and notified vide Notification dated 21.06.2018. He therefore submits that there is no delay on the part of the petitioners to approach the Court. [10.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that there is no dispute with regard to the quota meant for promotees and direct recruits as per the MCS Rules, 2000 and its subsequent amendment. However, for reasons best known to the respondents, appointment to the Junior Grade of the service at the relevant time was made only by way of direct recruitment and recruitment to the service by way of induction was withdrawn. It was therefore, the officers who were eligible to be considered for induction to the service who approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 127/2013 and this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 23.07.2014 directed the respondents to proceed with the process of recruitment by way of induction as was initiated vide Notification dated 09.08.2010. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court and the petitioners may be granted the relief as prayed for by them. Page No.# 7/21 [11.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) N. R. Parmar & Ors. (supra) (2) Hariharan Ors. Vs. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Ors., (2022) SCC Online SC 1717 (3) K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689 (4) M. Subba Reddy & Anr. Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2004), 6 SCC 729 (5) Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Ors. (1966), 3 SCR 600 [12.] Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents on the other hand, submits that the case of N. R. Parmar & Ors. (supra) should be read conjointly with the O.M. dated 04.03.2014. She submits that as per Clause 5(e) of the said O.M., initiation of recruitment process against a vacancy year in respect of direct recruitment and induction are not similar. In respect of direct recruitment, the initiation of recruitment process would be the date of sending of requisition for filling up of the vacancies to the Recruiting Agency whereas, in the case of promotees, the date on which a proposal, complete in all respects is sent to the UPSC/Chairman and DPC for convening the DPC to fill up the vacancies through promotion would be Page No.# 8/21 the relevant date. Therefore, in case of induction, the date of receiving the ACR would be the relevant date as it is only then that the recruitment process can be initiated. She therefore submits that there is nothing wrong in the fixation of the inter-se-seniority of the petitioners by interspacing them with those who were directly recruited on 15.01.2015. [13.] The learned Govt. Advocate further submits that the final seniority list of Junior Grade MCS was notified on 04.09.2015 but the petitioners have approached this Court only in the year 2019 and therefore, there is a delay of four (4) years in filing the writ petition. The learned Government Advocate submits that since the petitioners were only appointed by way of induction on 15.01.2015, they cannot claim to have seniority alongside those who were appointed directly on 16.04.2012 since the petitioners were not even born in the cadre. In fact, the petitioners were not even MCS Officers at the relevant time and therefore, they cannot claim to have a seniority dating back to 16.04.2012. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the Government has the right to fix the vacancy year when there is recruitment from more than one source to a particular grade or post. She thus submits that under the given facts and circumstances, the petitioners cannot have any legitimate grievance and the writ petition should be dismissed. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) N. K. Chauhan & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 308. (2) State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dinkar Sinha & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 548. Page No.# 9/21 (3) High Court of Judicator Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 15 SCC 439. (4) Judgment dated 28.08.2024 of the Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 17102/2021 (Mahabemo Ovung & Ors. Vs. M. Moanungba & Ors.) (5) Amit Singh Vs. Ravindra Nath Pandey & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine 1559. (6) P. Chitharanja Menon & Ors. Vs. Balakrishnan & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 255. (7) Vijay Kumar Kaul Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 7 SCC 610. (8) Union of India & Ors. Vs. C. Girija & Ors., (2019) 15 SCC 633. (9) A. P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. Vs. (1990) 2 SCC 669. (10) Rabindranath Bose & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1970) 1 SCC 84. [14.] Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the private respondents adopts the argument of the learned Government Advocate. He further submits Page No.# 10/21 that as per the criteria provided by the O.M. dated 04.03.2014, the initiation of recruitment process in case of promotees is the date on which a proposal, complete in all respects, is sent to the MPSC. The ACR of the petitioners was sent only on 17.10.2014 to the MPSC and it was subsequent thereto on 15.01.2015 that they were inducted as Junior Grade MCS Officers. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be interspaced with those who were appointed way back on 16.04.2012. [15.] Mr. B. Lalramenga the learned counsel further submits that there has been gross delay in filing the writ petition as well. He submits that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, settled seniority position cannot be unsettled by approaching the Court belatedly. He submits that challenge to the seniority list can be made if a writ petition is filed within 3 to 4 years from the date of issuance of the seniority list. In the instance case, the petitioners have failed to challenge the seniority list published on 04.09.2015 within such time and therefore the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. He submits that the impugned final seniority list has already been acted upon for promoting the private respondents to a next higher grade and also by promoting the petitioners as well. Therefore, it is too late in the day to unsettle the settled position and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed on account of delay and laches. [16.] Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, (2008) 14 SCC Page No.# 11/21 171. (2) State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Arbind Jee, (2021) SCC Online SC 821. (3) State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007) 1 SCC 683. (4) Union Territory of Ladakh Vs. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference & Anr., (2023) SCC Online Sc 1140. (5) Sinba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 471. (6) Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 7 SCC 610. (7) V. Vincent Velankanni Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) SCC Online SC 2642. [17.] Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the MPSC submits that in so far as the MPSC is concerned they are only a pro-forma respondent and that the selection and appointment of the parties concerned has been processed as per the relevant rules in force. [18.] Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners in response submits that the learned counsels for the respondents have made their Page No.# 12/21 submissions on delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court although no pleadings to that effect is made by them. He submits that there is otherwise no delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court since the seniority list of the Junior Grade of the MCS were not finalized until the issuance of the Notification dated 21.06.2018. He submits that at any rate, when there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the question of delay in filing the writ petition can be ignored. [19.] Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel further submits that in so far as the citations relied upon by the learned Government Advocate is concerned, there is no reference on the 3 (three) Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered in M. Subba Reddy & Anr. (supra) and the Constitution Bench decision rendered in Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. (supra). He also submits that although in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra), the earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench of Apex Court in N. R. Parmar & Ors. (supra) has been over-ruled but the same has been directed to apply prospectively. In other words, the inter-se-seniority already based on N. R. Parmar & Ors. (supra) is not to be re-opened. Further, the decision rendered in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra) was found to be not the correct law in the case of Hariharan & Ors. (supra) and therefore, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench and the outcome of the same is still awaited. Despite this, there is no impediment to consider the case of the petitioners who already have the vested right to be considered in terms of all the law laid down in N. R. Parmar & Ors. (supra). [20.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 13/21 [21.] The issue to be decided in the instant case is as to (i) whether the case is hit by the vice of delay and laches; (ii) whether the petitioners can be interspaced with the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in the seniority list of MCS Junior Grade in view of the fact that the recruitment process for MCS Junior Grade by way of induction and by way of direct recruitment were initiated at the same time on 09.08.2010 and (iii) whether the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra) will apply to the case of the petitioners. [22.] As may be noticed, the process of direct recruitment culminated with the appointment of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 including one more person who otherwise had resigned vide appointment order dated 16.04.2012. In respect of the petitioners, they came to be inducted into the Junior Grade MCS only on 15.01.2015. It may be recollected that the process for induction was withdrawn on 10.05.2011 but the same was resumed with the interference of this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 23.07.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 127/2013 filed by two persons who were hoping to be inducted into the Junior Grade of the MCS. [23.] After a direction was passed by this Court to complete the process of induction in the aforementioned writ petition, the present 5 (five) petitioners came to be selected and inducted on 15.01.2015 as Junior Grade MCS Officers. A final seniority list of MCS Junior Grade Officers was drawn and published vide Notification dated 04.09.2015. In this list, the petitioners were not interspaced with the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 but they were interspaced amongst those who were directly recruited on 15.01.2015. Thereafter, two provisional seniority lists of Junior Grade of the MCS was notified on 03.10.2017 and 24.04.2018 by inviting representation from any officer Page No.# 14/21 feeling aggrieved with the same by providing 45 days from the date of notification to submit the representation if any. Thereafter, the final seniority list was published vide Notification dated 21.06.2018 wherein, the petitioners remain to be interspaced with those directly recruited to the Junior Grade of the MCS on 15.01.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition on 17.09.2019. [24.] Arguments and counter arguments have been made by the learned counsels for the rival parties with regard to the delay in filing the instant writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court should not throw away the petition merely on the ground of laches. The case of K. Thimapa & Ors. Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India & Anr. (2001)2 SCC 259 has been cited in support of this submission. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court has accepted three to four years to be a reasonable period for challenging a seniority list and that if this period is exceeded, an explanation for the delay and laches with satisfactorily explanations will have to be given. He submits that since the petitioners have approached within the permissible limit of time, the writ petition may not be rejected on grounds of delay. Support to the submission is made from the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Arvind Rai Ors. (2022)12 SCC 579. As may be noticed, the inter-se-seniority list said to be finalized vide Notification dated 04.09.2015 is only in respect of the direct and inductees to the Junior Grade of the MCS on 15.01.2015. Thereafter, 2 (two) provisional inter-se-seniority list came to be published on 03.10.2017 and 24.04.2018 and against which, the petitioners being aggrieved with their seniority position, submitted that their representation. However, their grievances Page No.# 15/21 were not addressed and a final seniority list was prepared and notified vide Notification dated 21.06.2018 and they filed their writ petition on 17.09.2019. It cannot therefore be said that there has been inordinate delay in filing the writ petiution. As such, considering the facts, the submissions made by the parties and the authorities relied upon, this Court is not inclined to reject the writ petition on grounds of delay. [25.] Proceeding to the contention of the petitioners that they should be interspaced with the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in the inter-se-seniority list of the MCS Junior Grade, the basis for making such a claim is mainly in terms of the instructions on fixation of inter-se-seniority of direct recruits and promotees circulated vide O.M dated 04.03.2014. The O.M is based on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in N.R. Parmar & Ors. (supra). According to the Apex Court, the date of joining would not be a relevant factor for determining seniority. It would suffice if action has been initiated within the recruitment year in which the vacancies had become available. That delay in administrative action cannot deprive an individual of his due seniority. [26.] At this stage, it may be noted that the Mizoram Civil Service Rules, 2000 (MCS Rules) as amended from time to time does not provide as to how the seniority should be fixed amongst the members of the service. All that Rule 23 says is that seniority is to be fixed in accordance with orders and instructions in force before the commencement of the rules and after the commencement of the rules, in accordance with such determination of seniority regulations as may be made by the Government. O.M. dated 04.03.2014 was therefore issued in terms of the judgment rendered in N.R. Parmar & Ors. (supra). However, the said decision has subsequently being overruled in K. Page No.# 16/21 Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra) by a three (3) Judges Bench of the same Court. It was held that seniority cannot be claimed from the date when the incumbent is yet to be born in the cadre. It was also observed that the decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar & Ors. (supra) and that the decision will apply prospectively. K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra) was decided on 19.11.2019 while the instant petitioners were inducted in the Junior Grade of the MCS on 15.01.2015. The petitioners therefore will also belong to the category of employees to get the benefit of the decision in N.R. Parmer & Ors. (supra) and the O.M issued in terms of the said decision in view of the prospective application of the said decision. [27.] The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra) did not take into consideration the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. (supra) and also the decision of a Co-ordinate three (3) Judges Bench rendered in M. Subba Reddy (supra). The learned counsel submits that this was the observation made by a two (2) Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Hariharan & Ors. (supra). It may be seen that in that case, the Apex Court upon finding that the case of Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. (supra) and the case of M. Subba Reddy & Anr. (supra) were not taken into consideration while deciding the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra), recommended the matter to be referred to a larger Bench. It is submitted at the bar that the outcome of the reference is awaited. [28.] In the case of M. Subba Reddy & Anr. (supra), a three (3) Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the given facts of that case (by majority) held that Page No.# 17/21 where there is inaction on the part of the Government or employer or an imposed ban on direct recruitment in filling up the posts meant for direct recruits, it cannot be held that the quota has broken down. In the present case as well, while the process of filling up of 5 posts of Junior Grade of the MCS by way of induction came to be withdrawn and cancelled vide Communication dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure-6), the process of filling up 10 posts of Junior Grade of the MCS was carried on and ultimately, the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 were appointed on 16.04.2012 while the process of recruitment by induction was completed, though on the strength of the Court’s order by inducting the petitioners on 15.01.2015. The decision of this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 23.07.2014 has not been challenged and the same has attained finality. Therefore, the ratio in M. Subba Reddy & Anr (supra) is found to be applicable to the instant cases. [29.] The facts of the case in Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. (supra) was that the petitioners who were appraisers in the Customs Department filed a writ petition under Article 32, challenging the validity of the rotational system as applied in fixing the seniority of appraisers and Principal appraisers. The system, as laid down in the relevant departmental circulars was that vacancies occurring in the cadre of appraisers were to go alternatively to promotees and to the direct recruits. According to the petitioners this resulted in inequality, especially in view of the fact that the number of direct recruits over the years was very low. Promotion to the grade of Principal appraisers was from the cadre of appraisers; only those who had served as appraisers for five years were entitled to be promoted to the higher grade. Since the direct recruits had to wait for five years before they could become Principal appraiser, the promotees below them who had put in five years as appraisers became Principal appraisers. In order to Page No.# 18/21 restore the seniority of the direct recruits thus lost, the rotational system was applied to the cadre of Principal appraisers also i.e. one vacancy was to go to a promotee and the other to a direct recruit. [30.] The Apex Court thus held that there was no inherent vice in the principle of fixing seniority by rotation as per the circular concerned in a case where a service is composed in fixed proportion of direct recruits and promotees. Any anomalies that may have resulted on account of insufficient recruitment of direct recruits in the post could not be a ground for striking down the system itself. [31.] In the present case as well, the MCS Rules, 2002 and even in the subsequent MCS Rules, 2012, there is a fixed proportion/quota meant for direct recruits and promotees to make their entry into the Junior Grade of the MCS. The claim for interspacing between direct recruits and promotes in the seniority list is on the basis of the judgment rendered in N.R. Parmar & Ors. circulated through the O.M. dated 04.03.2014. Apparently, the case of Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. (supra) and the case of M. Subba Reddy & Anr. (supra) were not taken into account as was observed in Hariharan & Ors. (supra). Ordinarily, seniority cannot be claimed from the date when the incumbent is not yet born in the cadre but in the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that the MCS Rules, the MCS Rules of 2002 and even in the subsequent MCS Rules of 2012, provide the quota for entry into the Junior Grade of the MCS by direct recruits and promotees and the criteria for fixation of inter se seniority holding the field in so far as the present case is concerned was the O.M. dated 04.03.2014. A reading of the O.M. as a whole and the case of N.R. Parmar & Ors. (supra) in the considered view of this Court leaves no room for doubt that irrespective of Page No.# 19/21 the dissimilarity in the date(s) of appointment between direct recruits and the inductees, their inter se seniority will have to be fixed by interspacing them in terms of the quota allotted to both the source by the Rules. [32.] Although the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. (supra) has been recommended to be considered by a larger Bench in the case of Hariharan & Ors. (supra) but the outcome of the reference is not known. In this regard, it may be seen that the Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh (supra) at paragraph No. 35 held as follows:- “35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The High Courts, of Page No.# 20/21 course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.” [33.] From the above abstract it is therefore clear that till there is a decision on the reference recommended in the case of Hariharan & Ors. (supra), the decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench in M. Subba Reddy & Anr. (supra) on the same issue at an earlier point of time will have to be followed. This apart, the decision of the Constitution Bench in Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. (supra) also cannot be ignored. [34.] In so far as the other authorities relied upon by the learned counsels for the parties is concerned, they have also been duly considered but however, having come to the above finding and conclusion, reference to the same is found to be not necessary besides the same being mostly inapplicable in view of the decision of a larger Bench on the issue being relied upon by this Court. [35.] In the result, the impugned final inter se seniority list issued vide Notification dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure-17) and Notification dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure-20) are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to re-fix the inter se seniority of the incumbents by interspacing the petitioners with private respondent Nos. 4 to 12. The exercise as directed with all the required formalities/processes should be carried out as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon the re-fixation of the inter se seniority list, consequential benefits which the petitioners are entitled to get in accordance with law should be given to them. Any interim order or observation made earlier Page No.# 21/21 in this case stands merged with this order. [36.] The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as allowed, however by leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant