Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030003492025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/60/2025 Sh. Zachia Chhachhai New Colony-I, Siaha, Mizoram VERSUS MADC r/b Chief Executive Member and 8 Ors. Siaha 2:The Executive Secretary MADC 3:Smt. K. Nozah 4:Sh. K. Samuela 5:Smt. F. Ngobu 6:Smt. K. Lyzi 7:Smt. B. Ngiaso 8:Smt. V. Melechi 9:Smt. Ngohla Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu Advocate for the Respondent : Mr B Lalramenga for R1 & 2 Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 12.05.2026 Heard Mr. Victor. L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. [2.] None appears for the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 despite notice. [3.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure-16) as well as the Notification dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-17). As per the order dated 28.01.2025, the effective date of promotion of the petitioner from the post of Accountant to Superintendant is corrected as 14.12.2018 and as per the Notification dated 13.02.2025 he is placed at Sl. No.8 of the Final Inter-se Seniority List of Officers of Junior Grade (Superintendant). [4.] It may be stated herein that this is the second time the petitioner is before this Court. The earlier writ petition filed by him along with one person named Shri. L. Freddie was registered as WP(C)/25/2017. The present petitioner was the petitioner No.1 in that case and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2017 with the observation that once the approval of the Governor of the State was obtained for filling up of different categories of posts in the Mara Autonomous District Counsel (MADC) amongst others, the representation of the petitioner’s should be considered and disposed of within a time frame. It may be noted that the representations of the petitioners were to consider their promotion to the post of Office Superintendant as per the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. Page No.# 3/8 [5.] After the writ petition was disposed of in the above manner, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Superintendant with retrospective effect from 05.11.2014 without arrear vide Notification dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure- 7). It is also provided that the actual monetary benefit shall be paid to him with effect from 01.11.2017. However, after the issuance of the said order, by another order dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure-8), the promotion of the petitioner was recalled and cancelled. It was also provided that the cancellation order was issued after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit a representation as to why his promotion order should not be revoked. [6.] Thereafter, the respondent No.2 vide Notification dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-9) revalidated the Office Notification dated 14.11.2017, while providing that the petitioner is granted higher pay arrear in terms of the Rule 49(i) FR SR w.e.f taking over charge of Superintendant i.e., 24.11.2018. It was also provided that the order supersedes all previous orders. [7.] Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.07.2023 stating that his promotion to the post of Superintendant has been approved as 24.11.2017 and his seniority in the Superintendent grade will be reckoned from the same date. The petitioner was therefore asked to submit a written representation on or before 02.08.2023, if he was aggrieved. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.07.2023 stating that he accepts the decision taken that 24.11.2017 be reckoned as the date from which his seniority is to be counted. The respondent No.2 then issued a provisional inter-se seniority list of Group-A Officers along with other grades vide Notification dated 10.04.2024, wherein, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.41, while the names of the private respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 9 appeared at Sl. No.66-71 and 73 respectively. The provisional inter-se Page No.# 4/8 seniority list was issued by providing that anyone aggrieved by the same should submit their objection to the respondent No.2 within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of issuance of the notification. [8.] Apparently there were certain objections in the seniority position of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on 01.07.2024 informing him that there was no record of the Executive Committee having approved the revalidation of his promotion and therefore, both the Notification dated 24.11.2017 and 14.12.2018 were considered to be invalid and therefore, he was required to submit a written response on or before 08.07.2024 to show cause as to why date of his promotion should not be confirmed as 14.12.2018. Although the petitioner responded to the show cause notice, but the respondent authorities issued the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 and thereafter, the final inter-se seniority list vide Notification dated 13.02.2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. [9.] Mr. Victor. L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in fact has been holding the charge of Superintendent w.e.f 05.11.2014 without any financial benefit. However, after the first writ petition was filed and disposed of, the respondent authorities have given the petitioner all the arrear benefits for holding the charge of Superintendent and at the same time, also gave him promotion w.e.f. 05.11.2014 without arrear. However, the promotion order was subsequently cancelled and thereafter revalidated vide Notification dated 14.12.2018. He submits that vide Notification dated 14.12.2018, the promotion given to the petitioner vide Notification dated 24.11.2017 was revalidated but somehow it was wrongly shown as Notification dated 14.11.2017 being revalidated. The petitioner on account of late receipt of Page No.# 5/8 the Notification did not approached the respondent authorities for rectification of the said date. However, for all purpose the date 24.11.2017 has been reckoned as the date of his promotion to the Grade of Superintendent which can be seen from the provisional inter-se seniority list published vide Notification dated 10.04.2024, wherein, all the private respondents were also shown to be junior to him. After having rendered for almost 8(eight) years of service in the post of Superintendent, the respondent authorities have changed the date of his promotion from 24.11.2017 to 14.12.2018 without any justification and thereby making him lose his seniority amongst the Officers in the junior grade (Superintendent) by being placed below all the private respondents. He submits that the impugned action of the official respondents is most biased and without any bonafide intent. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 and Notification dated 13.02.2025 inasofar as the final inter-se seniority of officers of junior grade (Superintendent) is concerned should be set aside and the petitioner be declared to have been promoted to the Grade of Superintendent on 24.11.2017. [10.] The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is qualified to be considered for promotion to the next higher Grade of Under Secretary under the MADC and he will be attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2026 and as such the respondent authorities should be directed to consider him for promotion in a time bound manner. In support of his submission, Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the case of N. Asangba & Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. (2017) 3 GLT 486. [11.] Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand submits that although the petitioner was said to have been Page No.# 6/8 promoted vide Notification dated 24.11.2017 but the fact remains that there are no records which shows that the approval of the Executive Committee was given for granting such promotion. Further, Notification dated 14.12.2018 shows that the Notification dated 14.11.2017 was revalidated but the fact remains that there is no notification issued on 14.11.2017 and the petitioner on his part has also not submitted any objection for correction of the said date. Therefore, the respondent authorities upon due consideration came to the conclusion that 14.12.2018 is to be accepted as a date on which the petitioner was promoted to the Grade of Superintendent. [12.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.01.2025, by which his date of promotion to the post of Superintendent has been corrected as 14.12.2018. The reason for such correction of the respondents is that a Notification was issued on that date revalidating the earlier notification by which the promotion was given to the petitioner to the Grade of Superintendent. However, while making such revalidation, the date was incorrectly shown as 14.11.2017 and therefore, the revalidation order having been notified on 14.12.2018, the same should be the date to be accounted as the date of petitioner’s promotion. It may however be seen that the Notification dated 14.12.2018 is in respect of the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has been granted higher pay arrear w.e.f 24.11.2014 for having taken over the charge of Superintendent. The said Notification at the same time provides that the Office Notification dated 14.11.2017 is revalidated. As contended by the official respondents, there is no Office Notification issued on 14.11.2017 and the same appears to be a typographical error in view of the fact the very intend of issuing Notification dated 14.12.2018 was to revalidate Page No.# 7/8 the promotion of the petitioner to the Grade of Superintendent. [13.] Another aspect of the matter is that while the petitioner claims that he has been given the financial benefit with arrear w.e.f 05.11.2014 as he was In- charge Superintendent since then, the official respondents on the other hand vide Notification dated 24.11.2017 has given him actual monetary benefit w.e.f 01.11.2017 which was later on modified to be w.e.f. 24.11.2014 vide the Notification dated 14.12.2018. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not raised any claim in this regard and therefore, it would not be necessary for this Court to dwell upon this issue. What we are concerned is the date on which the petitioner was promoted to the Grade of Superintendent. According to the petitioner although he was given retrospective promotion w.e.f 05.01.2014 but he has accepted 24.11.2017 to be the relevant date of promotion as was communicated to him through Show Cause Notice dated 25.07.2023. Having accepted the said date, the respondent authorities have come up with the provisional inter-se seniority list vide Notification dated 10.04.2024, wherein, it has also been shown that 24.11.2017 is the date of his promotion to the Grade of Superintendent. Such being the position according to the petitioner they cannot come up with another date i.e. 14.12.2018 as the date of his promotion. The logic behind taking the date 14.12.2018 as the date of his promotion by the official respondents is admittedly on account of the Notification issued on 14.12.2018 revalidating the earlier notification. The revalidation of the earlier notification at any rate cannot be 14th of November, 2017 since there is no such office notification of the said date. It has therefore to be accepted that what was sought to be revalidated was the Notification dated 24.11.2017 by which the petitioner was given his promotion and prior to that he was on In-Charge Page No.# 8/8 basis although he has been given the pay of Superintendent. Therefore the formal date of promotion will have to be 24.11.2017 and cannot be 14.12.2018 as reflected in the impugned order dated 28.01.2025. In other words, the reasoning given in the impugned order for correcting the date of promotion as 14.12.2018 is found to be unacceptable and accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 is hereby set aside. The final inter-se seniority list dated 13.02.2025 of the officers of the Junior Grade (Superintendent) is also hereby set aside. The official respondents are directed to draw up a fresh inter-se seniority list of Junior Grade (Superintendent) by showing the date of appointment of the petitioner as 24.11.2017. [14.] Having regard to the fact that petitioner is due to superannuate on 31.07.2026, the exercise as directed should be carried out within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. It is submitted at the bar that the respondent No.3 who was promoted to the post of Under Secretary has since retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2025. It is therefore observed herein that the respondent authorities should consider filling up of the said vacancy at the earliest and in doing so, the case of the petitioner should be taken to consideration along with all other eligible persons in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules. [15.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant