JUDGMENT
B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.
1. We have heard Shri H.K. Mahanta, learned amicus curiae, Shri B.C. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and Shri U.K. Nair, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for an appropriate direction quashing the impugned Notification/Seniority List of Stenographers Grade-I/Private Secretaries of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, issued by the Registrar vide order dated 3.8.1998 (Annexure-A/3). The petitioner also prays for issuance of consequential direction directing the 1st respondent to re-fix the seniority of the Stenographer Grade-I/Private Secretaries by duly placing the writ petitioner above the 2nd respondent and further to give all service benefits including promotion to the higher post, which has been denied to the petitioner.
3. In order to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of any relief, a few relevant facts are required to be noticed:
The petitioner together with the 2nd respondent were appointed as Grade II Stenographer in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench vide the proceedings dated 24.7.1992. That in the said appointment order, the name of the 2nd respondent is shown above the writ petitioner even at the time of initial appointment as Stenographer Grade II.
That thereafter, the High Court on 4.6.1994 conducted a test for appointment in the 3 (three) vacant posts of Stenographer at the Imphal Bench. Three Stenographers Grade II including the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and one H. Ranjit Singh appeared in the test in which both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were found qualified and suitable for the purpose of appointment as Stenographer Grade I.
However, Shri H. Ranjit Singh was not found qualified in the test. Thereafter, the High Court vide its Notification dated 19.7.1994 promoted and appointed temporarily the petitioner herein as Stenographer Grade I from that of the post of Stenographer Grade II with effect from the date of joining in the post sanctioned. He was put on probation for a period of one year unless otherwise ordered. By the same proceeding the 2nd respondent herein was also promoted and appointed temporarily as Stenographer Grade-I from that of the post of Stenographer Grade II. No doubt, in the said proceeding the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the first paragraph followed by that of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, by Notification dated 3.8.1998 perhaps with a view to avoid the controversy in the future, the said proceeding was duly modified determining the seniority of the Stenographers-Grade-I/Private Secretaries as follows:
1. Shri Ph. Japan Singh – 19.7.1994
2. Shri S. Joychand Singh – 19.7.1994.
4. The petitioner thereafter made a representation on 29.8.1998, inter alia, contending that his name should be placed over and above the name of the 2nd respondent, inasmuch as, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl. No. 1 in the select list. The High Court, vide its proceeding dated 21.9.1999 promptly rejected the representation.
5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner more or less reiterates what has been stated by the petitioner in his representation dated 29.8.1998 and submitted that the writ petitioner is entitled to get seniority over and above the 2nd respondent in the category of Stenographer Grade I.
6. Shri B.C. Das, learned senior counsel and Shri U.K. Nair, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent have submitted that the very contention that the petitioner was placed at No. 1 in the select list is misconceived, inasmuch as, there was no select list as such prepared by the learned Judge, who conducted the test and it was only a qualifying test as to ascertain how many out of the 3 (three) Stenographers Grade II were qualified for the purpose of promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I.
7. We have perused the materials on record as well as the affidavits-in- opposition. On such perusal, we find that on 4.6.1994 one of the learned Judges of this Court had conducted a test for the purpose of promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I at Imphal Bench. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent together with one H. Ranjit Singh appeared in the said test wherein the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were found to have been qualified and suitable for appointment as Stenographer Grade I. Evidently, it was a qualifying test and no merit list as such was prepared and published. The proceedings dated 19.7.1994 in which the petitioner’s name had been mentioned in the first paragraph itself would not confer any right as such to claim that he had been placed at No. 1 in the select list. Incidentally, the petitioner’s name was mentioned in the first paragraph in the proceeding issued on behalf of the hon’ble the then Chief Justice in which the names of the petitioner and 2nd respondent were shown to have been duly promoted as Stenographer Grade I from the Stenographer Grade II. The proceedings in question, in our considered opinion, cannot be treated as a select list.
8. Thereafter, the hon’ble Chief Justice on the Administrative Side having considered the entire issue, placed the 2nd respondent as No. 1 as against the writ petitioner by duly taking the age of the petitioner and as well as of the 2nd respondent into consideration. Be it noted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent joined in the service on the same date, i.e., 24.7.1992 in which the name of the 2nd respondent finds place on the top of the list in comparison to that of the petitioner. Thereafter, both of them had participated in the qualifying test that was conducted on 4.6.1994 and were found qualified and suitable for being appointed as Stenographer Grade I. In the aforesaid circumstances, the hon’ble the then Chief Justice appears to have taken the age factor into consideration and accordingly fixed the seniority, which, in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity requiring our interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The hon’ble the then Chief Justice, as he then was, appears to have applied relevant and discernible criteria for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are equally placed in all respects and that out of the two, one has to be necessarily treated senior and accordingly passed appropriate orders.
9. The decision so taken by the High Court on the Administrative Side is not vitiated requiring our interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, without any costs.