{"id":126756,"date":"1999-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999"},"modified":"2016-01-23T00:32:45","modified_gmt":"2016-01-22T19:02:45","slug":"shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: Sethi<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P.Sethi, S. Saghir Ahmed<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRI L. CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t18\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nR.P.Sethi, S. Saghir Ahmed\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
      Leave  granted.  In all these appeals the point of law
\nsought to be determined is regarding the principle governing
\nthe  determination of seniority of the persons belonging  to
\nManipur\t Police\t Service governed by Manipur Police  Service
\nRules  (hereinafter referred to as “MPS Rules”).  It has  to
\nbe  determined\tas  to whether or not  the  police  officers
\nbelonging  to the service who had continuous, uninterrupted,
\nmeritorious  officiating service are entitled to the benefit
\nto  be counted the same towards their seniority.  The  ambit
\nand  scope of the judgment of this Court in Union of India &
\nAnr.   vs.   Harish Chander Bhatia & Ors.<\/a>  [(1995)2  SCC  48
\nneeds  also  to be ascertained.\t The rival  contentions\t are
\nrequired to be adjudicated on comparative study of the Delhi
\n&  Andaman  &  Nicobar\tIsland Police  Service\tRules,\t1971
\n(hereinafter referred to as “DANI Rules”) and the MPS Rules.
\nBrief  facts  of  the  case,  as  extracted  from  SLP\t (C)
\nNo.18221\/98  filed  by Shri L.Chandrakishore Singh are\tthat
\nthe   appellant\t  herein  joined   the\tManipur\t Police\t  as
\nSub-inspector  on  the recommendation of the Manipur  Public
\nService\t Commission  and  was  confirmed   to  the  post  on
\n16.6.1976.   Vide order No.13(1)\/9\/79- H(PT) dated 3rd June,
\n1980  (Annexure P-1) the Government of Manipur appointed  31
\nSub-inspectors\tof  Police,  including\tthe  appellants,  as
\nInspectors  of\tPolice on promotion in the scale of  pay  of
\nRs.488-28-518-EB-25-749-EB-38-958  plus other allowances  as
\nadmissible  under the Rules with effect from 3rd June,\t198o
\non  regular basis, until further orders (emphasis supplied).
\nVide  order  No.3\/12\/83-MPS\/DF(i) dated 12th  October,\t1983
\n(Annexure  P-2) the Government of Manipur in exercise of the
\npowers\tconferred  under  Rule\t24 of the  MPS\tRules,\t1965
\nappointed  the appellant along with 27 others, in the  order
\nof their merit, to the Manipur Police Service in officiating
\ncapacity  in the pay-scale of Rs.900-40-1220-EB-50-1720 with
\nimmediate    effect,   until\t further   orders.     Order
\nNo.13(1)\/4\/79-H(i)  dated  16.9.1989  shows   that  on\t the
\nrecommendation of the DPC held on 14.1.1985, the Governor of
\nManipur\t was pleased to confirm the appellant and others  as
\nInspectors  of Police in the Manipur Police Department\twith
\neffect\tfrom  14.1.1985\t i.e.,\tthe date on  which  the\t DPC
\nrecommended   for   confirmation,   until  further   orders.
\nHowever, vide order No.3\/12\/83-MPS\/DP (PT-I) dated 16.8.1989
\nthe  respondent-Government issued an order, purported to  be
\nunder  Rule 5(1)(b) read with Rule 16 of the Manipur  Police
\nService\t Rules,\t 1965, appointing on promotion the  officers
\nmentioned therein including the appellant, in order of their
\nseniority  to Manipur Police (Junior Grade) in the pay-scale
\nof  Rs.2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200\twith immediate effect.\t The
\ntentative  seniority  list  of the MPS officers as  on\t22nd
\nSeptember,  1998  showed the appellant’ s name\tat  Sr.No.72
\nallegedly  even below the direct recruits (MPS Grade-II)  of
\nthe year 1988.\tHe submitted his objections to the tentative
\nseniority  list\t on  26th   December,  1989.   However,\t the
\nseniority list issued on 30th March, 1990 showed his name at
\nSl.No.71,  still below the direct recuits (MPS Grade-II)  of
\n1988  batch.   Feeling\taggrieved of his  placement  in\t the
\nseniority,  the\t appellant filed writ petition\tbeing  Civil
\nRule  No.166  of  1990 before the Gauhati High Court  for  a
\ndirection  to regularise his officiating appointment to\t MPS
\nGrade-II     with     effect\t   from\t   12.10.1983\t  by
\nrevising\/quashing\/modifying  the aforesaid appointment order
\ndated  16.8.1989 insofar as it related to him.\tHe  reserved
\nhis  right to challenge the seniority list of the MPS.\t The
\nwrit  petition\tis  stated to have been disposed of  by\t the
\nDivision  Bench\t of Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench  giving
\ndirections  that the appellant shall be given the benefit of
\nregularisation\tfrom the date of his officiating appointment
\nprovided the same was continuous.  The appellant again filed
\na civil writ bearing No.60\/91 seeking inter alia a direction
\nto  consider  him for promotion to the next higher  post  of
\nAdditional  Superintendent  of Police\/Deputy Commandants  of
\nManipur\t Rifles.  During the pendency of the aforesaid\twrit
\npetition, the respondent-Government filed an application for
\nmodification  of its order dated 20th August, 1980 passed in
\nC.R.   No.166\/90 which was subsequently registered as  Civil
\nReview\tNo.13\/96.  The appellant filed another writ petition
\nbearing\t Civil Rule No.307\/92 for quashing the order of\t the
\nManipur\t Government dated 16.9.1985 and seeking a  direction
\nfor   his  confirmation\t as   Inspector\t of  Police.   While
\ndisposing  of the aforesaid writ petition on 11.12.1992\t the
\nGauhati High Court directed the Government either to confirm
\nthe  appellant\tas  Inspector  of Police  with\teffect\tfrom
\n3.6.1980  or from the date when his juniors were  confirmed.
\nThe  High  Court directed the deletion of the  words  “until
\nfurther\t orders” mentioned in his regular appointment  order
\ndated  3rd  June, 1980 (Annexure P-1).\tIt is admitted\tthat
\nthe  aforesaid\tjudgment was not appealed against.  On\t21st
\nMay,  1996  Civil  Review  No.13\/96 was\t disposed  of  by  a
\nDivision Bench by setting aside the order dated 20th August,
\n1990  passed in Civil Rule 166 of 1990.\t The said Civil Rule
\nNo.166\/90  was\trestored to the file and the  appellant\t was
\ndirected  to  implead  all those officers above him  in\t the
\nseniority  list\t of  MPS  Grade-II, who were  likely  to  be
\naffected  adversely in case if reliefs as prayed for by\t him
\nwere  granted.\tThe said writ petition was disposed of by  a
\nSingle\tJudge  of the High Court on 18.9.1997  allowing\t the
\nsame  with directions to the respondent Government to  treat
\nthe  date of officiating appointment of the appellant to the
\nMPS  Grade-II  as the date of his regular appointment.\t Not
\nsatisfied   with   the\taforesaid   judgment   the   private
\nrespondents  filed Writ Appeal No.162\/97 which was  referred
\nto  a larger Bench by formulating three points for  decision
\nvide  order  dated  13.5.1998.\t The  Full  Bench  vide\t the
\nimpugned  order in these appeals set aside the order of\t the
\nlearned\t Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition  being
\nCivil  Rule No.166\/90.\tThe appellant N.  Bijoy Singh in SLP
\n(C)  No.17310\/98  was appointed as an Inspector\t along\twith
\nothers including the appellant L.  Chandrakishore Singh vide
\norder  dated  3rd June, 1980 (Annexure P-1).  Under the\t MPS
\nRules,\tthe meeting of the Selection Committee for  relevant
\nposts  was  held  on  24th   March,  1987.   The   Committee
\nrecommended  the  aforesaid  appellant\t as  an\t officiating
\nappointee  solely  on the ground of shortage of\t substantive
\nvacant posts at the relevant time but in anticipation of the
\nfuture\tsubstantive  vacancies\twhich were likely  to  arise
\nwithin\tthe stipulated period as conceived under Rule 14  of
\nthe  Rules.  Vide order dated 16th July, 1987, issued  under
\nRule  24 of the Rules, the said appellant along with  others
\nwas  appointed\ton officiating basis to the  Manipur  Police
\nService\t   (Junior    Grade)   in     the    pay-scale\t  of
\nRS.900-40-1220-EB-50-1720 with effect from the date on which
\nthey  took  over  the  charge of the  post  (Annexure  P-3).
\nHowever,  vide\torder dated 16th August, 1989  purported  to
\nhave been issued under Rule 5(1)(b) read with Rule 16 of the
\nRules,\tthe  appellant along with others was  appointed,  on
\npromotion,  in order of merit to the Manipur Police  Service
\n(Junior\t     Grade)\tin\t   the\t   pay-scale\t  of
\nRs.2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200  with  immediate   effect.\tVide
\norder  dated 28th October, 1991 issued in exercise of powers
\nvested\tin the Government under Rule 23, the appellant along
\nwith others was confirmed to Manipur Police Service Grade-II
\nwith  effect  from  16.8.1991.\tFeeling\t aggrieved  Shri  N.
\nBijoy  Singh filed writ petition bearing CR No.415\/94 in the
\nGauhati\t High  Court praying for seniority from the date  of
\nhis   officiating  appointment\t along\twith   consequential
\nbenefits.   His\t petition was dismissed on 5.7.1995  on\t the
\nground\tthat  he was not entitled to the seniority from\t the
\ndate  of  his  officiating appointment.\t He filed  a  review
\npetition  seeking clarification which was also dismissed  on
\n18.6.1997.   Writ  Appeal No.101\/97 preferred by him  before
\nthe  Division  Bench  of the High Court was  referred  to  a
\nlarger\tBench  along  with  writ appeal\t filed\tagainst\t the
\njudgment  of  the learned Single Judge\tin  L.Chandrakishore
\nSingh’s\t case.\t The larger Bench dismissed the appeal\tvide
\nthe  impugned order holding him not entitled to the  benefit
\nof seniority from the date of his officiating appointment or
\nfrom the availability of first substantive vacant post after
\nthe  aforesaid selection.  Smt.Vandana Karki and others\t who
\nwere  respondents  in  the  writ   petition  filed  by\tShri
\nL.Chandrakishore  Singh\t have  filed   SLP  (C)\t  No.4870\/99
\nalleging  that the High Court was not right in\tinterpreting
\neligibility  criteria  laid down under Rule 14(1) read\twith
\nRule   5(1)(b)\tof  the\t Rules\t and  effective\t  dates\t  of
\nconfirmation  to  the  post of Inspector of Police.   It  is
\ncontended  that the High Court erred in holding that the MPS
\nService\t Rules\twere  pari materia with DANI Rules.   It  is
\nsubmitted  that the High Court was not right in holding that
\nthe  words “substantively borne on the cadre of Inspector of
\nPolice”\t appearing  in Rule 5(1)(b) of MPS Rules  could\t not
\nmean the inspector of police whose probation to the post had
\nbeen  confirmed.  It could not be held that the confirmation
\nto  the post of Inspector of Police be taken as\t eligibility
\ncriteria  for  promotion to MPS Grade-II.  It  is  contended
\nthat  the  High\t Court failed to appreciate that  since\t the
\ninception  of  service,\t the Government of Manipur  had\t all
\nalong  been  interpreting the words “substantively borne  on
\nthe  cadre  of\tInspector of Police”  appearing\t under\tRule
\n5(1)(b) of the Rules as the Inspector of Police confirmed to
\nthe  post  and\tas  such  confirmed  inspectors\t alone\twere
\nconsidered  to\tbe eligible for promotion to  MPS  Grade-II.
\nThere  was  no\tjustification  to  disturb  the\t  consistent
\npractice of 30 years and to unsettle many settled matters in
\nthe   service.\t  The\trespondent    No.1,   namely,\tShri
\nL.Chandrakishore  Singh is contended to be not eligible\t for
\npromotion  to MPS Grade-II on regular basis till  14.1.1985,
\ni.e.,  the date of his confirmation to the post of Inspector
\nof  Police  and thus could not be promoted to  MPS  Grade-II
\nwhen  he  was allowed to officiate as MPS  Grade-II  officer
\nvide  orders  dated 12.10.1983 from the list prepared  under
\nRule  24 of the Rules.\tThe High Court is further stated  to
\nhave  erred  in overruling the decision of a Division  Bench
\ndated  11.4.1997 passed in Writ Appeal No.35\/94 and 55\/94 as
\nthe aforesaid judgments are stated to have been approved and
\nconfirmed   by\tthis  Court  by\t  dismissing  the  SLP\t (C)
\nNos.12904-12905 of 1997.  Leave is prayed to appeal from the
\nfinal  judgment\t of  the Full Bench and prayer is  made\t for
\npassing\t such other and further orders as are deemed proper.
\nShri  H.Nabh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing for the
\nappellant  has vehemently argued that after holding the\t MPS
\nRules as synonymous to the DANI Rules, the Full Bench of the
\nHigh  Court  was not justified in not applying the law\tlaid
\ndown  by  this Court in Union of India & Anr.\tVs.   Harish
\nChander\t Bhatia & Ors.\t[(1995) 2 SCC 48].  It is  contended
\nthat  after the judgment dated 11.12.1992 of the High  Court
\nin  Civil Rule No.307\/92, the respondent-State was  estopped
\nfrom  arguing  that  the appointment of\t the  appellant\t was
\ntemporary  which disentitled him from getting the benefit of
\nlength\tof service on the basis of the aforesaid order.\t  He
\nhas  submitted that the learned Single Judge who decided the
\nCivil  Rule  166 of 1990 on 18.9.1997 had rightly held\tthat
\nsince  the DANI Rules were in pari materia of MPS Rules, the
\njudgment  of  the  Apex Court in Bhatia’s case\t(supra)\t was
\nsquarely  applicable  in the facts and circumstances of\t the
\ncase.\tHe  has\t referred to various  observations  made  in
\nfavour of the appellant and assailed the conclusions arrived
\nat  by\tthe  Full Bench on the ground of  not  applying\t the
\nrelevant  rules\t and the pronouncements made by this  Court.
\nShri  A.S.  Nambiar, Senior Advocate for the respondents has
\nsubmitted that the appointment of the appellant as Inspector
\nof  Police  initially being on probation for two years,\t the
\nsame could not be treated as substantive appointment for the
\npurposes  of  determining  the seniority.  He has  tried  to
\ndistinguish  the DANI and MPS Rules to show that the initial
\nappointment  of\t the appellant as Inspector  and  subsequent
\nconfirmation  entitled\thim benefit of seniority  only\twith
\neffect\tfrom  the 16th August, 1989.  According to  him\t the
\nlearned\t Single Judge had committed mistake in allowing\t the
\nappeal filed by Shri L.Chandrakishore Singh.  The Rules were
\nmade  by  the  President  of India  in\texercise  of  powers
\nconferred  under Article 309 of the Constitution of India on
\n29th  March,  1965.   Rule 3 provides that  there  shall  be
\nconstituted  a Central Police Service to be known as Manipur
\nPolice\tService,  the posts of which shall be central  civil
\nposts  Class II gazetted.  The authorised permanent strength
\nof  the\t service and the post shall be such as specified  in
\nthe  Schedule attached to the Rules.  The Central Government
\nor  the\t Administrator,\t subject  to  such  conditions\t and
\nlimitations,  as may be prescribed by the Central Government
\nin  this behalf, may, by order, create duty for such  period
\nas may be specified therein.  Rule 5 which deals with method
\nof  recruitment provides:  “Method of Recruitment:  (1) Save
\nas  provided in rule 17, appointment to the service shall be
\nmade by the following method namely:-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  50  per cent of the substantive  vacancies  which
\noccur from time to time in the authorised permanent strength
\nof  M.P.S.   (Junior  Grade) shall be filled  in  by  direct
\nrecruitment  in\t the  manner specified in Part IV  of  these
\nrules;\tand<\/p>\n
      (b)  the\tremaining  50 percent  of  such\t substantive
\nvacancies  shall  be  filled up by selection in\t the  manner
\nspecified in part V of these rules from amongst officers who
\nare substantively borne on the cadre of Inspector of Police,
\nInspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar\/Sub-Major of Manipur
\nRifles employed under the State of Manipur;\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat nothing in the case of a person who had
\nbeen  appointed\t to  a\tpost,  which  post  is\tsubsequently
\ndeclared  as  duty post, he shall be deemed to\thave  always
\nbeen  appointed to a duty post from the date on which he was
\nso appointed.\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tfurther\t that  Nothing in  this\t rule  shall
\npreclude the Governor from holding a vacancy in abeyance, or
\nfilling\t it  on an officiating basis in accordance with\t the
\nprovisions of Part VIII of these rules.”\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  If  the  exigencies of service so  requires,\t the
\nadministrator may, in consultation with the commission, vary
\nthe  percentage\t of  vacancies to be filled by\teach  method
\nspecified in sub-rules (1).\n<\/p>\n
      Part V provides for recruitment by selection.  Rule 13
\nmandates  that:\t  “Recruitment under clause (b) of  sub-rule
\n(1)  of\t Rule 5 shall be made on the recommendation  of\t the
\nSelection   Committee  (hereinafter  referred\tto  as\t the
\nCommittee) consisting of –\n<\/p>\n
      Chairman<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      i) the Chairman or a Member of the Commission;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Members<\/p>\n
      ii)  a  nominee  of the Ministry of Home\tAffairs\t not
\nbelow the rank of Deputy Secretary;\n<\/p>\n
      iii)  the Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur
\nand<\/p>\n
      iv)  an  officer of the rank of Inspector\t General  of
\nPolice to be nominated by the Ministry of Home Affairs.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  Committee  is required to consider, from time  to
\ntime,  the  cases of officers eligible under clause  (b)  of
\nsub-rule  (1) of Rule 5 who have served in their  respective
\ncadres\tfor  not less than two years and prepare a  list  of
\nofficers  recommended  taking  into the account\t the  actual
\nvacancies at the time of selection and those likely to occur
\nduring\ta year.\t The selection for inclusion in the list has
\nto  be\tbased on merit and suitability in all  respects\t for
\nappointment  to\t the service with due regard  to  seniority.
\nThe  names of the persons included in the list are  required
\nto  be appointed in order of merit.  The list so prepared is
\nto be forwarded by the Committee to the Governor which shall
\nbe approved by him after taking into account the changes, if
\nany,  proposed by the Public Service Commission.  Such\tlist
\nshall  ordinarily be in force until a fresh list is prepared
\nfor  the purpose in accordance with these rules.   According
\nto  Rule  16 appointments to the service are to be  made  in
\norder  of  merit in the list referred to in Sub-rule (4)  of
\nRule  15 with due regard to the proportion specified in Rule
\n5  and\tsubject to sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.   Selection\t for
\nofficiating appointments have to be made under Rule 24 which
\nprovides:   “Selection for officiating appointments:  If  at
\nany time the Administrator is of the opinion that the number
\nof  officers  available in the list referred to in  sub-rule
\n(4) of Rule 15 for appointment to duty posts is not adequate
\nhaving\tregard to the vacancies in such posts, he may direct
\nthe  Committee\tto  consider the cases of officers  who\t had
\nofficiated  for a period of not less than three years in any
\nof  the\t cadres mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule  (1)  of
\nrule  5\t and prepare a separate list of\t officers  selected.
\nThe  selection\tfor inclusion in the list shall be based  on
\nmerit  and  suitability\t in  all  respects  for\t officiating
\nappointments  to  duty posts with due regard  to  seniority.
\nThe  provisions\t of sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rules 14 and  15
\nshall  apply mutatis mutandis in the preparation of the list
\nunder this rule.”\n<\/p>\n
      Rule   25\t provides:    “Officiating  appointment\t  to
\nspecified  post\t +  any\t temporary post\t carrying  the\tsame
\ndesignation  as that post + any other post declared as\tduty
\npost:\t(1) If a member of the service is not available\t for
\nholding\t a  duty  post,\t the  posts  may  be  filled  on  an
\nofficiating basis:\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  By the appointment of an officer included in\t the
\nlist referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 or<\/p>\n
      (b) If no such officer is available by the appointment
\nof an officer included in the list prepared under Rule 24.\n<\/p>\n
      (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules,
\nif  the\t exigencies of service so require, a duty  post\t for
\nwhich  a member of the service is not available, may,  after
\nconsultation   with   the  commission,\tbe  filled   on\t  an
\nofficiating basis by the appointment of an officer belonging
\nto  any State Police Service on deputation for such  periods
\nordinarily  not\t exceeding three years as the  Administrator
\nmay consider necessary.\n<\/p>\n
      (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
\nwhere  appointment to a duty post is to be made purely as  a
\nlocal  arrangement for a period of not exceeding six months,
\nsuch  appointment  may\tbe made by  the\t Administrator\tfrom
\npersons who are included in the list prepared under sub-rule
\n(2)  of rule 15 or rule 24 or who are eligible for inclusion
\nin such a list.\t (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      The Full Bench after extensively dealing with the DANI
\nRules  in paras 10 to 13 of its judgment rightly  concluded:
\n“Judicial  decision  given  to\tthe areas  advanced  in\t one
\nstatute\t does  not afford a guide, but construction  of\t the
\nsame  areas  in\t another statute unless statutes  are  pari-
\nmateria legislation.  In the instant case, it is an admitted
\nfact  that  both  the  Rules  were  framed  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  and even after adoption of the MPS Rules by\t the
\nState  of  Manipur,  no major change has been  made  in\t the
\nprovisions  of Rule 5,14,15,24 and 25 of the MPS Rules.\t The
\nminor  modifications  which have been made in the MPS  Rules
\ndoes not materially affect the provisions of the Rules or it
\ndoes not change the basic structure of the MPS Rules.  Since
\nboth  the rules were framed by the Central Government, there
\nis  no\tdifficulty  to hold that the  intention\t of  Central
\nGovernment is same in both the Rules.  Therefore, we have no
\nhesitation  to\thold that the DANI Rules is in\tpari-materia
\nwith  the  MPS\tRules.\tThe first part of Question  NO.3  is
\nanswered accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
      While dealing with the case of the appellant, the Full
\nBench  found that he had not been substantively promoted  to
\nthe  post  of  Inspector of Police on  3.6.1980\t because  of
\nqualified  words  “until  further orders” appearing  in\t the
\naforesaid  order.   It was observed:  “Appointment with\t the
\ncondition of “until further orders” is purely on a temporary
\ncapacity subject to further order made in this behalf by the
\ncompetent authority.  Regular appointment in a cadre or post
\nshould\tnot allow with the qualifying words, “until  further
\norders”.   If the appointment is made until further  orders,
\nit   cannot   be  said\tto   be\t  a   regular\tappointment.
\nConsequently,  we  are of the opinion that the\tpetitioner’s
\nappointment  in\t the post of Inspector of Police  cannot  be
\ntermed as a regular appointment.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  appears that before arriving at such a  conclusion
\nthe  Bench  did not notice the earlier decision of the\tHigh
\nCourt\tin  Civil  Rule\t No.307\t of  1992  wherein  it\t was
\nspecifically  held:   “As  the petitioner was  appointed  on
\nofficiating basis, it therefore follows that the appointment
\nwas  against  a\t permanent  post and he cannot\tbe  kept  on
\nofficiating   basis   for  such\t a   long   period   without
\nconfirmation.\tThat apart, as the petitioner was  appointed
\naccording  to  rules on officiating basis, the\tword  “until
\nfurther\t orders”  is absolutely superfluous and,  therefore,
\nthis words are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  result,\tit is directed that  the  petitioner
\nshall be confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police either
\nfrom  the date of initial appointment or from the date\twhen
\nofficers  junior to him were confirmed.\t I may refer to\t the
\ndecision  of  the Division Bench of this Court\tin  Durgadas
\nPurkayastha  V.\t Gauhati High Court, 1988 GLR 6.  Relying on
\nthe decision of the Apex Court in S.B.\tPatwardhan v.  State
\nof  Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 2051, it held that confirmation
\nis  one\t of  inglorious and uncertaintly of  the  Government
\nservice depending neither on the efficiency of the incumbent
\nnor availability of substantive vacancies.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  conceded before us that the said judgment\t was
\nnot  appealed  against and was allowed to become final.\t  It
\nis, however, contended that as the respondents were not made
\nparty  in  the said writ petition, the verdict did not\tbind
\nthem.\tThe  argument  has  to be  noticed  for\t only  being
\nrejected inasmuch as the petitioner therein was aggrieved by
\nthe  order which affected him alone and he had impleaded the
\nState of Manipur as party respondents who, according to him,
\nhad  added  superfluous words “until further orders” in\t his
\norder  of  promotion.  The record of proceedings of the\t DPC
\nheld  on 9.9.1983 for consideration of promotion to the\t MPS
\nGrade-II  in the Police Department, Manipur shows that there
\nexisted\t 29  substantive\/  regular   vacancies\tin  the\t MPS
\nGrade-II out of which 14 belonging to direct recruits and 15
\nto the promotees.  Out of 15 posts of promotion 5 posts were
\nreserved  for  ST  only and no reservation for SC.   It\t was
\nfurther\t reported by the Government that there were  another
\n28  short  term vacancies (both direct and  promotion  quota
\ntogether)  in  MPS Grade-II.  The DPC considered to fill  up
\nthose  short term vacancies on officiating basis under\tRule
\n24  of\tthe MPS Rules by giving promotion from\tamongst\t the
\neligible  officers in the feeder list.\tFor selection of  15
\nofficers  for appointment by promotion all eligible officers
\nwere  consider.\t  On  the basis of assessment  made  and  on
\nperusal\t of  their  comparative merit and  suitability,\t the
\nCommittee    recommended     officers\t   including\tShri
\nL.Chandrakishore  Singh in order of merit for appointment on
\nofficiating  basis to the post of MPS Grade-II.\t The name of
\nthe  appellant L.Chandrakishore Singh was at Sl.No.2 in\t the
\nmerit  list prepared by the DPC.  The proceedings of the DPC
\nclearly\t and unambiguously indicate that all eligible police
\nofficers  were\tconsidered  for officiating  appointment  in
\nterms of Rule 24 against available short term vacancies.  It
\nhas  further to be noticed that the selection was based upon
\nmerit and suitability and the DPC had kept in mind sub-rules
\n(2)  and (3) of Rule 14 and 15 of the Rules while  preparing
\nthe  list on merits.  It has further to be noticed that\t the
\nappointment  to\t the  duty  post was not  made\tas  a  local
\narrangement  as\t contemplated by sub-rule (3) or Rule 25  of
\nthe  Rules.   We  find that the learned Single\tJudge  while
\ndisposing of Civil Rule 166\/90 had rightly held:  “Since the
\nDANI rules are in pari materia of Manipur Service Rules, the
\njudgment  and order of the Apex Court in Union of India\t and
\nAnother,  appellants  vs.  Harish Chander Bhatia and  others
\n(supra)\t shall\tbe squarely applicable in the facts  of\t the
\ncase  at  hand.\t  On  this score alone,\t this  petition\t has
\nsucceeded.   In my view, therefore, it may not be  necessary
\nto advert to the other points urged by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
      This  apart,  in Direct Recruit  Class-II\t Engineering
\nOfficer’s  Association, Appellants vs.\tState of Maharashtra
\nand  others<\/a>, respondents (1990) 2 SCC 715, the\tConstitution
\nBench of the Apex Court held in paragraph 47 ‘A’ as under:\n<\/p>\n
      “(A)  Once  an  incumbent\t is   appointed\t to  a\tpost
\naccording  to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the
\ndate of his appointment and not according to the date of his
\nconfirmation.”\n<\/p>\n
      As  already  said,  petitioner was  appointed  to\t the
\nManipur\t Police Service (Junior) with effect from 12.10.1983
\nin accordance with Rules.\n<\/p>\n
      For  the\treasons aforestated, this writ\tpetition  is
\nallowed\t with  a direction to the respondents to  treat\t the
\ndate  of  officiating appointment of the petitioner  as\t the
\ndate  of his regular appointment and refix his seniority  in
\nterms  of  the direction, consequently, the  seniority\tlist
\npublished  under  Rule 28 of the rules by Notification\tdate
\n30.3.1990   (Annexure  7)  and\t the  impugned\torder  dated
\n16.8.1989  (Annexure  3)  are  hereby set aside\t in  so\t far
\npetitioner is concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
      This  Court  in Bhatia’s case (supra)  considered\t the
\nscope of DANI Rules which we have found are pari materia the
\nMPS  Rules and held:  “4.  From the above, it is clear\tthat
\nfor  a person to be appointed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 25,
\nhe  has to be an officer whose name is included in the\tlist
\nreferred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 or one prepared under
\nRule  24.   Insofar  as\t sub-rule  (3)\tis  concerned,\tthis
\nrequirement is not to be satisfied, and further, appointment
\nunder  that sub-rule cannot exceed six months and is made as
\na  local arrangement.  The respondents are those whose names
\nfound  place  in the list prepared under Rule 24  and  their
\nappointments  not  having  been\t made\tpurely\tas  a  local
\narrangement  for a period not exceeding six months, we\thave
\nno  difficulty\tin  upholding  the   view  of  the   Central
\nAdministrative\tTribunal, Principal Bench whose judgment has
\nbeen   impugned\t in  this   appeal,  that  respondents\twere
\nappointed under sub-rule (1).\n<\/p>\n
      5.   There is no serious dispute to this position even
\nby learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Tulsi, who has
\nappeared  for the appellants.  His first real contention  is
\nthat  despite the appointments being under sub-rule (1), the
\nrespondents  cannot  be taken to have been appointed to\t the
\nService\t and as such the direction of the Tribunal to  treat
\nthem  as  permanent  appointees instead\t of  as\t officiating
\nhands,\tis not in consonance with what has been provided  in
\nthe  Rules.   Shri  Tulsi submits that\tappointment  to\t the
\nService\t can be made only as visualised by Rule 16 and\tthis
\ncan  be of those whose names find place in the list referred
\nin  sub-rule (4) of Rule 15.  The respondents not being such
\nincumbents, they cannot be treated as permanent appointee to
\nthe Service.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   This submission would not be correct if heart  of
\nthe  matter  is\t looked into.  To put  it  differently,\t the
\nsubmission  is\tnot correct in substance, but is so only  in
\nform.\tWe  have taken this view because an  examination  of
\nRule  24  shows that the list prepared as required  by\tthat
\nrule,  has also to satisfy the requirements of provisions of
\nsub-rules  (3) and (4) of Rules 14 and 15.  This shows\tthat
\nthe  incumbents whose names find place in the list  prepared
\nas contemplated by Rule 24 are also those who have been duly
\nselected  and consultation with the Commission has also been
\nmade and the list prepared has been forwarded to the Central
\nGovernment as well for its doing the needful.  There is thus
\nno  difference\tin substance between the list  prepared,  as
\ncontemplated  by  Rule\t14 read with Rule 15,  and  the\t one
\nvisualised  by\tRule  24.   So,\t  there\t appears  to  be  no
\njustifiable reason to regard Rule 24 selectees as in any way
\ninferior  to Rule 14 selectees.\t According to us, they stand
\nalmost\tat par.\t It is because of this that clauses (a)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  of\t sub-rule  (1)\tof Rule 25 have\t virtually  made  no
\ndistinction between these two categories of incumbents.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Shri\t Tulsi,\t however,   contends  that  Rule  25
\nvisualises  officiating appointment and not permanent;\t and
\nthat appointment is required to be made when a member of the
\nService\t is not available.  Though this is so, but the facts
\nof  the present case would show that though the appointments
\nwere  stated  to be officiating these continued for  a\tvery
\nlong  period, which in the case of Respondent 1 was of about
\n12  years  as  he  came to be appointed\t under\tRule  25  on
\n6.11.1972  and\twas fixed permanently in the slot meant\t for
\npromottes  on 28.7.1984.  An officiating appointing for over
\na  decade cannot be treated as fleeting appointment with  no
\nservice\t benefits  to be given.\t Any other view\t would\tvery
\nseriously  prejudice  such a service-holder who, even  after
\nhaving\t rendered  service  equal  to  those  of   permanent
\nappointees  for\t a  long  period, and that  too\t for  proper
\nfunctioning  of the Service, would be denied the benefit  of
\nthe  same for no cogent reasons.  Any other view is bound to
\nhave  a\t demoralising effect in the Service as a whole.\t  As
\nthe appointments under Rule 25 are also to duty posts, which
\nmay  form  part of the strength of Service because what\t has
\nbeen stated in Rule 4(3), we are of the view that justice of
\nthe  case and the need to preserve the efficient functioning
\nof  the\t Service would require to treat the appointments  of
\nthe  respondents  as  permanent, despite their\thaving\tbeen
\nfirst appointment on officiating basis.”\n<\/p>\n
      We are of the firm opinion that the Full Bench was not
\ncorrect\t in  holding that the judgment in Bhatia’s case\t was
\ninapplicable  to  the facts and circumstances of the  matter
\npending\t before\t it.   Vide the impugned judgment  the\tHigh
\nCourt  tried  to make an artificial distinction of the\tcase
\nfrom  the  facts  of  the Bhatia’s case\t with  reference  to
\nArticle\t 142  of the Constitution with observations:   “But,
\ninspite\t of this small difference the Hon’ble Supreme  Court
\nhas  given  the relief to the respondents of Harish  Chandra
\nBhatia’s  case\tand  it\t appears to us\tthat  for  making  a
\ncomplete  justice  to the respondents who have\trendered  12
\nyears  of officiating service, the Apex Court has passed the
\norder  for  regularising  the  officiating  service  of\t the
\nrespondents by invoking the provisions of Article 142 of the
\nConstitution.”\n<\/p>\n
      A\t perusal  of the judgment in Bhatia’s case  has\t not
\npersuaded  us to agree with the findings of the High  Court.
\nAfter referring to Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rules 14, 15 and
\n24,  the  Court\t found\tthat  there  was  no  difference  in
\nsubstance between the list prepared as contemplated by Rules
\n14  and 15 and the one visualised by Rule 24.  The selectees
\nunder  Rule  24\t were held to be standing at  par  with\t the
\nselectees  under Rule 14 of the Rules.\tThe reference to  12
\nyears  of  service  of\tthe respondent therein\twas  in\t the
\ncontext to emphasize that the appointment was not under Rule
\n25  being  local  arrangement\tfor  specified\tperiod\tvide
\nsub-rule  (3)  of  Rule\t 25.   As  the\tappointment  of\t the
\nappellant could not be held to be under Rule 25, the verdict
\nin  Bhatia’s  case  had\t to  be\t accepted  by  treating\t the
\nappointment  of a person to the service under Rule 24 of the
\nRules.\t The  reliance\tof  the\t  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents  upon the judgment in Baleshwar Dass & Ors.\t Vs.
\nState of U.P.  & Ors.  [(1980) 4 SCC 226 does not in any way
\nadvance the case of his clients inasmuch as in that case the
\nCourt  considered  the scope of United Provinces Service  of
\nEngineers  Class  II, Irrigation Branch Rules, 1936  and  by
\nspecific  reference  to Rules 3(b) and 4 held that  a  cadre
\npost  can  be permanent or temporary and if an\tEngineer  is
\nappointed  substantively to a temporary or permanent post he
\nbecomes\t a  member of the service.  The touchstone then,  is
\nthe  substantive  capacity  of the appointment.\t  The  Court
\nfurther\t held  that the substantive capacity refers  to\t the
\ncapacity   in  which  a\t person\t  holds\t the  post  and\t not
\nnecessarily  to\t the nature or character of the post.\tEven
\nappointment  to a temporary post for long duration would  be
\nsufficient  to hold that such person was holding the post in
\nsubstantive  capacity.\tA person shall be held to be holding
\na  post in a substantive capacity when he is found to be not
\nholding the post for a definite period.\t The Court observed:
\n“To  approximate  to  the  official  diction  used  in\tthis
\nconnection,  we may well say that a person is said to hold a
\npost  in  a  substantive capacity when he holds\t it  for  an
\nindefinite   period   especially  of\tlong   duration\t  in
\ncontradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite or
\ntemporary  period  or  holds  it  on  probation\t subject  to
\nconfirmation.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  Respondent-State  has  submitted that  since\t the
\nenforcement  of the MPS Rules in 1965, the State  Government
\nhas  been  construing the words “substantively borne on\t the
\ncadre  of the inspector of police” appearing in Rule 5(1)(b)
\nas  confirmed  Inspector of Police and till an Inspector  of
\nPolice\tof probationary period is not confirmed to the\tpost
\nhe has not been considered for promotion to the MPS Grade-II
\non  regular  basis.   It  is   contended  that\tunder\tthis
\nconsistent practice for about 34 years, the State Government
\nhas  been  considering\tonly  the  cases  of  the  confirmed
\nInspectors  of\tPolice\tfor  promotion to  MPS\tGrade-II  on
\nregular\t basis\tas the policy of the State Government is  to
\npromote\t only  the  confirmed Inspectors of Police  and\t not
\npromote\t the  probationary  Inspectors\tof  Police.   It  is
\ncontended that in the light of the judgment of this Court in
\nN.Suresh  Nathan  & Anr.vs.  Union of India & Ors.   [(1992)
\nSupp.\t1  SCC 584, such a practice should be held to be  in
\nconsonance   with   the\t long\tstanding  practice  in\t the
\nDepartment.   We  feel\tthe reliance on this  case  is\talso
\nmisplaced.   In that case the dispute was whether a  diploma
\nholder\tJunior\tEngineer  who obtained the degree  while  in
\nservice\t became\t eligible  for\t appointment  as   Assistant
\nEngineer  by  promotion\t on  completion of  three  years  of
\nservice\t including  therein the period of service  prior  to
\nobtaining  the degree or the three years service as a degree
\nholder\tfor  the  purpose to be reckoned from  the  date  of
\nobtaining  the\tdegree.\t The diploma holders contended\tthat
\nthey  were  entitled to include the earlier period and\twere
\neligible for promotion in the category on obtaining a degree
\nif  the total period of service is three years inclusive  of
\nearlier\t period.  The degree-holders contested this position
\nand   contended\t  to  the   contrary.\tAccording   to\t the
\ndegree-holders\tthese were to distinct categories, the first
\nbeing  of  degree-holders  with three years service  in\t the
\ngrade  as  degree holders, the period of three\tyears  being
\nsusequent to the date of obtaining the degree as in the case
\nof  Junior  Engineers who joined the service with a  degree;
\nand the other category was of diploma holders with six years
\nexperience.   The  diploma-holders  went   to  the   Central
\nAdministrative\tTribunal and their contention was  accepted.
\nIn  appeal the order of the Tribunal was set side mainly  on
\nthe  ground that there existed sufficient material including
\nthe  admission\tof  the diploma-holders\t that  the  practice
\nfollowed in the Department for long time was that in case of
\ndiploma-holder\tJunior Engineers who had obtained the degree
\nduring\tservice,  the period of three years service  in\t the
\ngrade  for  eligibility\t for promotion\tas  degree-  holders
\ncommenced  from\t the  date of obtaining the degree  and\t the
\nearlier period of service as diploma-holders was not counted
\nfor  that purpose.  The Union Public Service Commission\t was
\nfound to be having similar view.  The Court held that if the
\npast practice was based on one of the possible constructions
\nwhich could be made under the rules, then upsetting the same
\nat  a  later stage was not appropriate.\t After referring  to
\nRules  7  and 11 of the Recruitment Rules, the Court  found:
\n“The entire scheme, therefore, does indicate that the period
\nof   three  years’  service  in\t  the  grade  required\t for
\ndegree-holders according to Rule 11 as the qualification for
\npromotion in that category must mean three years’ service in
\nthe  grade as a degree-holder and, therefore, that period of
\nthree years can commence only from the date of obtaining the
\ndegree\tand  not  earlier.  The service in the\tgrade  as  a
\ndiploma-holder\tprior  to  obtaining the  degree  cannot  be
\ncounted\t as  service  in  the grade with a  degree  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  three years’ service as a\tdegree-holder.\t The
\nonly  question\tbefore\tus  is of the  construction  of\t the
\nprovision and not of the validity thereof and, therefore, we
\nare  only required to construe the meaning of the provision.
\nIn   our   opinion,  the   contention  of   the\t  appellants
\ndegree-holders that the rules must be construed to mean that
\nthe three years’ service in the grade of a degree-holder for
\nthe  purpose  of  Rule 11 is three years from  the  date  of
\nobtaining  the\tdegree is quite tenable and commends  to  us
\nbeing\tin  conformity\twith   the  past  practice  followed
\nconsistently.”\n<\/p>\n
      The position in the instant case is totally different.
\nAfter  the judgment in Bhatia’s case, we are of the  opinion
\nthat  no other construction of the Rules is possible.\tWhen
\nthe  Rules  are\t clear\tand do not  create  any\t doubt,\t the
\nadoption  of a contrary practice cannot be made a basis\t for
\ndepriving  the employees in the service of their entitlement
\nunambiguous.\n<\/p>\n
  the Rules which are clear, specific and The Full Bench  of
\nthe High Court referred to Government Order dated 28th July,
\n1997,  claimed to have been issued under Article 309 of\t the
\nConstitution  which  was  held to  prescribe  that  officers
\nappointed  on direct recruitment and also by promotion\twere
\nto be on probation for a period of two years.  The aforesaid
\nGovernment order has not been shown to us for the purpose of
\nascertaining  its scope and ambit and the authority  besides
\nthe  purpose  for which it is claimed to have  been  issued.
\nArticle\t 309 of the Constitution authorises the\t appropriate
\nLegislature  to\t regulate the recruitment and  condition  of
\nservice\t of persons appointed to public service and post  in
\nconnection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.\t The
\nPresident  and the Governor of a State have been  authorised
\nto  make  or  provide  for making of  rules  regulating\t the
\nrecruitment   and  the\tcondition  of  service\tof   persons
\nappointed  to such services and posts and until provision in
\nthat  behalf  is made by or under an Act of the\t appropriate
\nlegislature  under  the Article and any rule so\t made  shall
\nhave  effect subject to the provisions of the said Act.\t The
\nproviso\t  to  Article  309  is\ta   transitional   provision
\nempowering  the\t Executive  to make rules  relating  to\t the
\nmatters specified therein until the appropriate Legislatures
\nlegislate  on the subject.  Any rule made under this Article
\nhas  to remain in force for the purposes specified  therein.
\nNo  rule in terms of Article 309 is shown to have been\tmade
\nby  the\t respondent  Government\t to  provide  regarding\t the
\nappointment  to a post to be necessarily on probation for  a
\nperiod\tof  two\t years.\t  It  is  true\tthat  Government  by
\nExecutive  orders  made under constitutional provisions\t has
\nthe  power to regulate the recruitment and the condition  of
\nservice\t but no such Government Order can alter or amend the
\nexisting  rules\t on the subject.  It is conceded  before  us
\nthat in the 1965 Rules no period of probation was prescribed
\nfor  the post of Inspectors of Police.\tThe High Court\twas,
\ntherefore,  not justified in relying upon the earlier office
\norder  to  hold\t that the appointment of  the  appellant  as
\nInspector  of  Police  was deemed to be on probation  for  a
\nperiod\tof  two years as the appellant had  admittedly\tbeen
\nappointed after following of the procedure prescribed in the
\nRecruitment  Rules.   His appointment was to be\t treated  as
\nsubstantive  appointment  in  the absence of a rule  to\t the
\ncontrary.   The order dated 3rd June, 1980 when read in\t the
\nlight  of the judgment of the High Court dated 11.12.1992 in
\nC.R.   No.307  of 1992 cannot be construed to mean that\t the
\nappellant  was\tnot substantively promoted as  Inspector  of
\nPolice\twith effect from 30th June, 1980.  Seniority  itself
\nbased  upon  length  of service is an acquired right  of  an
\nemployee  which\t entitles him to be considered\tfor  further
\npromotion.   It\t is  generally regulated by  Service  Rules.
\nSuch  rules  normally provide for determined seniority\twith
\nreference  to the date of appointment to the class, category
\nand  grade  to\twhich  the   appointment  is  made.   It  is
\ndetermined only on the basis of the length of service.\tSuch
\nlength\tof service may be on the basis of the difference  of
\ncontinuous  officiation or on the basis of the difference of
\nsubstantive  appointment  in the cadre or grade\t or  service
\nwhich  may be reckoned from the date of confirmation on\t the
\nbasis  of regularisation.  It is now well settled that\teven
\nin  cases of probation or officiating appointments which are
\nfollowed  by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown,
\nthe  service  rendered\tas  officiating\t appointment  or  on
\nprobation  cannot  be  ignored for reckoning the  length  of
\ncontinuous  officiating service for determining the place in
\nthe  seniority list.  Where the first appointment is made by
\nnot following the prescribed procedure and such appointee is
\napproved  later on, the approval would mean his confirmation
\nby  the authority shall relate back to the date on which his
\nappointment  was made and the entire service will have to be
\ncomputed  in reckoning the seniority according to the length
\nof  continuous\tofficiation.  In this regard we fortify\t our
\nview  by  the judgment of this Court in G.P.  Doval  &\tAnr.
\nvs.   Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.  & Ors.<\/a>  [(1984) 4
\nSCC  329].  In the light of what we have noted\thereinabove,
\nit  is\tapparent that the order impugned in the\t High  Court
\ndated  16th  August, 1989 (Annexure P-5) was issued  by\t the
\nGovernment  under a mistaken believe by completely  ignoring
\nthe  mandate  of  Rule 24 and the verdict of this  Court  in
\nBhatia’s case.\tOnce the appellant had been appointed to the
\nservice\t in  terms of Rule 24 of the Rules, it was  presumed
\nthat his name had been included in the list after compliance
\nof  the provisions of sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rules 14 and 15
\nof  the\t MPS Rules, there being no difference  in  substance
\nbetween the list prepared as contemplated under Rules 14 and
\n16  on\tthe one hand and as visualised under Rule 24 on\t the
\nother.\t Promotion made after compliance of Rules 14 and  15
\nis  contemplated to be a selection in terms of Rule  5(1)(b)
\nof  the\t Rules.\t  The Respondent-State, therefore,  was\t not
\njustified  in  re-appointing,  on  promotion,  the  officers
\nmentioned in the Government Order dated 16th August, 1989 to
\nthe  Manipur Police Service (Junior Grade) with effect\tfrom
\nthat  date.  Seen from any angle, we are of the opinion that
\nthe  learned  Single  Judge of the High\t Court\thad  rightly
\nallowed\t the  writ  petition  filed by\tthe  appellant\tvide
\nAnnexure  P-10\tdated  18.9.1997   and\tissued\t appropriate
\ndirections.   The  Full Bench of the High Court wrongly\t set
\naside  the  judgment of the learned Single Judge by  wrongly
\ninterpreting  the  provisions of the law applicable  in\t the
\ncase  and  ignoring  the  judgment in  Bhatia’s\t case  which
\nsquarely  covers the matters so far as the interpretation of
\nthe  MPS  Rules\t were concerned.  The judgment\timpugned  in
\nthese  appeals\tis based upon conflicting and  contradictory
\nconclusions  arrived at by the Full Bench.  The\t assumptions
\nand  presumptions drawn are neither based upon the  relevant
\nrules  or  supported by any judicial verdict of this  Court.
\nUnder  the circumstances, the appeals arising out of SLP (C)
\nNos.18221\/98  and  17310\/98 filed by L.Chandrakishore  Singh
\nand  N.Bijoy Singh are allowed by setting aside the judgment
\nof  the\t Full  Bench.\tThe  writ  petitions  filed  by\t the
\nappellants  are\t allowed.  The respondents are\tdirected  to
\ntreat  the officiating appointments of the appellants as the
\ndate of their regular appointment and re-fix their seniority
\nin  terms of the observations made in this judgment.   Fresh
\nseniority  list\t shall\tbe  prepared in\t the  light  of\t our
\ndirections  alongwith  the consequential benefits under\t the
\nlaw  to the persons who are found to be senior.\t The  appeal
\narising\t out of SLP (C) 4870\/99 filed by Smt.Vandana Karki &
\nOrs.\t shall\t  stand\t    dismissed.\t   The\t  appellants
\nL.Chandrakishore  Singh and N.Bijoy Singh are held  entitled
\nto   costs   of\t Rs.10,000\/-  each  to\tbe   paid   by\t the
\nRespondent-State.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999 Author: Sethi Bench: R.P.Sethi, S. Saghir Ahmed PETITIONER: SHRI L. CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/1999 BENCH: R.P.Sethi, S. Saghir Ahmed JUDGMENT: SETHI,J. Leave granted. In all these appeals the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-22T19:02:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-22T19:02:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":7340,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-22T19:02:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-22T19:02:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-22T19:02:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999"},"wordCount":7340,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999","name":"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-22T19:02:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-l-chandrakishore-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-ors-on-1-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 1 October, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}