Meghalaya High Court
Shri Lurshai Basaiawmoit vs . 1. State Of Meghalaya Represented on 24 June, 2025
2025:MLHC:534
Serial No.01
Supple List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 493 of 2021 Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025
Date of Decision:24.06.2025
____________________________________________________________
Shri Lurshai Basaiawmoit Vs. 1. State of Meghalaya represented
Aged about 44 years by the Chief Secretary Shillong.
Son of (L) Phodren Shabong
R/o. Mairang Mission, Eastern 2. Executive Engineer, (PHE),
West Khasi Hills, Mawkyrwat Division, Mawkyrwat.
Mairang - 793121,
Meghalaya. 3. Executive Engineer, (PHE),
Mairang Division.
.......PETITIONER.
4. Executive Engineer, (PHE),
Nongstoin Division.
5. Superintending Engineer (PHE),
Rural Circle, Shillong.
6. Superintending Engineer (PHE),
Western Circle, Nongstoin.
7. Chief Engineer (PHE), Meghalaya
Shillong.
8. Shri. Nangteiskhem Ryntathiang
O/o. S.E PHE Western Circle,
Meghalaya.
9. Shri Bantreilang Wahlang
O/o. S.E PHE Western Circle,
Meghalaya.
10. Shri Hapiness Nongrang
Page 1 of 10
2025:MLHC:534
O/o. E.E PHE, Mairang Division,
Meghalaya.
11. Shri Babiangdor Marwein
O/o. E.E PHE, Mairang Division,
Meghalaya.
......RESPONDENTS.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. H. L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. M. Hajong, Adv.
Mr. W. Khongsni, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Khan, AAG with
Mr. A. H. Kharwanlang, Addl. Sr. GA.
(JUDGMENT AND ORDER)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the Gradation List
dated 02-08-2021 pertaining to the Group D post of Peon wherein the
petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 5 below the private respondent Nos.
8, 9, 10 & 11 and also the letter of approval of promotion of the private
respondent No.8 dated 27-08-2021 issued by the respondent No.7.
1. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Blue Printer in the Office
of the Executive Engineer (PHE), Mawkyrwat Division on the basis of thePage 2 of 10
2025:MLHC:534recommendation of the District Selection Committee by order dated 24-08-
1999. During his posting as Blue Printer, the petitioner was allotted the
work of posting of contractors’ ledgers including other works entrusted to
him from time to time. The petitioner also made several representations for
considering his promotion to the post of LDA-cum-Typist. By order dated
03-10-2002, the petitioner was allowed to officiate as LDA-cum-Typist
w.e.f. 01-10-2002 on temporary basis till the posting of a regular LDA. The
petitioner was also allowed to assist the Junior Engineer vide order dated
03-05-2007. On 08-10-2015, the petitioner submitted a representation to
the respondent No.6 praying for his transfer from the post of Blue Printer,
Mawkyrwat Division to the vacant post of Peon at Mairang PHE Sub-
Division or to any other Grade-IV post. Following the request, the
petitioner was transferred to the post of Peon in the office of the Executive
Engineer (PHE), Mairang Division by order dated 21-04-2016. On his
release from the post of Blue Printer on 10-05-2016, the petitioner joined
the post of Peon immediately on 11-05-2016 at Mairang Division. The
case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite he being
senior to the private respondent Nos.8,9,10 & 11, his name has been placed
at Serial No.5 below the private respondents in the impugned Gradation
List dated 02-08-2021 and that the promotion of the respondent No.8 to the
post of Lower Division Assistant was approved by the respondent No.7 by
the impugned letter dated 27-08-2021 in utter disregard to the seniority of
the petitioner in service.
2. Mr. H. L. Shangreiso, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Blue
Printer, a Grade IV post, by order dated 24-08-1999 and hence, his entire
length of service should have been considered by the respondent No.7
Page 3 of 10
2025:MLHC:534
while fixing the petitioner’s seniority in the impugned Gradation List dated
02-08-2021 for Group D post of Peon. He submits that the exclusion of the
period of service rendered by the petitioner as Blue Printer while preparing
the Gradation List is totally arbitrary and illegal as the post of Peon is also a
Grade IV post. He further submits that the impugned Gradation List was
circulated on 02-08-2021 allowing 30 (thirty) days’ time for filing
objection, but before the expiry of the said period, the approval of
promotion of the respondent No.8 was arbitrarily issued on 27-08-2021.
The learned Senior Counsel contends that the respondent No.8 joined his
service on 12-10-2006 and was promoted illegally on 27-08-2021 before
completing 15 years of qualifying service as mandated by Rule 6 (c) (ii) of
the Meghalaya Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017). The learned Senior Counsel,
therefore, submits that the placement of the private respondent Nos. 8,9,10
&11 above the petitioner in the Gradation List and the subsequent
promotion of the respondent No.8 to the post of LDA by ignoring the
seniority of the petitioner are done in total violation of the established
norms of service jurisprudence and are liable to be interfered with by this
Court. To support the contention that the previous service of the petitioner
is required to be counted for seniority in the transferred post, the learned
Senior Counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sub-
Inspector Rooplal & Another Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary,
Delhi & Others. (2000) 1 SCC 644 and K.P. Sudhakaran & Another Vs.
State of Kerala & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 386.
3. Mr. K. Khan, learned AAG appearing for the State-respondents No.1
– 7, on the other hand, submits that the Rules of 2017 does not contemplate
consideration of any past service rendered in a different post for the
Page 4 of 10
2025:MLHC:534
purpose of seniority in the Gradation List. He submits that the petitioner
joined the post of Peon only on 11-05-2016 and, admittedly, had not
completed 15 years of service in the said post at the time of the preparation
of the Gradation List as well as the approval of the promotion of the
respondent No.8. He submits that the approved Gradation List was
circulated for objection, if any, within 30 days from the date of issuance on
02-08-2021, but the petitioner did not come forward with any objection.
He submits that the statement of the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit that
he raised verbal objection against the Gradation List is nothing but an effort
to cover up deficiency of his case before this Court as there is no disclosure
of any date and details of any such objection. He contends that the case
laws cited by the petitioner do not help the petitioner’s case rather support
the case of the respondents. He further contends that there is no challenge
to the Rules of 2017 by the petitioner and he is, therefore, bound by the
provisions of the rule. The learned AAG submits that the arguments raised
on behalf of the petitioner are contrary to the provisions of the Rules of
2017 and not worthy of acceptance by this Court. He, thus, submits that
there is no merit in the writ petition and prays for dismissal of the same.
4. None appears for the private respondent Nos. 8,9,10 & 11 despite
service of notice upon them.
5. For better appreciation of the arguments raised by the rival parties, it
is imperative to refer to the provision of Rule 6 (c) of the Rules of 2017
which reads as follows: –
“6.(c) Lower Division Assistant: Appointment shall be made:
(i) By direct recruitment on the result of the competitive
examination conducted by the District Selection Committee.
(ii) By Selection from the Select List prepared under Rule 8, from
amongst the Peons of the respective District, Circle, Division
Page 5 of 10
2025:MLHC:534office who have passed the S.S.L.C. or any Examination declared
equivalent thereto and have rendered at least 15 (fifteen) years
continuous service in the Establishment on the first day of the
year in which the selection is made.
(iii) The quota to be filled up in any year according to Sub-Clause (i)
& (ii) above shall be in the ratio of 9:1. This means that 90
percent of recruitment of Lower Division Assistant shall be by
direct recruitment and 10 percent by selection from amongst the
Peons who have passed class X/S.S.L.C. In the event of sufficient
or suitable persons not being available for appointment under
sub-clause (ii), the balance in any year shall be filled up through
direct recruitment under sub-clause (i).”
6. Based on the above, recruitment to the post of Lower Division
Assistant (LDA) is conducted through two distinct methods: (i) direct
recruitment based on the results of a competitive examination held by the
District Selection Committee, and (ii) selection from among Peons serving
in the respective District Offices. To qualify under the second method, a
Peon must have passed the S.S.L.C. or an equivalent examination and must
have completed at least 15 years of uninterrupted service in the
establishment on the first day of the year in which the selection takes place.
It is crucial to note that this method of recruitment by selection is
exclusively applicable to Peons and does not extend to any other Grade IV
or Group D positions. Accordingly, only those serving as Peons who fulfill
the above conditions are eligible for consideration for appointment to the
post of LDA under Rule 6 (c)(ii) of the 2017 Rules.
7. According to Rule 6(d) of the 2017 Rules, Group D positions include
roles such as Chowkidar, Cleaner, Cook, Dak Runner, Handyman, Peon,
and other similar posts. However, only the position of Peon is eligible for
promotion to the post of LDA through selection. The Rules of 2017 do not
indicate that these Group D posts are interchangeable. The petitioner
Page 6 of 10
2025:MLHC:534
originally held the post of Blue Printer, which, under the 2017 Rules,
qualifies as an ‘other Group D post’. There is no evidence in the records to
suggest that the Blue Printer post was abolished or merged with the Peon
post. Therefore, placing the petitioner in the Gradation List under the Peon
category of Group D posts raises concerns. The petitioner’s claim that the
roles of Blue Printer and Peon are equivalent and that seniority should be
determined by treating them as equal Grade IV posts lacks legal support.
8. The decision of Sub-Inspector Rooplal & Another (supra) relied on
by the learned Senior Counsel has no application in the present matter as
the decision rendered by the Apex Court in that case was in respect of
seniority of deputationist with regard to service rendered on equivalent post
in parent department before absorption in deputation department.
9. The decision of K.P. Sudhakaran & Another (supra) also relied on
by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, though relevant to the
present case, does not help the case of the petitioner. In para 11 of the said
decision, the Apex Court held: –
“11. In service jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a
government servant holding a particular post is transferred to
the same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not wipe out
his length of service in the post till the date of transfer and the
period of service in the post before his transfer has to be taken
into consideration in computing the seniority in the
transferred post. But where a government servant is so
transferred on his own request, the transferred employee will
have to forego his seniority till the date of transfer, and will be
placed at the bottom below the juniormost employee in the
category in the in the new cadre or department. This is
because a government servant getting transferred to another
unit or department for his personal considerations, cannot be
permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in thePage 7 of 10
2025:MLHC:534department to which he is transferred, by claiming that his
service in the department from which he has been transferred,
should be taken into account. This is also because a person
appointed to a particular post in a cadre, should know the
strength of the cadre and prospect s of promotion on the basis
of the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition
from outside would disturb such prospects. The matter is,
however, governed by the relevant service rules.”
10. It follows from the above that in service jurisprudence, the general
rule is that when an employee is transferred at his own request from one
unit to another, he has to accept the seniority position in the new unit at the
bottom of that unit. In the absence of statutory or rule-based provisions to
the contrary, the service which he rendered in the original unit prior to the
transfer does not count for determining his seniority in the transferee unit.
In the instant case, it is clear from the averments made in the writ petition
that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Blue Printer, PHE
Mawkyrwat Division to the post of Peon in Mairang PHE Division by order
dated 21-04-2016 on the basis of the request made by him by the
representation dated 08-10-2015. There is no provision in the Rules of
2017 for placing the petitioner on par with the local Peons in the transferee
unit for determination of his seniority by counting the past service rendered
by him in his original position. In fact, the Rules of 2017 is silent in that
regard. Hence, by applying the general rule of service jurisprudence laid
down by the Apex Court, the petitioner had foregone his seniority till the
date of his transfer. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner with
regard to his seniority in the Gradation List dated 02-08-2021 and the
approval of promotion of the private respondent No.8 has no legal basis.
11. As regards the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the promotion of respondent No. 8 was approved prior to the
Page 8 of 10
2025:MLHC:534
expiry of the period of 30 days stipulated for submission of objections to
the Gradation List, it is pertinent to observe that the petitioner did not, in
fact, lodge any objection within the said period. Even assuming that the
promotion approval was accorded before the lapse of the thirty-days period,
no impediment existed that precluded the petitioner from filing an objection
within the time permitted. The petitioner’s assertion in the rejoinder
affidavit, to the effect that a verbal objection was raised, appears to be a
belated and vague claim made only in response to the averments of
respondent No. 7 in the affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it was categorically
stated that no objection had been filed by the petitioner. Notably, the
petitioner has failed to disclose the specific date on which such verbal
objection was allegedly raised or the precise nature and content thereof,
thereby rendering the said statement unsubstantiated and lacking in
credibility.
12. With regard to the petitioner’s contention that respondent No. 8 had
not completed the requisite 15 years of qualifying service at the time of
approval of his promotion, it is to be noted that such assertion finds no
support in the pleadings of the writ petition. The writ petition is entirely
silent on the question of eligibility of respondent No. 8, and the only
averment made in that regard is that respondent No. 8 was six years junior
to the petitioner in service. Since the issue raised pertains to a factual
determination, and in the absence of any specific or substantive averment in
the writ petition concerning the ineligibility of respondent No. 8, this Court
finds no reason to entertain such a plea. This is all the more so when it is
evident that the petitioner himself does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for
selection to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) under Rule 6(c)(ii)
of the Rules of 2017.
Page 9 of 10
2025:MLHC:534
13. For what has been discussed above, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. Resultantly, the writ
petition stands dismissed.
14. In the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
24.06.2025
“Biswarup PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 10 of 10
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.06.24 17:54:22 IST