‘Unreasonable and arbitrary’: Why Manipur High Court set aside seniority list for assistant public prosecutors

Manipur High Court was hearing a plea of government-appointed APPs, who challenged seniority list. (Image enhanced using AI)

The Manipur High Court recently set aside a final seniority list for assistant public prosecutors (APP), labelling the government’s ranking system as “arbitrary, unreasonable” and not supported by any rules or instructions from the competent authority.

Justice A Guneshwar Sharma listed out crucial grounds while deciding the plea of two government-appointed APPs, who had challenged a July 2022 notification placing them below their colleagues who entered service years after them.

The petitioners were initially appointed as APPs on contract basis for one year in December 2005.

Between 2005 and 2016, their services were extended periodically by the authorities, and several others (those later ranked above the petitioners) were also appointed on a contractual basis in 2009 and 2010, and finally, in 2016, the state government regularised all these appointments.

However, when the state government issued a seniority list in 2021, the petitioners found themselves at serial numbers 10 and 11, effectively making them junior to those who had been appointed years after them.

Following the government order, the petitioners moved the high court in 2022, where the court quashed the government’s 2021 seniority list and directed the state to finalise a new list within two months.

Acting upon the court’s order, the deputy secretary of law officially set aside the 2021 list and called for fresh objections.

But, when the state published the new final seniority list in July 2022, the petitioners were again placed at serial numbers 10 and 11, following which they filed the present plea.

Acknowledging that there is no specific rule for determining the seniority of persons appointed on contract on different dates, the court said, “The action of the state giving preference to contract employees appointed on later dates is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not supported by any rules or instructions from the competent authority.”