Meghalaya High Court
Shri Ajit Cheran Momin vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 12 March, 2026
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:184
Serial No. 30
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 436 of 2024
Date of Decision :12.03.2026
1. Shri Ajit Cheran Momin
2. Shri Bilgrak M. Marak
3. Shri Izhar G. Momin
4. Shri Lonick Imphil Sangma
...Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. State of Meghalaya represented by
The Commissioner & Secretary,
Public Health Engineering Department, Shillong
2. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Public Health Engineering Department, Shillong
3. The Chief Engineer, P.H.E.
Meghalaya, Shillong
4. Shri Patiencely Stone Lyngdoh,
Sub Divisional Officer, PHE,
Reservoir Sub Division, Mawphlang
East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya
5. Smti Shailin Dora Synrem,
Sub Divisional Officer, PHE,
Investigation Sub Division, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya ...Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
____________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. A. Kharmyndai, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. Z.E Nongkynrih, GA (For R 1-3)
Mr. S. Sen, Adv. (For R 4&5)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners who are presently serving as Sub-Divisional
Officers/Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the PHE Department of the
Government of Meghalaya by way of the instant writ petition are seeking
rectification of the gradation list dated 14.02.2024, to show them senior to
the respondents Nos. 4 & 5. The ground on which the rectification is sought
is that the petitioners except for the petitioner No. 1, who is higher in the
merit list than the respondent No. 5, but all lower in the merit list to the
respondent No. 4, has been shown lower in the gradation list in spite of being
Page 2 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
appointed earlier than the said respondents. The relevant dates being as
follows:-
i) Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 12.01.2007
ii) Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 20.12.2006
iii) Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 22.12.2006
iv) Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 13.12.2006
v) Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 03.05.2007
vi) Respondent No. 5 was appointed on 15.05.2008
2. Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A.
Kharmyndai, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
along with the other candidates had applied for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) in the Public Health Engineering Department and were part
of the 22(Twenty-two) successful candidates recommended for appointment
against 19(Nineteen) posts. The petitioners by virtue of the Reservation
Policy, were then appointed against the said posts before the respondents
Nos. 4 & 5. However, he submits in the inter se seniority list published by
the respondent No. 2, dated 05.05.2021, the name of the respondent No. 4
was reflected at Sl. No. 16, which is above the petitioner No. 1 at Sl. No. 17,
and the name of respondent No. 5 was reflected at Sl. No. 18, above the
name of the respondents, Nos. 2, 3 & 4, who were shown at Sl. Nos. 19, 20
Page 3 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
& 21, though they were appointed subsequently. Being aggrieved, the
petitioners he submits, had preferred a representation on 11.03.2022
enclosing the Judgment and Order of this Court dated 10.02.2022 passed in
WP(C) No. 301/2018 and other connected matters, wherein it was held that
subsequently inducted employees, would not stand on the same footing as
candidates appointed earlier though they may be higher in the merit list.
3. Without their grievance being addressed, the learned Senior
counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 then published a draft gradation
list on 01.01.2023, which again reflected the names of the petitioners below
the names of the respondents. It is then submitted that the petitioners
submitted a fresh representation to the respondent No. 2 on 25.05.2023 and
also relied upon the Judgment dated 09.11.2022 delivered in WP(C) 394 of
2021 in the case of Zanera R. Marak & Ors. vs. State of Meghalaya, which
held that ordinarily a person in public employment appointed earlier,
becomes senior to a person appointed later, irrespective of age, merit or other
considerations. The said representation he submits, was rejected on the
ground that the referred Judgment relied upon by the petitioners was not
relevant, inasmuch as, the Rule governing the two services i.e. Meghalaya
Civil Services and Meghalaya Public Health Engineering Service Rules
were completely distinct from each other, and further Office Memorandum
Page 4 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
dated 14.06.2023, governing the relationship between reservation roster and
seniority was also referred to.
4. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1, then published
a fresh gradation list on 14.02.2024, showing the inter se seniority of the
officers of the Department as on 01.01.2024, but the respondents Nos. 4 &
5 were shown at Sl. Nos. 7 & 9 respectively whereas, the petitioners’ names
were reflected at Sl. Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12 respectively. It is contended that the
rejection of the representation on the basis of the respective Service Rules
does not hold good, inasmuch as, there is no marked distinction between
Rule 20(4) of the Meghalaya Public Health Engineering Rules, 1996 and
Rule 16(4) of the Meghalaya Civil Service Rules, 1995. He has further
submitted that as the MCS Rules had come up for consideration before the
Division Bench in WP(C) No. 301 of 2018 and other connected matters,
wherein the findings on the question of preferring the date of appointment
over the merit list have been enunciated, the petitioners being appointed
prior to the respondents Nos. 4 & 5, are entitled to be recorded as senior to
these respondents and the impugned gradation list dated 14.02.2024, liable
to be interfered with.
5. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E.
Nongkynrih, learned GA on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, submits
Page 5 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
that the inter se seniority list of the officers, is determined on the basis of
placement of the candidates in the merit list issued by the Meghalaya Public
Service Commission, regardless of the date of joining the post which is as
per the Meghalaya Public Health Engineering Service Rules, 1996, wherein,
Rule 20(4) has provided that the inter se seniority of the members, shall be
in order on which their names appear in the merit list prepared under sub-
rule (4) of Rule 13, or in the select list approved under sub-rule (5) of Rule
10 or sub-rule (4) of Rule 11. The learned AAG has then referred to the
Division Bench Judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed in WA No. 30 of 2023
in the case of Krishpilla T. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya, wherein it has
been held that as the merit list pertains to the same recruitment process,
irrespective of when any individual actually joins the service, the seniority
in the gradation list would have been on the basis of the marks obtained in
the recruitment process, and the position in the merit list. He therefore,
submits that the Judgment dated 26.09.2023 would be the applicable
judgment in the instant case and as such no case has been made out, and the
writ petition apart from being delayed, is liable to be dismissed.
6. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.
4 & 5, has firstly raised the question of delay on the part of the petitioners in
approaching this Court and submitted that the appointment having been
Page 6 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
made as far back as on 2006/2007/2008, the petitioners have only challenged
the gradation list dated 14.02.2024, which is too late in the day to unsettle a
settled position. The learned counsel has then referred to the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors vs. State
of Orissa & Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471, where he submits at Para-
18 thereof, it has been held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage
should be rejected as it seeks to disturb the accrued vested rights of other
persons regarding seniority. He further submits that even in the case cited by
the petitioner i.e. Judgment rendered in WP(C) 301/2018 and other
connected cased dated 10.02.2022, this Court had referred to the fact that the
writ petitioners therein, had not delayed in approaching the Court on their
representation being rejected, whereas in the instant case the writ petitioners
have only approached this Court after the draft gradation list of 2024 had
been released. The learned counsel has also endorsed the submission on
merits made by the learned AAG, that the inter se seniority of the parties
have been maintained as per the merit list since their appointments, and
further submits that several gradation lists had been prepared from the years
2009 to 2022, which the petitioners never objected to or challenged. The
petitioners he submits are therefore, estopped from agitating the matter at
this belated stage and the writ petition deserves no consideration.
Page 7 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the
only claim of the writ petitioners to seniority, is based on the date of joining
in the said posts. As noted earlier, the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 position in the
merit list was at Sl. Nos. 16 & 20, whereas the petitioners 1 to 4, were placed
at Sl. Nos. 18, 21, 22 & 23 respectively. The appointments however, in view
of the operation of the Reservation Policy and also the fact that 19 vacancies
were available, was made in stages i.e. petitioner No. 1 on 12.01.2007,
petitioner No. 2 on 20.12.2006, petitioner No. 3 on 22.12.2006 and petitioner
No. 4 on 13.12.2006 and the respondent No. 4 on 03.05.2007 and the
respondent No. 5 on 15.05.2008.
8. Rule 20 of the Meghalaya Public Health Engineering Services
Rules, 1996 at Rule 20(4) provides the inter se seniority of the members of
the service appointed to different cadres shall be in order in which their
names appear in the merit list prepared under Rule 13(4) or select list under
Rule 10(5) or 11(4). Rule 20(4) for the sake of convenience is reproduced
hereinbelow: –
“20 (4) The inter-se-seniority of the members of the service
appointed to different cadres after the commencement of
these rules shall be in order in which their names appear in
the Merit List prepared under sub-rule (4) of Rule 13 or in the
Select Lists approved under sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 or sub-
rule (4) of Rule 11.”
Page 8 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
9. Though it has been argued that the above quoted Rule is similar
to Rule 16(4) of the Meghalaya Civil Service Rules on which reliance has
been placed by the petitioners, it is to be noted that the rejection of the
representation of the petitioners was on the ground that the two Rules are
distinct and further Memorandum dated 14.06.2023 had been quoted,
wherein at clause 7, it has been stated that Reservation Roster does not
determine seniority, and that seniority will be continue to be based as per
existing Rules. Coupled with this fact is the Judgment of this Court rendered
after the Judgment relied upon by the petitioners i.e. Krishpilla T. Sangma
(supra) which held at Paras-3 & 7, as follows: –
“3. Ordinarily, when recruitment for may positions in the
same post is conducted through a competitive process, the
persons who gain appointment at the end of the process are
graded according to their merit. In other words, persons who
obtain higher marks in the relevant competitive examination
are placed higher in the gradation list as against persons who
obtain lower marks. In many cases, rather erroneously, the
gradation list is mixed up with the reservation list. While the
reservation list indicates how many of the recruits at a
particular recruitment process would have to come from
among the reserved categories, the gradation list prepared at
the end of such recruitment process has no nexus with the
roster and has to be prepared according to the inter se merit
based on the marks of the candidates at the particular process.
7.It is plain to see from the inter se seniority list of November
17, 2020 that while the appellant herein ranked 68 th in the
merit list, the three private respondents ranked 58 th, 55th and
53rd in the same merit list. Since it is also evident that the merit
list pertained to the same recruitment process, irrespective ofPage 9 of 13
2026:MLHC:184when any individual actually joined the service, the seniority
and gradation list would have been on the basis of the marks
obtained in the recruitment process and the positions in the
merit list.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The writ petition apart from the observations made
hereinabove, in the considered view of this Court is also not sustainable on
the ground of inordinate delay, inasmuch as, several gradations lists have
been prepared and notified from the years 2009 onwards, and the writ
petitioners have only approached this Court at a belated stage and that too
by impugning only the gradation list dated 14.02.2024. As held in the case
of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors vs. State of Orissa & Ors (supra) in
paragraphs 18 to 21, which is reproduced hereinbelow, the settled legal
position is that once seniority has been fixed and it has remained in existence
for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained.
“18. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the
long-standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res
integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court,
in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of
Maharashtra (1974) 1 SCC 317 considered the effect of delay
in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that
any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected
inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other
persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have
accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should
approach the court just after accrual of the cause of
complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed
reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularlyPage 10 of 13
2026:MLHC:184in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110,
wherein it has been observed that the principle on which the
court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the
ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have
accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition
should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a
reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed
as under: (Tilokchand case (1969) 1 SCC 110)33
“7. . … The party claiming fundamental rights must
move the Court before other rights come into
existence. The action of courts cannot harm
innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of
delay on the part of the person moving the Court.”
19. This Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar case (1974)
1 SCC 317 also placed reliance upon its earlier judgment of
the Constitution Bench in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of
India (1970) 1 SCC 84, wherein it has been observed as
under: (Rabindranath Bose case (1970) 1 SCC 84)
“33. … It would be unjust to deprive the respondents
of the rights which have accrued to them. Each
person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider
that his appointment and promotion effected a long
time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a
number of years.”
20. In R.S Makashi v. I.M Menon (1982) 1 SCC 379 this
Court considered all aspects of limitation, delay and laches in
filing the writ petition in respect of inter se seniority of the
employees. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in State
Of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006, wherein it has
been observed that the maximum period fixed by the
legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a
civil court must be brought, may ordinarily be taken to be a
reasonable standard by which delay in seeking the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution can be measured. The
Court observed as under: (R.S Makashi case (1982) 1 SCC
379)
Page 11 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
“28. … ’33. … we must administer justice in
accordance with law and principles of equity, justice
and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive
the respondents of the rights which have accrued to
them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back
and consider that his appointment and promotion
effected a long time ago would not be set aside after
the lapse of a number of years. …’
30. … The petitioners have not furnished any valid
explanation whatever for the inordinate delay on
their part in approaching the court with the
challenge against the seniority principles laid down
in the Government Resolution of 1968. … We would
accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the
petitioners against the seniority principles laid down
in the Government Resolution of 22-3-1968 ought to
have been rejected by the High Court on the ground
of delay and laches and the writ petition insofar as
it related to the prayer for quashing the said
Government Resolution should have been
dismissed.”
21. The issue of challenging the seniority list, which
continued to be in existence for a long time, was again
considered by this Court in K.R Mudgal v. R.P Singh (1986)
4 SCC 531, AIR 1986 SC 2086. The Court held as under:(
SCC pp. 532 & 536, paras 2 & 7)
“2. … A government servant who is appointed to any
post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or
4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to
the duties attached to his post peacefully and
without any sense of insecurity. …
7. … Satisfactory service conditions postulate that
there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the
government servants created by writ petitions filed
after several years as in this case. It is essential that
anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned
Page 12 of 13
2026:MLHC:184
to him should approach the court as early as
possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of a
sense of insecurity in the minds of the government
servants there would also be administrative
complications and difficulties. … In these
circumstances we consider that the High Court was
wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised
on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on
the ground of laches.”
(emphasis added)
11. As such, in the circumstances aforesaid, there is no merit in the
instant writ petition and the same stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
12.03.2026
“V. Lyndem- PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 13 of 13
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.03.16 17:53:56 IST
