The ANGPTA issues a clarification on the preparation of seniority lists by the Department of School Education in Nagaland.
Share
DIMAPUR — The All Nagaland Government Primary Teachers Association (ANGPTA) has clarified that neither the association nor any other body has the authority to prepare seniority lists and cautioned teachers against misinformation regarding the process.
In a press statement, the association stated that there has been a growing tendency among individuals to act selfishly during the preparation of seniority lists by the Department of School Education.
It noted that whenever the issue of seniority arises, many become self-centred, with everyone aspiring to become an officer, while the importance of providing quality education to students is rarely discussed.
Having received numerous complaints regarding the preparation of seniority lists, ANGPTA stated that every department follows guidelines laid down in office memorandums while preparing such lists. Any attempt to prepare seniority lists based on personal convenience is subject to scrutiny by the P&AR Department to ensure that proper guidelines, as specified in the office memorandums, have been followed.
ANGPTA stated that it had made sincere and repeated efforts initially to address the concerns of ad hoc regularised teachers, including pursuing seniority from the date of initial appointment through discussions with the department, higher authorities, legal experts, and P&AR.
However, this could not be achieved due to binding government orders and the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. It stated that individuals now raising objections are fully aware of these efforts and have themselves tried and exhausted all resources through similar attempts, but without success.
Also read: All Nagaland Government Primary Teachers' Association Niuland terms ANARPTF unauthorised body
It was also stated that the delay in the seniority process was caused by litigation and court cases seeking inclusion of the date of ad hoc appointment, which was dismissed by the High Court. With the issue now settled, the process has regained momentum.
The association stated that the School Education department has increasingly become burdened with court cases, with disputes arising between different cadres and within cadres themselves. As a result, the department is facing a shortage of officers.
It added that court cases are often lost when the department fails to adhere to provisions laid down in the office memorandums while preparing seniority lists, whereas no court can override properly followed office memorandums.
ANGPTA alleged that certain individuals are misleading sections of teachers by assuring them that seniority will be counted from the date of appointment. It clarified that the claim that seniority should be counted from the date of initial ad hoc appointment is not tenable under existing government policy and the settled legal position.
As per the P&AR Office Memorandum No. AR-13/21/74 dated July 8, 1975, while continuous ad hoc service followed by regularisation may be considered for limited purposes such as increments, leave, and pension, it shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority. It stated that seniority is to be determined only from the date of regular appointment.
The association cited the Supreme Court judgement in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, which held that ad hoc service can be counted for seniority only if the initial appointment was made in accordance with prescribed recruitment rules and through a proper selection process.
It stated that where the appointment is purely ad hoc or stop-gap in nature and not made as per rules, such service cannot be counted towards seniority.
It further cited supporting Supreme Court judgements, including State of West Bengal vs Aghore Nath Dey (1993), which clarified that only regular, rule-based appointments count for seniority and that ad hoc or fortuitous service must be excluded; Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006), where the Constitution Bench held that ad hoc or backdoor appointments do not confer any right to regularisation or seniority; and State of Karnataka vs ML Kesari (2010), which reiterated that even after regularisation, past service does not automatically count for seniority unless rules specifically provide for it.
In view of these provisions and judgements, ANGPTA stated that in the absence of any specific provision in the service rules or regularisation orders permitting retrospective seniority, the request for fixation of seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment cannot be accepted.
The association cautioned all teachers under the Department of School Education not to fall into the trap of individuals who may attempt to mislead them by promising placement at the top of the seniority list, stating that such individuals will ultimately face consequences when the truth becomes clear.