MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS. versus M. MOANUNGBA & ORS.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 709, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 709 : 2024 INSC 641
Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. 
v. 
M. Moanungba & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 9927 of 2024)
28 August 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards inter-se seniority of the incumbents 
appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment 
basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were 
upgraded to Junior Engineer.
Headnotes†
Service law – Seniority – Members of the cadre of Junior 
Engineers – Inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed 
to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis 
and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were 
upgraded to Junior Engineer – Direct recruitment of the 
Junior Engineers in 2003 – Circulation of tentative seniority 
list, however its finalization remained pending – During the 
interregnum 47 posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, working 
in the Department upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II 
Gazetted) and thereafter, seniority list finalized – Appellants-
direct recruitees shown in the beginning of the seniority list, 
however, the respondents who were upgraded as Junior 
Engineer in 2007 were shown much below – Aggrieved 
thereagainst, writ petitions filed by the incumbents upgraded 
as Junior Engineers – Single Judge of the High Court 
dismissed the same as the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, whose 
post was upgraded only in  2007 as Junior Engineers could 
not be treated to be senior to the Junior Engineers, directly
recruited in 2003 and the impugned seniority list was upheld – 
However, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by 
the Single Judge – Correctness: 
Held: Division Bench of the High Court totally misdirected 
itself while examining the 1997 Rules; the date of appointment 
of the respondents as Sectional Officer, Grade-I and the date 
* Author
710
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of their regularization as such – Said facts were not of any 
relevance – Date on which they became members of the cadre 
of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources is to be 
considered  – Dates on which the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, 
were promoted as such either on officiating basis or their 
promotions were regularlised as per the order of 2007 will not 
have any bearing to the instant case – Even if the Sectional 
Officer, Grade-I, are treated to be working from the date they 
were officiating as such, nothing hinges on that as far as the 
seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers is concerned – Post 
of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, on which they were working was 
upgraded to that of Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) in 2007 – 
Pay-scales of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, was ₹4500- 7000 and 
of Junior Engineer was ₹6000-9750, meaning thereby that the 
respondents were working on a lower non-gazetted post – 
Division Bench committed blatant error that upgraded Sectional 
Officer, Grade-I, are directed to be given seniority in the cadre 
of Junior Engineers from a date on which they were not even 
born in the cadre as it was only after 2007 upgradation order 
that they became Junior Engineers, which was much after the 
direct recruitment made in 2003 – Impugned order passed by 
the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Seniority list 
of the Junior Engineers upheld – Nagaland Engineeing Services 
Rules,
1997. [Paras 9-16]
Case Law Cited
State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma [2006] 
Supp. 10 SCR 1 : (2007) 1 SCC 683 : 2006 INSC 944; P. Sudhakar 
Rao and Others v. U. Govinda Rao and Others [2013] 13 SCR 
540 : (2013) 8 SCC 693 : 2013 INSC 420; Ganga Vishan Gujrati 
and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others [2019] 11 SCR 444 : 
(2019) 16 SCC 28, 2019 INSC 938 – referred to.
List of Acts
Nagaland Engineeing Services Rules, 1997.
List of Keywords
Seniority; Post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis; 
Posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, upgraded to Junior Engineer; 
Tentative seniority list; Direct recruits; Regularization; Promotions; 
Pay-scales; Lower non-gazetted post.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
711
Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9927 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2021 of the Gauhati High 
Court in WA No. 4 of 2020
With
Civil Appeal No. 9928 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
P.S. Patwalia, Ranji Thomas, K N Balgopal, Rana Mukherjee, Sr. 
Advs., Sudarsh Menon, Shine P. Sasidhar, Manish Kumar Tiwari, 
Ms. Tatini Basu, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Kumar Shashank, Ms. Nitya 
Nambiar, Avijit Roy, Samarth Mohanty, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The issue under consideration in the present appeals is regarding 
inter se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior 
Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of 
Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer.
3.	
Final seniority list of Junior Engineers was circulated on 26.03.2018 
showing the seniority position of the incumbents manning the posts 
from two different sources. Aggrieved against the seniority list, 
Sectional Officers, Grade-I, who were redesignated/upgraded as 
Junior Engineers challenged the same by filing W.P.(C)No.264(K) of 
2018 and W.P.(C) No.74(K) of 2019 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 
16 herein. The Learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.02.2020 
dismissed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved against the judgment of 
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.74(K) of
2019, an intra-court 
appeal, W.A. No.4 of 2020 was filed. The Division Bench of the 
High Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As 
a consequence, the impugned seniority list circulated on 26.03.2018 
was set aside and the department concerned was directed to refix 
the seniority of the Junior Engineers in terms of the directions given 
in the judgment.
712
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3.1	 Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the directly recruited 
Junior Engineers in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.17102 
of 2021 and the State in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)
No.1136 of 2022 are before this Court.
4.	
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the directly 
recruited Junior Engineers/appellants in C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.17102 
of 2021 submitted that they were selected as such after qualifying 
the exam conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission 
and appointed in the pay-scale of ₹6000-9750, vide Notification dated 
01.05.2003. Their selection and appointment were strictly in terms 
of the Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1997.1 Ever since their 
appointment they have been performing their duty diligently. 
4.1	 The contesting private respondents are incumbents who were 
earlier working in the cadre of Sectional Officers, Grade-I in 
the pay-scale of ₹4500-7000. Their posts were upgraded to 
that of Junior Engineers by the Government of Nagaland vide 
Communication dated 11.10.2007. It was only thereafter that 
they entered in the cadre of Junior Engineer. Prior to that 
they were working in a lower grade as compared to the direct 
recruits/Junior Engineers. 
4.2	 After the selection of the direct recruits, a number of tentative 
seniority lists were circulated starting from 31.05.2004. However, 
none of them were finalized. It was only on 26.03.2018 that the
seniority list was finalized. The appellants herein were shown 
above the incumbents/respondents who entered in the grade of 
Junior Engineers after their post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, 
was upgraded to Junior Engineer. It was for the reason that the 
appellants have been working as Junior Engineer ever since 
their appointment vide Notification dated 01.05.2003 whereas 
the post of the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, was upgraded to that 
of Junior Engineers only vide Communication dated 11.10.2007. 
Prior to that they were working on non-gazetted lower post of 
Sectional Officer, Grade-I. 
4.3	 Even otherwise if considered in terms of the 1997 Rules, the 
manner in which post of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, has been 
1	
The 1997 Rules
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
713
Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors.
upgraded to Junior Engineer, is not the manner provided in 
which the post of Junior Engineer can be filled up. Be that as 
it may, the appellants are not aggrieved with that action of the 
State, in case they are granted proper position in the seniority 
list. The result of the judgment of the Division Bench of the 
High Court is that the private respondents have been assigned 
seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers from the date on 
which they were not even born in the cadre, which is legally 
impermissible. In support of the arguments reliance was placed 
upon the judgments of this Court in State of Uttaranchal and 
Another v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma,2 P. Sudhakar Rao and 
Others v. U. Govinda Rao and Others3 and Ganga Vishan 
Gujrati and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others.4
5.	
As the State is also aggrieved by the Judgment of the Division Bench 
of the High Court, in furtherance to the arguments raised on behalf 
of the directly recruited Junior Engineers, Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned 
senior counsel appearing for the State in C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.1136 
of 2022, submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench is based 
on certain wrong facts/premise. The Learned Judge had tried to trace 
out the history from 1997 onwards, which was not relevant for the 
lis to be examined. It is a case in which inter-se seniority was to be 
determined after the first ever direct recruitment to the post of Junior
Engineer was made on 01.05.2003. Prior to that Junior Engineers 
were being appointed by upgrading different posts.
5.1	 There is no dispute that the private contesting respondents 
herein were not Junior Engineers as on the date when the direct 
recruitments were made. The private contesting respondents 
were promoted on an officiating basis as Sectional Officers, 
Grade-I, on different dates. The Departmental Promotion 
Committee (DPC) was held on 16.03.2007 to consider 
regularization of their officiating promotion. Officiating promotion 
of Sectional Officers, Grade-I, in the pay-scale of ₹4500-7000 
was regularized vide Office Order dated 31.03.2007. Even if 
they had been working as Sectional Officer, Grade-I, from any 
2	
[2006] Supp. 10 SCR 1 : (2007) 1 SCC 683 : 2006 INSC 944
3	
[2013] 13 SCR 540 : (2013) 8 SCC 693 : 2013 INSC 420
4	
[2019] 11 SCR 444 : (2019) 16 SCC 28 : 2019 INSC 938
714
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
date prior to 16.03.2007, the same does not come to their 
rescue for the reason that they were working on a lower post. 
Sectional Officer, Grade-I, is a promotional post from Sectional 
Officer, Grade-II. 
6.	
In response, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the contesting private respondents, who were the writ petitioners 
before the High Court in W.A.No.4 of 2020 submitted that Office 
Order dated 31.03.2007 clearly shows that the private contesting 
respondents were deemed to be promoted from various dates 
as Sectional Officers, Grade-I, as their officiating promotion was 
regularized. The dates as are available in the aforesaid Office Order 
in most of the cases was prior to the date of appointment of the 
appellants in C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.17102 of 2021. Hence, they were 
rightly granted seniority from that date as it was that post which was 
subsequently upgraded to Junior Engineer. There is no error in the 
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and both the 
appeals deserve to be dismissed.
7.	
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant 
referred record.
8.	
The undisputed facts in the case fall in a very narrow compass. 
There are two sets of employees working as Junior Engineers. The 
appellants in C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.17102 of 2021 are the incumbents 
who were selected by the Nagaland Public Service Commission and 
were appointed as Junior Engineers vide
Notification 01.05.2003. 
The private contesting respondents who were the writ petitioners and 
appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.No.4 
of 2020 were working as Sectional Officer, Grade-I and the post on 
which they were working was upgraded to that of Junior Engineer 
(Class-II Gazetted), vide letter dated 11.10.2007. The pay-scales on 
which the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were working was ₹4500-7000 
whereas the pay-scales on which Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted), 
were working was ₹6000-9750.
9.	
As stated before us, the post of Junior Engineer was governed by 
the 1997 Rules in terms of which 90% recruitment is to be done by 
direct recruitment and 10% by way of promotion. As stated before us, 
prior to 2003 selection by the Nagaland Public Service Commission 
no direct recruitment was made. Any seniority list of Junior Engineer 
which may have been circulated earlier will not have any bearing in
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
715
Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors.
the case in hand. After the direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers 
a tentative seniority list was circulated on 31.05.2004. Its finalization 
remained pending for years. During the interregnum 47 posts of 
Sectional Officer, Grade-I, working in the Nagaland Public Works 
Department were upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) 
vide Letter dated 11.10.2007. After considering claims and objections 
of all the incumbents working in the cadre of Junior Engineers, the 
seniority list was finalized on 26.03.2018. 
10.	 The appellants in C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.17102 of 2021 were shown at 
Serial Nos.71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 & 80 in the aforesaid seniority 
list; they being the direct recruits. Respondent Nos.1 to 16 who 
were earlier working as Sectional Officer, Grade-I, the post which 
was subsequently upgraded as Junior Engineer vide letter dated 
11.10.2007 were shown at Serial Nos.156, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 157, 158, 159, 174 & 179.
11.	 Aggrieved against the aforesaid seniority list, two writ petitions were 
filed before the High Court. W.P.(C) No.74(K) of 2019 was filed by 
the respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein whereas W.P.(C)No.264(K) of 
2018 was filed by 29 other incumbents who were earlier working as 
Sectional Officer, Grade-I, the post which was upgraded to Junior 
Engineer vide order dated 11.10.2007.
12.	 Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed both the writ petitions
as 
the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, whose post was upgraded only on 
11.10.2007 as Junior Engineers could not be treated to be senior 
to the Junior Engineers who were directly recruited on 01.05.2003. 
The impugned seniority list as circulated on 26.03.2018 was upheld.
13.	 A perusal of the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High 
Court shows that it had totally misdirected itself while examining 
the 1997 Rules; the date of appointment of the private contesting 
respondents as Sectional Officer, Grade-I and the date of their 
regularization as such. The aforesaid facts were not of any relevance 
for the decision of the question of seniority amongst the members 
of the cadre of Junior Engineers. All what was required to be 
considered was the date on which they became members of the 
cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two different sources. As to 
whether the upgradation of the post was right or wrong is not an 
issue canvassed before this Court. The Division Bench of the High 
Court has further gone wrong in considering the upgradation of post
716
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of Sectional Officer and certain other posts to that Junior Engineers 
prior to 01.05.2003 when direct recruitment to the post of Junior 
Engineers was made for the first time. That historical background 
did not have any relevance for the reason that prior to 2003 never 
before in the cadre of Junior Engineers there was recruitment from 
two different sources. The dispute arose only thereafter. 
14.	 The dates on which the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were promoted as 
such either on officiating basis or their promotions were regularlised 
though as per the Order dated 31.03.2007 effective from the date 
when the DPC was held i.e. 16.03.2007 will not have any bearing on 
the case in hand. Even if the Sectional Officer, Grade-I, are treated 
to be working from the date they were officiating as such, nothing 
hinges on that as far as the seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers 
is concerned. It is for the reason that the post of Sectional Officer, 
Grade-I, on which they were working was upgraded to that of Junior 
Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) vide letter dated 11.10.2007. 
15.	 The pay-scales of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, was ₹4500-7000 and 
the Junior Engineer was having pay-scales of ₹6000-9750. Meaning 
thereby that they were working on a lower non-gazetted post. The 
dispute in the present appeals is only pertaining to the Sectional 
Officer, Grade-I, whose posts were upgraded on 11.10.2007 and 
not those whose posts
were upgraded prior to the direct recruitment 
vide Notification dated 01.05.2003. The blatant error committed by 
the Division Bench of the High Court is that upgraded Sectional 
Officer, Grade-I, are directed to be given seniority in the cadre of 
Junior Engineers from a date on which they were not even born in 
the cadre as it was only after 11.10.2007 upgradation order that 
they became Junior Engineers, which was much after the direct 
recruitment made on 01.05.2003.
16.	 For the reasons mentioned above, appeals are allowed. The impugned 
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. 
The seniority list of the Junior Engineers as circulated on 26.03.2018 
is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain