ANGPTA clarifies on seniority list

All Nagaland Government Primary Teachers’ Association (ANGPTA) has expressed concern over what it described as “a growing tendency” among some individuals who “act selfishly” during the preparation of seniority lists in the department of school education.
In a press release, ANGPTA president James Ruokuoselhou, general secretary Alongchangkiri, vice president (admin) Hoshika H Sumi, and joint secretary Joseph Keneisetou Belho stated that the association has received numerous complaints regarding the ongoing seniority list preparation.
The signatories clarified that neither ANGPTA nor any other association had the authority to prepare the seniority list of any department.
They reminded that every department follows the guidelines laid down in office memorandums while preparing seniority lists. The association said that any attempt to prepare seniority lists based on personal convenience was subject to scrutiny by the P&AR department.
ANGPTA recalled its repeated efforts in the past to address the concerns of ad hoc regularised teachers, including pursuing seniority from the date of initial appointment through discussions with departmental officials, higher authorities, legal experts, and P&AR département.
However, it said those efforts were unsuccessful due to binding government orders and established legal precedents set by the Supreme Court of India.
The association noted that individuals now raising objections fully aware of those efforts and have themselves tried and exhausted all resources through similar attempts, but without success.
ANGPTA highlighted that delays in the seniority process were largely caused by prolonged litigation and court cases seeking inclusion of ad hoc appointment dates, which were dismissed by the High Court. With the issue now settled, it said process has regained momentum.
ANGPTA observed that the school education department was increasingly burdened by court cases, both between different cadres and within the same cadre, leading to a critical shortage of officers.
It pointed out that court cases were often lost when the department failed to adhere to the provisions laid down in OMs while preparing seniority lists.
Conversely, the association said no court can override properly followed OMs.
The association cautioned teachers against being misled by certain individuals who were falsely assuring that seniority would be counted from the date of initial ad hoc appointment.
ANGPTA said such claims were untenable under existing government policy and settled legal position.
The association cited P&AR department OM No. AR-13/21/74 dated 08.07.1975, which states that while continuous ad hoc service followed by regularisation may count for limited purposes (such as increments, leave, and pension), it shall not be considered for seniority.
It asserted that seniority was determined only from the date of regular appointment.
Further, ANGPTA cited Supreme Court judgement in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, where the apex court 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 added that purely ad hoc or stop-gap appointments do not qualify.
ANGPTA also cited judgments including State of West Bengal vs Aghore Nath Dey (1993); Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006) and State of Karnataka vs M.L. Kesari (2010).
In the absence of any specific provision in the service rules or regularization orders permitting retrospective seniority, ANGPTA said that request for fixation of seniority from the date of ad hoc appointment cannot be accepted.
The association strongly cautioned all teachers under the education department against falling prey to individuals promising preferential placement at the top of the seniority list.
It warned that those misleading teachers would ultimately face consequences when the legal and factual position becomes clear.