Art. 14 & 16 Invoked: Manipur HC Sets Aside ASI Candidate's Rejection, Cites Inconsistent Cut-Off Application, Orders Re-evaluation - 2025-06-16

Manipur High Court Orders Fresh Look at ASI Aspirant's Rejection, Cites "Pick & Choose" Policy

Imphal, Manipur - The High Court of Manipur, in a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, has set aside an order by the state police department that rejected Mr. Chintu Wahengbam 's plea for appointment as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI). Justice A. GuneshwarSharma , presiding over the case [WP(C) No. 1110 of 2022], found the rejection, based on an allegedly fixed cut-off mark, untenable due to inconsistencies in its application and directed the authorities to re-evaluate the petitioner's claim.

The judgment, dated June 16, 2025, emphasized that the State, as a model employer, cannot adopt a "pick and choose" policy and must act fairly and consistently in matters of public employment.

Background of the Decade-Long Recruitment Saga

The case stems from a 2010 notification for the direct recruitment of 112 ASI (Male/Civil) posts in the Manipur Police. Mr. Chintu Wahengbam , the petitioner, successfully cleared the Physical Efficiency Test and the written examination. However, his name was not among the 315 candidates recommended in the DPC results declared on March 3, 2014.

The recruitment process saw several irregularities, including the recommendation of 203 more candidates than initially notified and the subsequent appointment of individuals from waitlists, some of whom, the petitioner argued, scored less than the purported cut-off. Later, four other candidates, initially not recommended and having scored less than the alleged cut-off, were appointed in April 2022 following a High Court order directing consideration of their representations.

Mr. Wahengbam , who scored 40 marks, sought similar consideration. His representation was rejected on October 7, 2022, solely on the ground that he failed to secure the alleged qualifying mark of '51' for the General Category (UR).

Petitioner's Plea for Parity vs. State's Defense

Mr. Th. Khagemba, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was similarly situated to the four candidates who were appointed despite scoring less than '51' marks (their scores being 42, 39, 40, and 40). He further contended that 36 UR candidates from the waitlist, also scoring below '51' marks, were appointed, making the '51' mark cut-off arbitrary and inconsistently applied. He invoked the principle of treating similarly situated persons alike, referencing State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha .

Conversely, Mr. Shyam Sharma , Government Advocate, maintained that the petitioner was not considered as he scored below the qualifying '51' marks. He argued that the four other candidates were appointed based on a court order and that any wrongful appointment cannot be a basis for claiming equality, as equality cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality (negative equality).

Court's Scrutiny: Cut-Off Marks and the Limits of Equality

Justice A. GuneshwarSharma meticulously examined the state's assertion of a '51' mark cut-off. The Court noted: > "On perusal of this Court’s order dated 16.09.2021, it is crystal clear that the direction was only to consider the representation of those four candidates who were included along with the petitioner in the list of ‘Not Qualified Candidates’. There was no specific direction from this Court for appointment of those four persons..."

The Court also observed the respondents' failure to specifically rebut the petitioner's claim that 36 UR candidates from the waitlist who scored less than '51' marks were appointed. This led to the conclusion: > "In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the cut-off mark for UR candidates for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.04.2010 cannot be ‘51’ as alleged by the respondents."

While addressing the plea for parity, the Court delved into the doctrine of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Citing precedents like Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh and R. Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO , the Court affirmed that negative equality cannot be claimed: > "If the appointment is contrary to the rules and general accepted norms, similarly situated person will not get the same benefit as the doctrine of equality cannot be stretched to perpetuate illegal things... In short, the doctrine of equality cannot be overstretched to perpetuate wrong things."

Thus, the Court declined to issue a mandamus for the petitioner's direct appointment on parity, as the legality of the other four appointments (made despite lower scores) was not under examination and applying parity might perpetuate a potential irregularity.

State's Inconsistent Stand Criticized

Despite not ordering direct appointment, the Court strongly criticized the state's inconsistent approach. The judgment highlighted: > "In the case in hand, the respondents are blowing hot and cold. On one hand, they were appointing candidates belonging to UR category with scores less than the cut-off mark of ‘51’. On the other hand, they denied the request for the petitioner only on the ground that he failed to score minimum qualifying mark of ‘51’."

Recalling the Supreme Court's observation in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana that "the State Government is expected to function as a model employer," Justice Sharma remarked: > "This Court is compelled to observe that the State respondents have miserably failed to act fairly as a model employer. The approach of the respondents is highly unethical, arbitrary, and policy of pick & choose without following a definite norm."

The Verdict: Rejection Quashed, Fresh Consideration Ordered

Given that the sole reason for rejecting the petitioner's representation—failure to score '51' marks—was found untenable, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated October 7, 2022.

The Court directed the respondents to:

1. First, decide and clearly establish the cut-off mark for UR candidates for the ASI recruitment initiated by the advertisement dated April 24, 2010.

2. Then, re-consider Mr. Wahengbam 's representation afresh, keeping in mind that the High Court had never directed the outright appointment of the other four candidates who scored less than '51' marks, but only the consideration of their cases.

This entire exercise is to be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed.