Asok Potsangbam, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Bipin, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. H. Raghumani, learned Government advocate appearing on behalf of the Government Respondents. Also heard Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh assisted by Th. Saratkumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the private Respondent.

WP(C) No. 781 of 2010 and WP(C) No. 81 of 2011

2. Writ petition being WP(C) No. 781 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioner therein for issuance of a writ of quo warrantor against the private Respondent No. 4 and the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, have been heard at length and time was granted on many occasions, to enable them to canvass and substantiate their respective propositions/contentions raised in the case. Order in WP(C) No. 781 of 2010 was reserved by an order dated 10.2.2011 passed by this Court and while the aforesaid case was being kept CAV, the private Respondent No. 4 also filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 81 of 2011 for issuance of a writ of quo warrantor against the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 781 of 2010. The Petitioner in WP(C) No. 81 of 2011 is the private Respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 781 of 2010. On 18.2.2011, Shri Th. Saratkumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 81 of 2011, Shri H. Raghumani, learned Government Advocate and Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondent No. 4 in the 2nd case, were heard at length and it was broadly agreed among the learned Counsels appearing for the parties that the issues raised in the subsequent case, i.e., WP(C) No. 81 of 2011 are more or less the same with that of the issues raised in WP(C) No. 781 of 2010, which were adequately urged and addressed by the contesting parties and as such, the second case be clubbed together with the first case. As agreed upon by the parties, WP(C) No. 81 of 2011 was ordered to be tagged along with WP(C) No. 781 of 2010 as they are analogous in nature and they are to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it necessary that the entire facts associated with the case need be discussed but facts, which may be relevant for disposal of the cases, may be noticed as hereunder:

3.1 WP(C) No. 781 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioner therein stating/contending that the private Respondent No. 4, whose promotion to the post of Battalion Commander in the Manipur Home Guards vide order dated 14.12.2000, was cancelled by the Government on 7.4.2001 on the ground that the very promotion was irregular and without mandatory approval of the State Government or the Director General of Home Guards. The aforesaid cancellation order dated 7.4.2001 was challenged by the private Respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 7500 of 2001 at the Principal Seat and an interim order dated 16.10.2001 was obtained, staying the cancellation order dated 7.4.2001 and also the consequential order dated 10.4.2001.

3.2 Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, as discussed above, the Government issued an order dated 20.10.2001 by way of complying with the interim order dated 16.10.2001 as referred to above and the interim order was extended till the disposal of the writ petition. The State Government contested the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 7500/2001(Gau.), which was re-numbered as WP(C) No. 2005 of 2001(Imp.), by filing an exhaustive affidavit which is available at Annexure A/16 to the writ petition. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is maintained by the State Government that at the time of promotion of the Petitioner therein to the post of Battalion Commander, he was only holding the post of Company Commander and that the promotion order dated 14.12.2001 was issued by the Commandant of Home Guard without considering the seniority position of Company Commanders and without the approval of either the Director General of Home Guards or the State