T. Nandakumar Singh, J.:—

Heard Mr. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos-1 and 2; none appears for the respondent No.3, in spite of proper service of notice of this writ petition, to him, without showing any cause.

2. On 16.11.2011 Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the State respondents, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondents were directed to file affidavit in-opposition on or before the returnable date, i.e. on 14.12.2011. On 14.12.2011, this Court passed an order that the "service report of the respondent No.3 returned unserved with the report that the respondent No.3 refused to accept notice, but for abundant precaution the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is allowed to take steps for service of notice to the respondent No. 3 by Dasti service through the Registry of this Bench." Service of notice to the respondent No.3 was effected by Dasti, for that, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 17.12.2011 that the service of notice to the respondent No.3 had been effected by Dasti service. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the respondents, they did not file their affidavits in-opposition. Ultimately, on 8.02.2012 this Court further granted 2(two) weeks' time as a last chance for filing affidavit in-opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos- 1 and 2. The State respondents, i.e. Respondent Nos-1 and 2 had opted not to file their affidavit in-opposition in the present writ petition knowing quite well the consequence of not filing affidavit in-opposition in the writ petition.

3. On 29.2.2012 Mr. Y. Ashang, learned State counsel had been directed to produce the DPC proceedings positively on 6.3.2012. Again, the learned State counsel had failed to produce the DPC proceedings (related DPC proceedings).

4. This Court may recall the decision of the Apex Court regarding the effect of not filing affidavit in-opposition in a case, i.e. Bir Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. : (1997) 6 SCC 282 ; in that case the Apex Court held that as the respondents have neither filed the counter nor produced the record, the Court is constrained to accept the case of the appellant. Para 4 of the SCC in Bir Singh Chauhan's case(supra) read as follows:

“4. We wanted to examine the record to ascertain whether there is any substantial case against the appellant. The respondents have neither filed counter nor produced the record. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to accept the case of the appellant that he is entitled to be considered for promotion under the Rules. We direct the Government to consider his case for promotion on the basis of his service record within four months from the receipt of this order. While doing so, the Government will exclude the material relating to his inspection report."

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of L.D.C. on 27.9.74. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of U.D.C. on 28.01.1998. The petitioner categorically pleaded in the writ petition that since her initial appointment she has been serving to the full satisfaction of her superior officers as well as her fellow colleagues till date.

6. The Director in-charge Economics & Statistics, Manipur issued the order being No.DES/1(92)/2001-GA Lamphelpat the 26th July,2010 for fixing the final seniority list of U.D.Cs. of the Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Govt. of Manipur as on 15.07.2010; in that final seniority list name of the petitioner appeared at Sl.No.2 and that of the respondent No.3 appeared at SI. No.3. Admittedly, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.3 in the grade/post of U.D.C.

7. In supersession of all previous Rules issued in this regard and in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to make the rules regulating the method of recruitment to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document