Back
2014 Supreme(Manipur) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, J.
Laitonjam Thoithoi Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Others - Resopndent
W.P.(C) No. 515 of 2012
Decided On : 27-02-2014
For the Respondents:Mr. R.S. Reisang, Sr. G.A., Mr. S. Nepolen, Add. G.A., Mr. N. Kumarjit, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mark M. and Mr. M. Devananda, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and unbiased assessment of ACRs for promotion, and the need for an inquiry when manipulation in ACRs is apparent.
Headnote:
Promotion - Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service - Rule 7 of the Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service, 1994 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 7(1)(2), Rule 7(2)(C) - The judgment discusses the application of Rule 7 of the Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service, 1994, which deals with initial appointment to the service and the zone of consideration for the purpose of initial constitution to the Grade-II and Grade-III of the Service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a degree holder in Vety. Science and Animal Husbandry, was appointed as Vety. Asstt. Surgeon (VAS) and subsequently recommended for promotion to Grade-III. However, the recommendation of the 6th Review DPC was challenged in the present writ application due to the non-recommendation of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-III.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was manipulation in the ACRs of the respondent No. 7 for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94, and directed an inquiry by MPSC to verify the original ACRs. The Court set aside the recommendation made by the 6th DPC for the adjustment of respondent No. 7 against Grade-III post and directed reconsideration of the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No. 7 with reference to their respective ACRs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-recommendation of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-III, manipulation in the ACRs of the respondent No. 7, and the application of Rule 7 of the Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service, 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that there was manipulation in the ACRs of the respondent No. 7 for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94, and directed an inquiry by MPSC to verify the original ACRs. The Court set aside the recommendation made by the 6th DPC for the adjustment of respondent No. 7 against Grade-III post and directed reconsideration of the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No. 7 with reference to their respective ACRs.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ application, set aside the recommendation made by the 6th DPC for the adjustment of respondent No. 7 against Grade-III post, and directed reconsideration of the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No. 7 with reference to their respective ACRs.
L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J.
In this writ application, the Court is called upon to adjudicate a dispute having a long history. The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ application are as follows:- The petitioner is a degree holder in Vety. Science and Animal Husbandry. He was initially appointed as Vety. Asstt. Surgeon (VAS) on ad-hoc basis on 10.08.1977 and such ad-hoc appointment was extended. His case, thereafter was considered by the DPC in consultation with Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) and he was regularized as Vety. Asstt. Surgeon (Extension Officer (A.H.)) Grade-IV of the Manipur Vety. and Animal Husbandry Services on 16.03.1978. A tentative seniority list of the Vety. Asstt. Surgeon working under the department was prepared in June, 1988. In the said tentative seniority list, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial number 17.
2. In the year 1994, the Government of Manipur framed Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1994 (Annexure A/2) (hereinafter called the 1994 Rules) vide notification No. 12.10.1994. It came into operation from the date of its publication in the official gazette on 17.10.1994. The said 94 Rules contemplated that a service shall be constituted known as "Manipur Vety. and Animal Husbandry Service" (hereinafter referred to as the "Service") consisting of persons to be appointed under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Subsequently, the Rules underwent an amendment on 26.11.1994.
3. First Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 7.12.1994 in terms of the 94 Rules for promotion to the post of Grade-II, III and IV in consultation with MPSC. The said Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-III. Order of appointment was issued on 13.12.1994. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the post of Dy. Director, MVS Grade-III w.e.f. 13.12.1994.
4. Some aggrieved officers not satisfied with the recommendation made by the DPC filed writ applications and ultimately recommendation of the DPC was quashed on the ground that such recommendation had been made on the basis of tentative seniority list and retrospective regularization has not been done properly.
5. In terms of the order passed by the Court in the said writ application, second Review DPC was convened on 2.04.1997 for the very same purpose and the petitioner was recommended for being promoted to the post of Dy. Director, MVS Grade-III. However, recommendation of the second Review DPC was not acted upon and the third Review DPC was conducted on 15.05.1999 after rectification of errors in fixation of seniority in the final seniority list. This was done in pursuance of the order passed by the Court in the writ applications challenging the recommendation made in the second Review DPC. Again in the 3rd Review DPC, the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Dy. Director. Recommendation of the 3rd Review DPC was also set aside and 4th Review DPC was convened on 28.10.2006. In the 4th Review DPC also, the petitioner was recommended for promotion to Grade-III against the post of Dy. Director. Recommendation of the 4th Review DPC was also again challenged in the Court and the same was set aside. Thereafter, 5th Review Review DPC was convened on 24.5.2008 and the petitioner was again recommended by the 5th DPC for promotion to Grade-III. The said recommendation of 5th Review DPC was not acted upon on the ground that the name of the post against which officers were recommended had not been mentioned. Therefore, 6th Review DPC was conducted. On this occasion, the 6th Review DPC did not recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion to Grade-III. Challenging the above recommendation of the 6th Review DPC, this writ application has been filed. These facts are not in dispute.
6. Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the notification dated 12th October, 1994 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per
