The court upheld the promotion of candidates belonging to reserved category against unreserved posts, citing OMs and case law.

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate with Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3, i.e., Manipur Public Service Commission, Shri Roshni Piba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 6, Shri M. Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 10 and 11 and Ms. Monomala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing/setting aside the entire proceedings of the DPC held on 22-03-2014 and for reviewing the same thereafter.

3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Badminton Coach on ad hoc basis in the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Manipur in the year 1982 and his ad-hoc service was regularized in the year 1986. The State respondents, after considering the objections from all concerned, published a Combined Seniority List of Youth Officers (erstwhile Junior Youth Officers/Superintendent/Coaches) wherein the petitioner's name figures at Sl. No. 9.

3.1 The next promotional post is the post of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer and at the relevant time, 9 (nine) posts of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officers in the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Manipur were vacant and for purpose of holding a DPC for appointment to the post of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer, a self contained note was prepared along with ACRs of the last 5 (five) years in respect of the eligible candidates who were within the zone of consideration. On the recommendation of a DPC held on 22-03-2014, the Commissioner, Youth Affairs and Sports, Manipur issued an order dated 27-03-2014 appointing 9 (nine) District Youth Affairs and Sports Officers wherein the name of the petitioner did not figure at all.

4. According to the petitioner, on seeing the said promotion order dated 27-03-2014, the petitioner felt suspicious that though there were 3 (three) posts reserved for the ST, promotions had been given to 4 (four) candidates belonging to ST and 1 (one) belonging to SC. Being aggrieved by the said order, one Shri Ch. Ganeshlal Singh submitted an application dated 03-05-2014 to the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing information in regard to the proceedings of the said DPC held on 22-03-2014 and the Assessment Chart being considered by the Manipur Public Service Commission. The MPSC, Imphal, Manipur vide its letter dated 10-04-2014 furnished the information as sought for by the applicant. After seeing the proceedings of the DPC held on 22-03-2014, the petitioner felt that the proceedings of the said DPC was irregular as the DPC did not consider the case of the petitioner though he was within the zone of consideration and was very much eligible for appointment as District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer. The act of the State respondents in not properly assessing the Roster Point and the issuance of the said order dated 27-03-2014 based on the said recommendation of the DPC is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending inter-alia that though there are three posts reserved for the candidates belonging to ST, the State respondents have given promotions to four ST candidates thereby exceeding the percentage of reservation; that the respondents have violated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 1988, UP Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karmachari Kalyan Sangh v. UP State Electricity Board & ors. referred to in SLP (C) No. 14568-69/1995, C.D. Bhatia & ors v. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble Court agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be a separate