Back
2016 Supreme(Manipur) 177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Shri Sanglakpam Nandababu Sharma S/o (L) S. Khomdon Sharma & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/Secretary (Home) to the Government of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
W.P (C) No.1020 of 2014
Decided On : 18-10-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Gunabanta, Advocate, Mr. A. Arunkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.S. Reisang, Sr. G.A., Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, G.A., Mr. A. Romen kumar, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Banna, Advocate, Mr. S. Samarjeet, Advocate, Mr. A. Modhuchandra, Advocate.
Headnote:
The Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 were amended to include the post of Inspector (MT) as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of Manipur Police Service (Grade-II). The dispute arose as to the inter se seniority between the present petitioners serving as Inspectors of Police who were already included in the feeder posts and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 serving as Inspectors (MT), which post has been incorporated as one of the feeder posts. The petitioners challenged the impugned seniority list published on 12.10.2014, in which the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed above them. The court held that the second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 would have retrospective effect and as such the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 prepared on the basis of the second amendment does not suffer from any illegality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, serving as Inspectors of Police, challenged the impugned seniority list published on 12.10.2014, in which the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 serving as Inspectors (MT) were placed above them. The dispute arose as to the inter se seniority between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 after the post of Inspector (MT) was incorporated as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of Manipur Police Service (Grade-II) by an amendment to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 would have retrospective effect and as such the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 prepared on the basis of the second amendment does not suffer from any illegality.
Issues: 1. Whether the second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 would have retrospective effect? 2. Whether the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 prepared on the basis of the second amendment is illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 would have retrospective effect as it sought to rectify a defect which had occurred in an earlier amendment to the said Act. 2. The court held that the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 prepared on the basis of the second amendment does not suffer from any illegality.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, however, without any cost.
Heard Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 5 and 6 and Mr. S. Samarjeet learned counsel for the respondents no. 7 to 32.
2. In this writ petition, the dispute is as regards the inter se seniority between the present petitioners serving as Inspectors of Police who were already included in the feeder posts for promotion to Manipur Police Service Grade-II, vis-a-vis the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 serving as Inspectors (MT), which post has been incorporated as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of Manipur Police Service (Grade-II) by an amendment to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 brought in the year 2009. The dispute concerning seniority between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have a relation to the prospect for promotion to the MPS Grade-II as provided under Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 and as the petitioners feel that their prospect has been adversely affected by the impugned seniority list published on 12.10.2014, they have challenged it in this writ petition.
3. Rule 5 under Part-III of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 provides the method of recruitment to the Manipur Police Service. Manipur Police Service consists of several grades, of which we are concerned with MPS Grade-II in the present case. Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 as it stood before the amendments provides that 50% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion from amongst those eligible candidates who are included under Rule 5 (1) (b). The aforesaid Rule 5 as it stood then, being relevant for decision in this case, is accordingly, reproduced herein below:-
“5 Method of Recruitment (1) Save as provided in rule 17, appointment to the service shall be made by the following methods namely:-
(a) 50 percent of the substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorised permanent strength of the Service shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner prescribed in Part IV of these rules, and
(b) the remaining 50 percent of such substantive vacancies shall be filled selection in the manner specified in PART V of these rules from amongst the officers, who are substantively borne on the cadre of Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors of Manipur Rifles employed under the State of Manipur.
Provided that nothing in this rule shall preclude the Government from holding a vacancy in abeyance, or filing it on an officiating basis in accordance with the provisions in Part VIII of these rules.
Provided further that in the case of a person who had been appointed to a post which is subsequently declared as duty post, he shall be deemed to have been appointed to the service from the date of encadrement of the post in the M.P.S. Schedule.
(2) If the exigencies of service so require, the Government may, in consultation with a commission, vary the percentage of posts to be filled by each method specified in sub-rule (1).
4. Thus, under Rule 5 (1) (b) as it stood then, it has been provided that 50% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled up by selection from amongst the officers who are substantively borne on the cadre of (i) Inspector of Police, (ii) Inspector of Police (Legal) and (iii) Subedar/Subedar Majors of Manipur Rifles.
5. It may be noted that under the said recruitment rules, as per Rule 5 quoted above, Inspector (MT) was not included as one of the feeder posts. However, the State Government by making an amendment to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 vide notification dated 23.6.2009 published on 30.6.2009 brought in the post of Inspector (MT) as one of the feeder posts which makes an incumbent to be eligible for appointment to the Manipur Police Service Grade-II by way of promotion by making an ame
