IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
Lairenlakpam Poireiton Meitei and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Manipur and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 559 of 2020, 609 of 2020 and 622 of 2020
Decided On : 05-02-2021
Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 131 and 133 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Post of Executive Engineer - Qualifying period of service - Petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct respondents to execute/implement Clause - Writ petition in short are that Addl. Secretary Manipur Public Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for direct recruitment to some posts of Engineer in Engineering Departments, Government - Petitioners applied for (ten) posts of the Manager (Elect.) which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Engineer in Electricity Department - A merit list of candidates for direct recruitment to post of Manager (Elect.) in MSPDCL/MSPDL was issued by MPSC on basis of written examination - Held, Expression public interest does not mean the interest of the personnel of Electricity Department Manipur only - It does definitely mean the interest of all including that of employees of MSPCL/MSPDCL for reason that personnel of Electricity Department Manipur after Transfer Scheme being implemented partly are already working in MSPCL/MSPDCL on deputation in transitory period for their absorption permanently - They are not at present discharging their duties and functions in Electricity Department Manipur and in other words they have no duties and functions to be discharged in Electricity Department but for failure on part of State Government they are technically continued to be personnel of Electricity Department - Had provisions of Clause 5(9)(d) been implemented in year itself they would have become employees of MSPCL/MSPDCL then and there and appropriate actions could have been taken by authorities concerned for granting promotions to them as per law applicable to them – Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri M. Hemchandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners; Shri N. Kumarjit, learned AG for the State respondents; Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate for some of the private respondents and Shri Kh. Samarjit, learned Advocate for some of the respondents.
2. Since the above writ petitions have arisen out of similar set of facts, the same are considered and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
WP(C) No. 559 of 2020
3.1.By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to execute/implement Clause 5(9)(d) of the Manipur State Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Transfer Scheme, 2013") and also to direct the respondents to frame/formulate Rules & Regulations on service conditions focusing on promotional avenues to the next higher post of the Deputy General Manager (Elect.), General Manager (Elect.), Executive Director etc. in MSPCL/MSPDCL in accordance with law.
3.2. Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, in short, are that the Addl. Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the MPSC") issued an advertisement dated 02-12-2015 inviting applications for direct recruitment to some posts of Engineer in the Engineering Departments, Government of Manipur. The petitioners applied for 10 (ten) posts of the Manager (Elect.) which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department, Manipur. A merit list of 24 candidates for the direct recruitment to the post of Manager (Elect.) in the MSPDCL/MSPDL, Manipur dated 01-05-2016 was issued by the MPSC on the basis of the written examination held from 05-01-2016 to 07-01-2016 and the personality test held on 01-05-2016. The petitioners were appointed as the Managers (Elect.) in MSPDCL vide order dated 04-06-2016 pursuant to the approval conveyed by the State Government vide its letter dated 01-06-2016. On the recommendation of the MPSC in its meeting held on 01-05-2016, Shri Nakambam Pritam Singh, one of the petitioners herein, was appointed as the Manager (Elect.) vide order dated 08-02-2019 issued by the Executive Director (HR/Admn/IT/Legal), the MSPDCL.
3.3. A Memorandum dated 23-12-2013 was placed before the Cabinet for consideration and approval as regards the unbundling and corporatization of the Electricity Department, Government of Manipur through a Transfer Scheme and related matters thereto. As per the decision of the Government of Manipur to unbundle and corporatize the Electricity Department, Government of Manipur into two State owned functionally independent entities viz. (a) Manipur State Power Company Limited (hereinafter referred as "the MSPCL") as the Holding Company to discharge the functions of the State Transmission and Generation Utility and (b) Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the MSPDCL") as the deemed distribution licensee/Distribution Company with effect from the 01-02-2014 in terms of Section 131 and 133 and other applicable provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Transfer Scheme, 2013 came to be notified on 31-12-2013 and pursuant thereto, all the employees of the Electricity Department, Manipur were placed on deputation en mass either at the MSPCL or the MSPDCL with effect from 01-02-2014 except for the two employees/officers posted specifically vide an order of the State Government retaining in the Electricity Department, Manipur. The Commissioner (Power), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 11-09-2014 by which 686 employees of the Electricity department, Manipur were deputed to the MSPCL while 1918 employees were deputed to the MSPDCL on the terms and conditions as laid down in the Transfer Scheme, 2013. Clause 5(9)(d) of the Transfe
Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Shri Vardichan & ors.
All India Imam Organisation & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors.
J.C. Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & ors.
Keshav Chandra Joshi & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors.
Ajit Singh (II) Vs. State of Punjab & ors.
Suraj Prakash Gupta Vs. State of J & K
Kapila Hingo Rani Vs. State of Bihar
Secretary, State of Karnatak & ors. Vs. Uma Devi & ors.
T.M. Sampath & ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources & ors.
State of UP Vs. Choudhury Ram Beer Singh
Dilip Kumar Garg & anr. Vs. State of UP & ors.
Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors.
Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors.
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Bashir Ahmed
K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India & ors.
V. Chandrashekharan & anr. Vs. Administrative Officer & ors.
Dr. N.C. Singhal Vs. Union of India & ors.
Scheduled Caste Uplift union & anr. Vs. Union of India & ors.
Rajesh Kagra & ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 ors.
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Rosham Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & ors.
Shripal Bhatt & anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority & ors.
E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India
Nelima Mishra Vs. Harinder Kaur paintal & ors.
The court emphasized that constitutional challenges must be supported by clear pleadings, and the amendment by TRANSCO was valid as it fell within its regulatory powers.
The amendment allowing work-charged employees to seek promotion is constitutionally valid, as it involves rational classification and does not violate equality provisions.
Promotions within public service must adhere to established criteria to uphold equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, prohibiting arbitrary decisions that favor select individuals.
The court upheld the state's relaxation of recruitment rules for employees lacking qualifications, asserting that such measures can mitigate undue hardship while respecting public service needs.
Promotion is an incident of service and not a vested right of an employee.
The court emphasized the importance of following prescribed statutory procedures, particularly in exempting posts from reservation policies, and highlighted the significance of proper pleadings and p....
The amendment affecting chances of promotion for employees does not necessarily constitute a change in the conditions of service, and the State has the power to unilaterally amend service rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.