IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in holding Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to a higher post, without valid reason, can result in the affected party being unfairly disadvantaged and may warrant notional promotion to rectify the injustice.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr.H.Samarjit, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents and Mr.Kh.Athouba, learned counsel for the Manipur Public Service Commission.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting notional promotion to the grade of MPS Grade-II with effect from 2014-2015.

3. Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was given appointment to the post of MPS Grade-II on 9.10.2018 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in association with the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) and in that order, the name of the petitioner was found place at Serial No.32. He would submit that upon perusal of the DPC proceedings for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II, which has been provided under RTI application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner came to learnt that he was recommended at Serial No.1 against 17 vacancies which arose in the year 2014-2015.

4. By placing reliance upon the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999, which has been revised vide Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2015, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that a vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules in force on the date of vacancy, unless rules made subsequently have been expressly given retrospective effect. According to the learned senior counsel, it is obligatory on the part of the official respondents to adhere to the time scheme laid down by the Department of Personnel, Government of Manipur for making promotions against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year.

5. The learned senior counsel urged that failure on the part of the respondents in not holding the DPC as per the model calendar resulted in the delayed promotion and that the petitioner is denied for right to be considered for promotion in the year 2014-2015 i.e. the year against which petitioner is recommended. Further, since the DPC was not held in the year when the relevant vacancies arose due to sheer inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the right to be considered for promotion with effect from the date of vacancies in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 15.4.2014.

6. The learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved by the deprivation of his right to hold higher post due to the delay in holding DPC for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II have already approached the authority for considering his case for the post of Additional Superintendent of Police on in-charge basis vide representation dated 14.10.2020. However, the authority has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 6.4.2021.

7. The learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner who was given promotion to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 2008 become eligible for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II in the year 2010. If the DPC held in the year 2014-2015, the petitioner would have been given promotion in that year. Due to non-holding of DPC for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II for the years despite having vacancies in the grade of MPS Grade-II, the petitioner was denied his right for consideration for promotion in time. In support, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(1) Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1971) 2 SCC 452

(2) P.N.Premachandran v. State of Kerala, (2004) 1 SCC 245

(3) Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan, (2010) 1 SCC 417

(4) State of UP v. Mahesh Narian, (2013) 4 SCC 169

(5) Kusheswar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2007) 11 SCC 447

(6) Oinam Brajachand Singh v. UoI, (2013) 2 GLT 814

8. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Government Advocate submitted that the appointment to a higher post with retrospective effect from a deemed or notional date of appointment is given mo