Rajkumar Surendra Singh vs State of Manipur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Rajkumar Surendra Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)
Decided On : 24-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate in all the writ petitions and for the applicant in MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022, for the Petitioners/Applicants; Ms. Babita Th, Advocate, for the Applicant in MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021; Mrs.Ch. Sundari, GA for the State Respondents in all the writ petitions and Misc. cases, for the Respondents; Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate, for the Private Respondent in MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021; Mrs. Babita Th, Advocate, for the Private Respondent Nos. 5,7,9 to 13, 15 to 23 and 26 for the private respondents in the writ petitions and in MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022; Mr. Kh. Athouba, GA, for the MPSC respondent in WP(C) No. 755 of 2021

Headnote:(A) Relevant Rules and Regulations - Recruitment Rules 2009, 2019 - Promotion and Direct Recruitment Quotas - Petitioners challenged the seniority list dated 29.01.2021 for Assistant Engineers, claiming it improperly prioritized direct recruits over eligible promotees and contravened earlier Supreme Court directives regarding promotion quotas. (Paras 1-3, 6-13)

(B) Principles of Administrative Law - Promotion procedures must comply with established rules and cannot compromise employee rights. Delay in holding Departmental Promotion Committees (DPC) to assess eligible candidates violates the prescribed norms. (Paras 30, 34)

(C) Examination of Promotions - The validation of promotional hierarchies necessitates strict adherence to eligibility criteria outlined in the relevant Recruitment Rules, and superior claims by direct recruits are contingent on fulfilling these criteria. (Paras 50-60)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash the final seniority list on grounds of improper inclusion of direct recruits and delays in the DPC process, arguing violation of recruitment quotas as set forth in applicable statutes.

Findings of Court:
The present case reflects a clear violation of recruitment processes as per the Recruitment Rules, where direct recruits were improperly prioritized over promotees.

Issues: The court addressed the validity of the seniority list and the procedures in place for promotions versus direct recruitment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed existing principles that promotions should strictly follow outlined procedures, noting that the petitioners’ claim for retrospective seniority and questioning of direct recruits' placements were legally unsustainable.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' claims based on seniority and vacancies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments concerning direct recruitment versus promotion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. legal implications of direct recruitment during restrictions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. history of petitions and legal challenges. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. discussion on prior rulings and their relevance. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. court observations on petitioners' claims' validity. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. court's reasoning in relation to statutory recruitment rules. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. examination of vacancies and appointment legality. (Para 41 , 42)
9. summary of the determination regarding seniority. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
10. outcome on seniority list and promotion status. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
11. clarification on retrospective claims and orders. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
12. final remarks on the sustainability of claims. (Para 54 , 55)
13. court resolution on claims and orders. (Para 56 , 57)
14. final decision on the legality of previous appointments. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
15. conclusion regarding the quest for justice and compliance. (Para 62 , 63 , 64)
16. order for the final seniority list. (Para 65)
17. final verdict on the matters presented. (Para 66 , 67)

JUDGMENT

1. W.P.(C) Nos.108, 191 and 297 of 2022 have been filed by the petitioners to quash the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants working in Public Health Engineering Department, Manipur as on 29.01.2021 and to restrain the official respondents from holding Departmental Promotion Committee in connection with promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department on the basis of the impugned final seniority list dated 29.01.2021.

2. W.P.(C) Nos.755 and 849 of 2021 have been filed by the petitioners to quash the order dated 30.10.2015 issued by the Under Secretary (PHED), Government of Manipur filling up three vacancies of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, coupled with the prayer to quash the seniority list dated 29.01.2021. In the said petition, the petitioner has also sought a prayer to direct to fill the three vacancies of Assistant Engineer arose due to promotion of H.Ibotombi Singh, L.Brojendro Singh and Th. Joychandra Singh to the post of Executive Engineer on 8.4.2020, 8.4.2020 and 28.2.2020 respectively by promotion by holding necessary DPC/Review DPC.

3. In W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021, this Court passed an order dated 10.2.2021 not to hold DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, PHED. Aggrieved by the said interim order, respondent Nos.5, 7, 9 to 13, 15 to 23 and 26 in the said writ petition have filed M.C.(WP) No.145 of 2021 to vacate the interim order dated 10.2.2021. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.755 of 2021 has also filed M.C.(WP) No.140 of 2021 to restrain the respondents from disturbing the present posting place of the petitioner.

4. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

5. Since the grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is almost similar, W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 is taken as a lead case for disposal of these petitions.

6. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

The petitioners became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in the year 1993 being Section Officer Grade-I (Degree Holders) as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, continued to remain stagnant for a considerable long period of time due to the inaction of the Government in holding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) at regular annual intervals against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year as per the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999