Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Khoisnam Kuber Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Decided On : 06-05-2022
DPC - Manipur Forest Service Grade-II - Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010, Rule 5(C) of the Manipur Forest Service (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019 - The court discussed the provisions contained in Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and Rule 5(C) of the Manipur Forest Service (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019. The court emphasized the applicability of these rules in holding the review DPC for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and the eligibility criteria for consideration in the DPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Range Forest Officers, sought quashing of the order to hold a Review DPC for their promotion to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and to direct the respondents to hold a fresh Review DPC in connection with 10 vacancies of MFS-II. The petitioners claimed eligibility based on their certificate holders in Wildlife Management from Wildlife Institute of India and the provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not considered for promotion in earlier DPCs due to ambiguity in the rules and their failure to submit certificates in time. The court also noted that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioners for providing false information. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the impugned orders were issued pursuant to the direction of the court in the earlier round of litigation and that the petitioners failed to make out a valid ground for interference.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion to MFS-II, the applicability of the relevant rules, and the non-consideration of the petitioners in earlier DPCs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rules prevalent at the time of consideration for promotion would be applicable, and a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules. The court emphasized that vacancies are not to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 5.8.2021 of the Department of P&AR conveying the decision of the Government to hold a Review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of the Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and consequent order dated 7.8.2021 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for holding the review DPC considering the eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the Manipur Forest Service (1st Amendment Rules), 2019 and to direct the respondents to hold a fresh Review DPC in connection with 10 vacancies of MFS-II arose during the case of the petitioners as certificate holders in accordance with the provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and appoint them to the post of MFS-II with retrospective effect from 2.12.2013 with consequential benefits including monetary benefits in case if the petitioners are selected and recommended by the review DPC and also to consider the representation dated 21.8.2021 submitted by the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr.Elangbam Premjit, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.L.Brizet Devi, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the petitioners 1 to 3 joined the service as Range Forest Officers on 2.5.1987, 3.5.1988 and 3.5.1989 respectively and while in service, they were awarded certificate holders in Wildlife Management from Wildlife Institute of India on 31.1.2006, 31.1.2011 and 31.1.2008 respectively. By virtue of being certificate holders in Wildlife Management from Wildlife Institute of India read with the provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 [for short, 'the Rules of 2010'] and the final seniority list of Range Forest Officers dated 10.2.2009, the petitioners are within the five eligible Range Forest Officers to be considered first for promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in the Forests and Environment Department, Manipur against 10 vacancies of MFS-II occurred during the period from 2010 to 2013.
4. Time and again, the case of the petitioners was not considered while holding the DPC in connection with filling up the 10 vacancies of MFS-II occurred during the period from 2010 to 2013. It is averred that while setting aside the review DPC held on 7.7.2018 of the earlier DPC, filling up of 10 vacancies of MFS-II vide order dated 20.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018, inter alia, was pleased to direct to hold a fresh review DPC in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Rules of 2010 considering all the eligible persons. However, the case of the petitioners was never considered in the review DPC held thereafter.
5. Earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 challenging the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and appointment orders dated 31.8.2020. This Court, vide order dated 19.2.2021 in W.P.(C) Nos.606, 607, 630 and 685 of 2020 and 31 of 2021, set aside the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and appointment orders dated 31.8.2020. However, the Department of P&AR issued an order dated 5.8.2021 of conveying the decision of the Government to hold review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and consequently, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued the order dated 7.8.2021 for holding review DPC considering eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the MFS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019. It is averred that unless the respondents are restrained from holding the review DPC as per Rule 5(C) of the MFS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss. Hence, the writ petition.
6. The respondent 1 and 3 filed counter stating that the petitioners 1 to 3 were not considered for promotion to MFS-II against the ten vaca
The eligibility for promotion and consideration in DPCs is determined by the rules prevalent at the time of consideration, and vacancies are not to be filled invariably by the law existing on the dat....
Fraudulent obtaining of diploma certificates and consequential promotions, and the legal principles related to fraud and its implications on court orders.
The right to promotion constitutes a fundamental right under Article 16, and arbitrary actions by regulatory bodies that deny such rights are unlawful.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for candidates to meet the eligibility criteria as per the Recruitment Rules, 1996, including the need for passing certificates ....
The court established that administrative lapses in conducting promotions must not prejudice employees' rights, and adherence to reservation limits is mandatory.
An illegitimate promotion violating recruitment rules and seniority is void ab initio and curable via review. Challenges to long-settled appointments are unsustainable under the principles of delay a....
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 notiona....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
