Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, Lanusungkum Jamir, JJ.
State Of Manipur & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Maiphai Hongchui & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 49 of 2020
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Promotion - Reservation Policy - Manipur Civil Engineering Services (PWD) Rules, 2016 - Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 - Section 20, Section 3(j) - The State of Manipur and the Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Manipur v. [RESPONDENTS] - Manipur Civil Engineering Services (PWD) Rules, 2016, Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976, Section 20, Section 3(j)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the promotion of Section Officers Grade-I to Assistant Engineers (AE)/Assistant Surveyor of Works (ASW) (Civil) in the PWD, Government of Manipur. The respondents, who were members of Scheduled Tribes, claimed that the Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 was not implemented in the promotions, and sought to set aside the Special DPC proceedings and consequential promotion orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State's decision to exempt 72 newly created posts from the reservation policy was done contrary to the prescribed statutory procedure. The court also noted the hasty promotions made without proper consideration of each promotee's service status. However, the court held that the respondents' failure to frame proper pleadings and prayers in their writ petition limited their challenge to only 5 named promotees, and thus estopped them from enlarging their prayer at a later stage. The court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the judgment & order dated 19.12.2019.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of promotion could have been set aside in their entirety when only 5 of the 138 promotees were made parties to the writ petition? 2. Whether the promotion of all 138 persons in the promotion orders could have been set aside without notice to them, when the respondents had only sought such relief against 5 of those promotees and had only impleaded them as parties to the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State's action in exempting the newly created posts from the Act of 1976 was unsustainable in law, and the hasty promotions made without proper consideration of each promotee's service status were also questionable. However, the respondents' failure to frame proper pleadings and prayers in their writ petition limited their challenge to only 5 named promotees, and thus estopped them from enlarging their prayer at a later stage.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment & order dated 19.12.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 253 of 2017. The State was advised to desist from making and implementing policy decisions without following the mandatory procedures prescribed therefor. There was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - The State of Manipur and the Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Manipur, are in appeal against the judgment & order dated 19.12.2019 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 253 of 2017.
Thereby, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the Special DPC proceedings held on 28.12.2016 and the consequential orders of promotion dated 16.03.2017. The learned Judge directed the authorities to convene a fresh DPC or a Review DPC and consider the cases of the writ petitioners under their quota in accordance with the reservation policy and promote them as Assistant Engineers within a time frame. The authorities were also directed to assign reasons why respondents No. 3-7 in the writ petition were promoted prior to the petitioners therein.
The petitioners in the writ petition are arrayed as respondents No. 1-4 in this appeal while respondents No. 3-7 therein are now shown as respondents No. 5-9.
2. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate-General, Manipur, for the appellants; Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel, for respondents No. 1-4; and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned counsel, for respondents No. 5-9.
3. Respondents No. 1-4 are members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Manipur. They hold Diplomas in Civil Engineering and were appointed as Section Officers Grade-II in the Civil Engineering Service in the PWD, Government of Manipur, in September, 1987. They were promoted as Section Officers Grade-I in December, 1994. Their next promotional post is Assistant Engineer(AE)/Assistant Surveyor of Works(ASW) (Civil). As per the Manipur Civil Engineering Services (PWD) Rules, 2016, vacancies in the post of AE/ASW (Civil) have to be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 60:40. The promotional quota of 60% is subdivided into two categories: one, for Degree/AIME holders in Civil Engineering and the second, for those who hold Diplomas in Civil Engineering (3-years course) from recognized institutes. The seniority list of Section Officers Grade-I was notified on 30.04.2015. Respondents No. 1-4 figured therein at Sl. Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 221 respectively while respondents No. 5-9 stood at Sl. Nos. 170, 173, 174, 175 and 178 respectively. While so, respondents No. 1-4 claimed that they came to know of the Special DPC meeting held on 28.12.2016 on the strength of which, orders were issued on 16.03.2017 making 138 promotions to the posts of AE/ASW (Civil). They asserted that the Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1976'), was not implemented while effecting these promotions as only 22 candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes were promoted though 42 such candidates should have been promoted. They claimed that a number of Section Officers-I whose names were below their names in the seniority list were included in the orders of promotion. They then averred in specific terms that the proceedings of the DPC as well as the impugned order of promotion, as far as it related to respondents No. 3-7 in the writ petition, were liable to be set aside. On the strength of these pleadings, they prayed thus in the writ petition: -
'(ii) issue writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction by quashing/setting aside the proceedings of the special DPC purportedly held on 28-12-2016 and also the impugned order dated 16-03-2017 (Annexures-A/5) as for it relates to the Respondent No. 3 to 7 as the same are not sustainable in the eye of law.
(iii) issue writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents by directing the official respondents/authorities concerned to convene/hold a review/fresh DPC so that the cases the petitioners can be considered under their quota and reservation policy and to appoint them thereafter.'
4. The Deputy Secretary (Works), Government of Manipur, filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition. Therein, he state
It is now a well-settled principle of law that an executive order must be passed in conformity with rules. Power of State Government to issue executive instructions is confined to filling up of the g....
The court established that administrative lapses in conducting promotions must not prejudice employees' rights, and adherence to reservation limits is mandatory.
Promotion processes must adhere to established guidelines, ensuring fair consideration for all eligible candidates. Clubbing of vacancies across years violates process integrity, and resultant promot....
The right to promotion constitutes a fundamental right under Article 16, and arbitrary actions by regulatory bodies that deny such rights are unlawful.
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
