Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
Laishram Biramangol Singh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
Review Petn. No. 4 of 2021 (Arising out of WP(C) No. 685 of 2020 & 31 of 2021) [Ref: WP(C) No. 685 of 2020] and [Ref: WP(C) No. 31 of 2021]
Decided On : 06-09-2021
Review Petition - Forest Officers' Promotion Dispute - Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986 - Rule 5(i)(C) - Summary: The court discussed the promotion dispute of forest officers under the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986, focusing on the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II. The court highlighted the fraudulent obtaining of diploma certificates and the consequential promotions, emphasizing the legal principles related to fraud and its implications on court orders. The court dismissed the review petition, stating that the only remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer an appeal before the appellate forum against the common judgment and order.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a review petition questioning a portion of the judgment and order concerning the promotion of forest officers. The petitioners alleged that the review petitioners obtained diploma certificates fraudulently and were promoted based on fraudulent grounds. The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the promotion dispute and the discovery of new documents after the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review petitioners were not deprived of an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and that the documents discovered after the judgment were not new facts. The court dismissed the review petition, stating that the only remedy available to the review petitioners is to prefer an appeal before the appellate forum against the common judgment and order.
Issues: The issues involved the promotion of forest officers, the validity of diploma certificates obtained fraudulently, and the application of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non est in the eyes of the law. It also highlighted the legal principles related to fraud and its implications on court orders. The court's decision was based on the finding that the review petition lacked merit and the only available remedy for the petitioners was to appeal before the appellate forum.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the review petition, stating that the only remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer an appeal before the appellate forum against the common judgment and order.
JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned Advocate appearing for the review petitioners; Shri H. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7; Shri Ng. Jotindra Luwang, learned Advocate appearing for two of the respondents; Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5 and Shri Bimal Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents. So far as the other respondents are concerned, no one has entered appearance on their behalf nor are they present in the Court.
[2.1] The above review petition has been preferred by the review petitioners questioning a portion of the common judgment and order dated 19-02-2021 passed by this Court disposing of five writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020; WP (C) No. 630 of 2020; WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021. In other words, the review petition has been filed against a portion of the said judgment and order concerning the writ petitions being WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021 only. Since only a portion of the said judgment and order in respect of two writ petitions being WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021 has been questioned, the rest of the judgment and order in respect of the remaining three writ petitions may have attained finality, if no appeal has been preferred against it. The grounds on which the review petition has been filed, are twofold-one, WP(C) No.685 of 2020 had been allowed by this Court without an opportunity being given to the review petitioners who were the respondents therein, to file an affidavit-in-opposition with the result that the writ petition had been allowed without any contest and in view thereof, WP(C) No.31 of 2021 was disposed of and two, some new and crucial documents were discovered by them after the common judgment and order being pronounced by this Court which do have bearing on the issues involved in the said two writ petitions. These documents were not in their possession, at the time of hearing and disposal of the said writ petitions, with due diligence.
[2.2] An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.6 & 7 raising an objection as regards the maintainability of the review petition on the ground that the grounds taken therein are not within the scope of filing review petition and in addition thereto, it has been stated that on 27-01-2021 when all the writ petitions were directed to be listed on the next day for final disposal, the review petitioners did not raise any objection nor did they challenge the order dated 27-01-2021 before the appellate forum. A review petition in the guise of an appeal cannot be entertained and moreover, reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in the review petition for the reason that out of seven documents relied upon by the review petitioners, four had already been placed on record by them.
[3.1] Before considering the said two grounds, this Court deems it appropriate to narrate, in short, the facts and circumstances of the case. The review petitioners and the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021 were appointed as the Range Forest Officers in the years between 1986 and 1989, while the petitioners in WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020 were appointed directly as the Assistant Conservator of Forest/ MFS Grade-II in the year, 2014 on the recommendation of the MPSC. The post of the MFS Grade-II is a promotional post from the post of the Range Forest Officer and the promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II is to be made in terms of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1986” as amended from time to time. The Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 01-04-2010 amending the Rules, 1986 by which 50% of the authorized permanent strength of the service shall be filled up by promotion in the following manner:-
“Range Forest Officers with diploma in Forestry/Wild Life from any State Forest Service College/Wild Li
Fraudulent obtaining of diploma certificates and consequential promotions, and the legal principles related to fraud and its implications on court orders.
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....
Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as review.
Forest Range Officers are not part of the State Forest Service under the Indian Forest Service Recruitment Rules due to the absence of required Central Government approval for promotion eligibility.
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
