Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Lanusungkum Jamir, J.
Md. Yakub Ali - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 17 of 2019 with WP(C) No. 608 of 2019, WP(C) No. 240 of 2019
Decided On : 16-08-2021
Promotion - Home Guards - Manipur Home Guards Act, 1989, Rule 6(2) of the Manipur Home Guard Rules, 1996 - The court set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 6th January, 2019 and 7th July, 2019 in WP(C) No. 17 of 2019 and WP(C) No. 240 of 2019. Further, the impugned order dated 17-07-2019 promoting the petitioner in WP(C) No. 17 of 2019, Md. Yakub Ali to the post of Battalion Commander subject to the outcome of WP(C) No. 17 of 2019 is also quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to take a conscious decision for filling up the post of Battalion Commander of Bishnupur District in accordance with law and also taking into consideration the observations made by this Court.
Fact of the Case:
The three writ petitions are interrelated with regard to the promotion to the rank of Battalion Commander in the Home Guards, under the Government of Manipur. The petitioners in the writ petitions were aggrieved by the promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of Battalion Commander and filed the writ petitions before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders promoting the respondent No.4 to the post of Battalion Commander were issued without the approval of the Home Department and violated Rule 6(2) of the Manipur Home Guard Rules, 1996. The court also found that the seniority list of Division Commanders was ignored while making the promotions, and the actions of the respondents were deemed illegal and arbitrary.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the promotions to the rank of Battalion Commander in the Home Guards, the violation of rules and procedures in making the promotions, and the failure to consider the seniority list of Division Commanders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the impugned orders and quashed the promotions, remitting the matter back to the respondents to take a conscious decision for filling up the post of Battalion Commander in accordance with law and considering the observations made by the Court.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the impugned orders promoting the respondent No.4 to the post of Battalion Commander and remitted the matter back to the respondents for a conscious decision in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
All these 3 (three) Writ Petitions, being interrelated with regard to the promotion to the rank of Battalion Commander in the Home Guards, under the Government of Manipur, are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 17 OF 2019
[1] The petitioner was called out for duty as member of Home Guards (VA) by an order dated 29.09.1986. While the petitioner was serving as Division Commander (unpaid) he was allowed to look after the day to day duties of Bn-I/(IW) temporarily with immediate effect by an order dated 14.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was given promotion to the rank of Divisional Commander (Paid) with rank honorarium with immediate effect by an order dated 9.8.2016. The private respondent No.4/Md.Wahid Ali was given promotion to the post of Company Commander by an order dated 11.2.2004. By another order dated 19.09.2016, the private respondent No.4 was assigned as acting Division Commander (unpaid) temporarily with immediate effect. The order was issued to make up for the present shortage of Division Commander in the Unit and to better streamline the administration and management of the Unit.
In the meantime, the Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur wrote a letter dated 7.3.2018 addressed to the Additional Director General of Police (HG), Manipur furnishing comments along with the present status of Battalion Commanders and Division Commanders of Home Guards. In the said letter the seniority list of Division Commanders in order of their promotion order was given, wherein, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl.No.5 with his date of promotion indicated as 9.8.2016. The name of the respondent No.4 however, was not reflected in the said seniority list as contained in the letter dated 7.3.2018. However, by an order dated 6.1.2019 (wrongly typed as 6.1.2018), the respondent No.4 was promoted to the rank of Battalion Commander and posted as Battalion Commander of Bn.V Bishnupur with immediate effect. It has been clarified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the order indicates 6.1.2018, the same should read as 6.1.2019 inasmuch as the date 6.1.2018 is due to some typographical error.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 6.1.2019 promoting the private respondent No.4 to the post of Battalion Commander, a legal notice dated 7.1.2019 was served on the concerned authority for cancelling the promotion order and to promote the petitioner as Battalion Commander. However, as there was no response the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.
WP(C) No. 608 OF 2019
[2] The petitioner in this writ petition is serving as Division Commander, Home Guards under the Government of Manipur since 2002. The Commander, Home Guards (VA), by a letter dated 7.3.2018 addressed to the Additional Director General of Police (Home Guards), Manipur furnished comments along with the present status of the Battalion Commanders and Division Commanders of Home Guards. In the said letter, the seniority of list of Division Commanders was also given wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Sl.No.1 with the date of promotion indicated as 20.11.2002 and name of the respondent No.4 appears at Sl.No.5 (who is the petitioner in WP(C)) No.17 of 2019) showing his date of promotion as 9.2.2016. Further, in the said letter, it was also requested for promotion of one Th.Ingocha Singh, Division Commander to Battalion Commander-II, Imphal West (vacant post).
It is the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 19.12.2018, he was directed to look after the work of the Battalion Commander of Battalion-V (BPR) in addition to his normal work with immediate effect until further order as the then Battalion Commander, Md.Habibullah, expired on 17.12.2018. The petitioner being the seniormost Division Commander as per the seniority list indicated in the letter dated 7.3.2018 made a represent
AI
The main legal point established is that the authority to dismiss Home Guards for misconduct lies with the Commandant General under Section 8(1) of the Act, and no order can be passed without providi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fair opportunity to defend oneself must be provided, but admission of serious misconduct supported by evidence can justify disciplinary action....
Promotion to selection posts must be based on merit rather than seniority; the government is not obliged to promote an officer if deemed unsuitable.
The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service r....
Out-of-turn promotions are discretionary rewards, not entitlements; entitlement depends on the merit and substantive evaluation of performance.
The court established that seniority and promotions must be based on the date of regularization, ensuring fair treatment among employees in similar positions.
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
