Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Gunabati Kangabam - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 40 & 41 of 2021, W.P.(C) No. 151 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 43 of 2021 Ref:- WP(C) No. 40 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 44 of 2021 Ref:- WP(C) No. 41 of 2021
Decided On : 11-10-2022
DPC - Promotion to the post of Fishery Officer - Recruitment Rules, 1996 - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer under the Recruitment Rules, 1996, and the failure of the DPC to consider eligible candidates. The court highlighted the requirement of possessing a 1-year PG Diploma with 3 years regular service and the need for passing certificates to establish eligibility. The court found that the petitioners failed to produce passing certificates, rendering their challenge to the DPC proceedings unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the DPC proceedings for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer, alleging failure to consider eligible candidates. The respondents defended the DPC process and eligibility criteria, arguing that the petitioners failed to submit necessary documents as per the Recruitment Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the Recruitment Rules, 1996, due to the lack of passing certificates for the required 1-year PG Diploma. The court also noted that the DPC had followed the relevant rules and recommended eligible candidates for promotion.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer and the failure of the DPC to consider them. The court also addressed the validity of the interim order preventing appointments based on the DPC recommendations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' challenge to the DPC proceedings was unsustainable due to their failure to produce passing certificates for the required 1-year PG Diploma. The court also vacated the interim order preventing appointments based on the DPC recommendations.
Final Decision: WP(C) Nos.40 and 41 of 2021 were dismissed, and the interim order preventing appointments based on the DPC recommendations was vacated. WP(C) No.151 of 2021 was allowed, setting aside the impugned letter dated 30.11.2020 and directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner Dineshwar Singh for promotion.
JUDGMENT
1. W.P. (C) Nos.40 and 41 of 2021 have been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned DPC proceedings held on 16.11.2020 for appointment on promotion to the post of Fishery Officer and to direct the respondents to review the same.
2. W.P.(C) No.151 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner, who is the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) Nos.40 and 41 of 2021, to quash the letter dated 30.11.2020 issued by the Under Secretary to Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.2.2021.
WP(C) Nos.40 and 41 of 2021:
3. The common case of the petitioners is that the Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] has failed to consider the petitioner in WP.(C) No.40 of 2021 under Unreserved category and the petitioner in WP(C) No.41 of 2021 under the ST quota for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer, who are having the same qualification as that of the private respondents and had left one vacant Unreserved post and four vacant post meant for ST quota without any reason instead of recommending the petitioners to the said posts under the Unreserved category and ST quota respectively.
4. Further case of the petitioners is that the DPC was held on 16.11.2020 for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer from the Fishery Inspector/Fishery Instructor/Fishery Extension Assistant against 8 total vacant post under the Recruitment Rules, 1996. Out of 8 vacant post, 4 meant for Unreserved category and the other 4 for ST quota. According to the petitioners, the DPC has failed to exercise their jurisdiction and has failed to consider the eligible candidates. Thus, the impugned DPC dated 16.11.2020 is arbitrary and violation Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petitioners have filed the writ petitions for holding a review DPC after taking into consideration all material facts.
5. The respondent State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the claim of the petitioners that they are eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Fishery Officer in the Fishery Department is without any legal basis. The Manipur Public Service Commission recommended the 6th respondent, who is not eligible for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer along with Dineshwar Singh [petitioner in WP No.151 of 2021] and Rameshwor Singh for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer and consequent to this, the Department vide letter dated 30.11.2020 requested the MPSC to review the said DPC held on 16.11.2020 at an early date as no proposal was sent to the MPSC in respect of the 6th respondent. The MPSC also informed that no record of ACRs, Vigilance Clearance etc. with respect to the 6th respondent which are important criteria for consideration of promotion of an officer were forwarded by the Department and that no administrative approval was accorded to the recommendation of the 6th respondent by the MPSC.
6. The respondent MPSC filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the DPC meeting held on 16.11.2020 followed the relevant rules of Fishery Officer in the Fishery Department and the MPSC is not at fault in convening the DPC as the same was held on the basis of the proposal submitted by the Administrative Department and the available records with the MPSC as normally done in other DPCs as well. The Administrative Department on recommending the eligible officers had clearly kept into consideration the final seniority list as well as the provision at column 11 of the relevant Recruitment Rules for Fishery Officer in the Directorate of Fishery, Government of Manipur vide notification dated 18.11.1996.
7. Resisting the writ petitions, the fourth respondent Dineshwar Singh filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have concealed relevant material facts. While short-listing the candidates for the appointment by promotion to the post of Fishery Officer did not send relevant documents of the petitioners to the concerned authority which ar
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....
The right to promotion constitutes a fundamental right under Article 16, and arbitrary actions by regulatory bodies that deny such rights are unlawful.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the compliance with the Division Bench's directions and the applicable provisions of law in rejecting the petitioner's claim.
Promotion decisions must consider overall service record and misconduct penalties; seniority alone does not guarantee promotion.
The court affirmed that promotion must consider merit as the primary criterion, and procedural flaws in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate corresponding punishment orders.
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
