IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Kh. Brajakumar Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 122 of 2016, WP(C) No. 138 of 2016, WP(C) No. 443 of 2017, WP(C) No. 641 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 253 of 2022 Ref:- WP(C) No. 443 of 2017, MC(WP(C)) No. 263 of 2022 Ref:- WP(C) No. 122 of 2016
Decided On : 01-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges against various appointment orders. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 21 , 22) |
| 2. arguments regarding recruitment and promotions. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 18 , 56) |
| 3. court's observations on recruitment process. (Para 20 , 23 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 46 , 64) |
| 4. legal conclusions regarding promotions and seniority. (Para 34 , 60 , 62 , 63) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petitions. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
JUDGMENT
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter dated 2.2.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DP), Government of Manipur; advertisement dated 7.5.2013 issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC); the appointment letter dated 8.9.2014; and, the continuation letter dated 30.10.2015 in so far as it relates to Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur.
2. Since the challenge and the point for consideration are one and the same, all the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Brief common facts are as follows:-
The petitioners have joined as Section Officers in the Public Health Engineering Department in the year 1999. On 29.4.1999, the Government of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum making provision for holding Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) at regular annual intervals against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year. On 6.11.1999, a complete ban was imposed on direct recruitment as well as declaration of the result of DPCs already held. The aforesaid imposition of ban was made pursuant to a Memorandum of Undertaking dated 19.4.1999 between the State and the Government of India. On 7.3.2001, the State Cabinet took a decision in terms of the MoU dated 19.4.1999 for termination of all appointment on direct recruitment, part time etc. and the ban on all direct recruitment, including downsizing of the Departments by abolishing various posts. Following the decision, the Finance Department issued a letter dated 19.3.2001 and the Government of Manipur had also imposed a temporary ban on filling up of vacancies by promotion for some time. However, such ban on promotion was lifted with effect from 19.6.2001.
3.1. The next higher post from the post of Section Officer is the post of Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Engineer is to be filled as per the provisions contained in the PWD, IFCD and PHED Manipur Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical)/ASW Recruitment Rules, 1984/2009/2013 and all three Rules are pari materia with regard to the quota for direct recruitment vis-à-vis quota for promotion. The said Recruitment Rules provides 60% of vacancies of the post of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment.
3.2. Out of the said 60% promotion quota, 50% of the vacancies are to be filled up by Section Officer Grade-I Degree Holders and the remaining 50% by Section Officer Grade-I Diploma Holders/others. As per the Recruitment Rules, a Section Officer Grade-I (Decree Holder) in PHE Department is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after rendering 3 years of regular service and a Section Officer Grade-I (Diploma Holder) is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after rendering 8 years of regular service. The petitioners became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer during the period from 2002 - 2007.
3.3. According to the petitioner, during the subsistence of the ban on direct recruitment, the Chief Engineer, PHE Department vide letter dated 29.8.2012 submitted a proposal to the Principal Secretary for making requisition for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineer in the PHE Department in respect of 25 vacancies out of 27 vacancies of the year 2007 to 2012 leaving 2 vacancies of Assistant Engineer to be filled up by promotion. On 2.2.2013, th
Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab
Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab
B.S.Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute
Major General H.M.Singh VSM vs. Union of India and another
Nagarajan vs. State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1942 : (1966) 3 SCR 682
Paramjeet Singh Sandhu vs. Ram Rakha Mal
Paramjeet Singh vs. Ram Rkha Mal
Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1889 : (1968) 1 SCR 185
Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910 : (1968) 1 SCR 111
State of J&K vs. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 49
State of Punjab and others vs. Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar and another
Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 1 SCC 421 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 101
Statutory provisions of Recruitment Rules cannot be overridden by executive or administrative instructions.
The court upheld the authority of the State to adjust recruitment vacancies, emphasizing the proper application of statutory rules regarding 'year of recruitment' and ensuring adherence to constituti....
Point of law: Filling of vacancy - In case the vacancy now available is again filled by promotee candidate, the discrimination already meted to direct recruits shall be perpetuated. On the other hand....
The right for promotion has to be considered only in the light of the existing rules in force on the date of consideration to the next level of promotion.
Point of law: Administrative instructions - Though there is no specific mention with regard to applicability of roster as prescribed in Chapter XIII of Handbook on Personnel Matters in the Rules 2006....
No vested right to promotion under repealed rules post-cadre merger; vacancies filled per rules in force at DPC consideration date. Backlog vacancies carried forward treated under new 70:30 direct-pr....
Post of Senior Clerk/Assistant Treasury Accountant Qualifications - It is settled law that there is no legal right vested in candidates to be selected for appointment - Selected candidates have only ....
Court emphasized that administrative decisions regarding promotion and seniority must adhere to established rules and principles, ensuring equitable treatment for all eligible individuals.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.