IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle of objective and impartial consideration for promotion, accurate estimation of vacancies for DPC, and the prohibition of arbitrary and discriminatory non-recommendation of eligible candidates.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the impugned Departmental Promotion Committee held on 12.01.2022 against the 8 anticipated vacancies for the post of Executive Engineer and promotion order dated 13.4.2022 and to direct the first respondent to recommend the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the remaining two anticipated vacancies which the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) failed to recommend the eligible candidates in the DPC held on 12.01.2022.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are now serving in the substantive post of Assistant Engineer, but holding the feeder post for promotion to the post of regular Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, Manipur and discharging as in-charge Executive Engineer. The Works Department furnished eligible candidates and its integrity certificate along with seniority to the MPSC for holding DPC for appointment by promotion to the post of Executive Engineer for 34 clear vacancies and 8 anticipated vacancies of the Executive Engineer. The MPSC held the DPC on 12.01.2022 by recommending 32 Assistant Engineers by promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Works Department against clear vacancies keeping two post as vacant for Sominthang Singson and Munindro Mangang as both are kept in sealed cover as their integrity are withheld.

3. In the DPC held on 5.2.2022, it is clearly stated that the year of vacancy for the year 2021-22 is 8 anticipated vacancies, whereas in the recommendation made by the MPSC for appointment of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer is 6 against 8 anticipated vacancies and the MPSC has not recommended the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as both of them are eligible and within the zone of consideration, which is arbitrary, malafide and discrimination to the petitioners for violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India by leaving the petitioners against the two unfilled vacancies of the anticipated.

4. Resisting the writ petition, the first respondent filed affidavit-in- opposition stating that the petitioners were considered, but could not be recommended for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, as they were not in the zone of consideration. It is stated that there is no direct provision for 34 clear vacancies and as such in regard to 34 vacancies the DPC had considered upto Serial Nos.62 under the normal zone of consideration. The names of the petitioners appeared at Serial Nos.63 and 65 in the inter-se seniority list of Assistant Engineer (Civil) for which they could not be recommended for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (PWD). Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. M. Devananda, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the MPSC failed to recommend the petitioners against the anticipated vacancies as both the petitioners are above the bench marks in the ACRS and there was no adverse remarks against them. Thus, the non-consideration of the petitioners by the MPSC is totally in violation of the fundamental rights.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the MPSC acted by pick and choose without applying its mind. Hence, the recommendation of the private respondents against the 8 anticipated vacancies is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the proceedings of the DPC held on 12.01.2022 failed to exercise its jurisdiction and duty assigned to it to consider the material facts. As such, the same is illegal and arbitrary and not maintainable in regard to the filling up of 8 anticipated vacancies for the year 2021-22.

7. The learned counsel urged that a post is filled by promotion where the recruitment rules provide and in making promotions, it should be ensured that suitability of the candidates for promotion is considered in an objective and impartial manner. In the recommendation, the MPSC acted arbitrarily and discriminating the petitio