SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Manipur) 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SANJAY KUMAR, CJ., AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, J.
Gunabati Kangabam, D/o. (Late) Jayanta Kumar Singh Kangabam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur, through its Addl. Chief Secretary (Fishery), Government of Manipur and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.111 Of 2022 With Writ Appeal No.112 Of 2022 And Writ Appeal No.115 Of 2022 With MC(WA) No.202 Of 2022, Ref:-Writ Appeal No.111 Of 2022, With MC(WA) No.9 Of 2023, Ref:-Writ Appeal No.111 Of 2022, With MC(WA) No.10 Of 2023, Ref:-Writ Appeal No.112 Of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. K.Roshan, Adv., Ms. Donnapriya Asem, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Athouba Khaidem, Govt. Adv., Mr. R.S. Reisang, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Mohendro, Adv., Mr. Th. Tolapishak, Adv., Mr. I. Denning, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment Rules - Fishery Department, Manipur (Fishery Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1996 - Guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committees - Lack of adherence to promotion criteria resulted in eligible candidates being overlooked for the Fishery Officer post. (Paras 1, 3, 16, 20)

(B) Promotion Procedure - Departmental Promotion Committees must consider all eligible candidates regardless of service length if they possess required qualifications. Delays in certificate issuance should not penalize candidates. (Paras 16, 19)

(C) Review of DPC - The court ordered a Review DPC due to exclusion of eligible candidates from consideration in violation of recruitment rules. The earlier DPC's proceedings inadequately addressed eligibility criteria. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellants claimed to be eligible Fishery Officers based on their qualifications yet were overlooked due to procedural irregularities and certificate delays. (Para 13, 14)

Findings of Court:
The court found the exclusion of eligible candidates unjustified and ordered the holding of a Review DPC to reassess candidates based on their qualifications and service. (Paras 19, 20)

Issues: The primary issues included the legality of the DPC's recommendations and the eligibility of the appellants for promotions based on the recruitment rules. (Paras 3, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the use of the term 'successfully attended' in provisional certificates implied completion of required courses, and procedural flaws warranted a Review DPC. (Paras 16, 20)

Result: Writ appeals allowed; Review DPC ordered for left-over vacancies.

Table of Content
1. regulations governing the promotion process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. eligibility concerns surrounding specific candidates (Para 5 , 6)
3. petitioners' claims for reconsideration of promotions (Para 7 , 11)
4. judicial review of dpc recommendations and subsequent promotions (Para 10 , 12)
5. importance of diploma certification in eligibility (Para 13 , 14)
6. court's interpretation of successful course completion despite delayed certifications (Para 15 , 16)
7. mandate for review dpc to include eligible candidates for promotion (Para 19 , 20)
8. conclusion and orders issued by the court (Para 21)

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar, C.J.) :

[1] The post of Fishery Officer in the Fisheries Department of the Government of Manipur is governed by the ‘Fishery Department, Manipur (Fishery Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1996’. It is a selection post which is to be filled by promotion of eligible candidates from the feeder categories of Fishery Inspector/Fishery Extension Assistant/ Fishery Instructor/Research Assistant, who possess the prescribed qualifications and experience. Promotion is to be effected upon recommendation by a Class-II Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Note 1 appended to the Tabular Statement in the recruitment rules provides that where a person is considered for appointment, all persons possessing the requisite qualification and who are senior to him in the grade shall also be considered irrespective of whether or not they fulfill the requirement as to minimum qualifying service prescribed for the purpose of promotion. Note 2 states that any period of ad-hoc appointment prior to regularization of appointment should not be counted towards the minimum period of service prescribed for promotion.

[2] Office Memorandum dated 15.05.2014 was issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur, revising the existing instructions and consolidating the guidelines to be followed by Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs). Clause 3 of the guidelines provides that DPCs should be convened at regular annual intervals to draw up panels for making promotions against vacancies occurring during the course of the year.

[3] However, no promotions were made to the post of Fishery Officer, be it for whatever reason, during the years 2015-2016 (1 vacancy reserved for ST), 2016-2017 (1 unreserved vacancy), 2018-2019 (1 vacancy reserved for ST) and 2019-2020 (3 unreserved vacancies and 2 vacancies reserved for ST). Thereupon, the Fisheries Department, Government of Manipur, addressed letters dated 05.09.2019, 20.12.2019 and 26.08.2020 to the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) to convene a DPC for making appointments by promotion to these eight vacant posts of Fishery Officer. The Administrative Department is stated to have recommended the names of ten eligible officers who satisfied the prescriptions under the recruitment rules. However, the names and details of these ten officers are not placed on record. As per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Secretary, MPSC, Imphal, the Administrative Department submitted the ACRs of only nine Fishery Instructors/Fishery Inspectors, under its letter dated 20.12.2019. Thereafter, one more officer was added and the Administrative Department requested the MPSC to consider their candidatures.

[4] The combined Final Seniority List, as on 31.08.2019, of Fishery Inspectors/ Fishery Instructors/Fishery Extension Assistants was communicated to the MPSC, under the letter dated 04.09.2019 of the Director of Fisheries, Manipur. Therein, Keisham Dineshwar Singh stood at Sl.No.7 and Elangbam Rameshwor Singh stood at Sl.No.8. Lairenlakpam Lindali Chanu stood at Sl.No.13 while Gunabati Kangabam stood at Sl.No.18 and Loveson Golmei stood at Sl. No.34. The Administrative Department furnished Integrity Certificates of only eight out of the ten officers named by it. The MPSC constituted a Class-II DPC that held a meeting on 16.11.2020 and recommended

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top