Manipur High Court
Rajkumar Surendra Singh vs State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 24 May, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
Page |1
SHAMUR Digitally signed
AILATPA by
SHAMURAILATP IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M AM SUSHIL
SHARMA
AT IMPHAL
SUSHIL Date: 2022.05.25
15:35:36 +05'30' WP(C) No. 108 of 2021
SHARMA
1. Rajkumar Surendra Singh, aged about 54 years,
S/o. RK. Karnajit Singh, R/o. Khurai Thoidingjam
Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795010.
2. Keisam Bishwajit Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.
Late K. Ibomcha R/o Yaiskul Police Lane, P.O. &
P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795001.
3. Longjam Deven Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.
Late L. Tomba Singh, R/o. Yairipok Kekru, P.S. -
Yairipok, P.O. - Thoubal, District - Thoubal,
Manipur - 795149.
....PETITIONERS
-V E R S U S-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
(Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South
Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. -
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Manipur, PWD
Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur - 795001.
3. Kirankumar Laishram, aged about 30 years, S/o. L.
Manglem Singh, R/o. H/No. 120, Khangabok Awang
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur-795138.
4. Dorendra Rajkumar, aged about 45 years, S/o. R.K.
Nokulsana Singh, R/o. Sagolband Sayang, P.O. &
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of
2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021)
and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)
Page |2
P.S. _ Lamphel. Imphal West District, Manipur-
795004.
5. Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 31 years, W/o.
Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal
Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur - 795005.
6. Thangjam Yogita Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o.
Th. Munindro Singh, R/o. Khurai Thangjam Leikai,
Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur-795010.
7. Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sh.
Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O.
- Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal
West, Manipur-795003.
8. Laishram Irish Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o. L.
Surendrakumar Singh, R/o. Lamding Laikai, P.O. &
Wangjing, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur-795148.
9. Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 34 years,
D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal
Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.
10. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 43
years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, Chingamathak Pishum
Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001.
11. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41
years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai
Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong,
P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795010.
12. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 30 years,
D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima
Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal
West District, Manipur - 795140.
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of
2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021)
and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)
Page |3
13. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 31 years,
D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace
Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur -795001.
14. Narengbam Livingstone Singh, aged about 31
years, S/o. N. Robindro Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai,
Thoubal, B.P.O. - Sangaiyumpham, P.S. -
Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148.
15. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 35 years,
S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village,
Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur,
Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.
16. John Thanglienmang, aged about 35 years, S/o.
Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal
Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
17. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 44 years, S/o. (L)
K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband
Kabrabam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
18. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 47 years, S/o.
Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village,
P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur -
795130.
19. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 35 years, S/o. K.
Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. -
Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106.
20. Salima Begum, aged about 36 years, D/o. Md.
Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai,
B.P.O. & P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District,
Manipur - 795008.
21. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 36 years, S/o.
Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang,
Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of
2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021)
and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)
Page |4
22. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 32 years, S/o.
Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane,
P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795001.
23. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 41 years, S/o.
Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum,
P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur-
795147.
24. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52
years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok
Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur -795001.
25. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th.
Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha,
Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.
26. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o.
Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. &
P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.
.... RESPONDENTS
WP(C) NO. 191 OF 2021 Y. Sarat, aged about 54 years, S/o. (L) Yumnam Mohon, R/o. Uripok Naoremthong Bazar, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
....PETITIONER
-V E R S U S-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) Page |5 Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
3. Kirankumar Laishram, aged about 30 years, S/o. L. Manglem Singh, R/o. H/No. 120, Khangabok Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
4. Dorendra Rajkumar, aged about 45 years, S/o. R.K. Nokulsana Singh, R/o. Sagolband Sayang, P.O. & P.S. _ Lamphel. Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.
5. Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 31 years, W/o.
Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
6. Thangjam Yogita Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. Th.
Munindro Singh, R/o. Khurai Thangjam Leikai, Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur-795010.
7. Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sh.
Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O. - Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
8. Laishram Irish Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o. L. Surendrakumar Singh, R/o. Lamding Laikai, P.O. & Wangjing, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur- 795148.
9. Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 34 years, D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.
10. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, Chingamathak Pishum Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) Page |6
11. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41 years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.
12. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 30 years, D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795140.
13. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.
14. Narengbam Livingstone Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. N. Robindro Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai, Thoubal, B.P.O. - Sangaiyumpham, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148.
15. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 35 years, S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village, Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.
16. John Thanglienmang, aged about 35 years, S/o. Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
17. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 44 years, S/o. (L) K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband Kabrabam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
18. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 47 years, S/o. Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795130.
19. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 35 years, S/o. K. Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. - Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106. WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) Page |7
20. Salima Begum, aged about 36 years, D/o. Md. Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai, B.P.O. & P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795008.
21. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 36 years, S/o. Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang, Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
22. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 32 years, S/o. Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
23. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 41 years, S/o. Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum, P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur-795147.
24. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.
25. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th. Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.
26. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.
- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.
.... RESPONDENTS WP (C) NO.755 OF 2021 K. Ibochou Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o. Late K. Ibohal Singh, resident of Sagoltongba Awang Leikai, P.O. - Langjing, P.S. - Patsoi, Imphal West, Manipur - 795113.
....PETITIONER WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) Page |8
-V E R S U S-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Secretary / Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
5. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.
6. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th.
Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.
7. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.
- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.
.... RESPONDENTS WP (C) NO. 849 OF 2021 Salew Lorii Mao, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late D. Salew, a resident of Tadubi Bazar, P.O. & P.S - Tadubi, Senapati District, Manipur - 795104.
....PETITIONER WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) Page |9
-V E R S U S-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Secretary / Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
5. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.
6. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th. Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.
7. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.
- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.
.... RESPONDENTS WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 10 WP (C) NO. 297 OF 2022
1. Ksh. Tombi Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o. Late Ksh. Achou Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, P.O. & P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795008.
2. L. Paulungmuan, aged about 50 years old, S/o. Late L. Chinthang, R/o. Tedim Road, near UBI Churachandpur, P.O. - Churachandpur, P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.
3. Khaidem Irabanta Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Kh. Bhubon Singh, R/o. Kakwa Nameirakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795008.
4. Th. Pika Singh, aged about 48 years, S/o. Th. Tombi Singh, R/o. Khagempalli Panthak, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001 ....PETITIONERS
-V E R S U S-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Secretary / Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. Kirankumar Laishram, aged about 31 years, S/o. L. Manglem Singh, R/o. H/No. 120, Khangabok Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 11
5. Dorendra Rajkumar, aged about 46 years, S/o. R.K. Nokulsana Singh, R/o. Sagolband Sayang, P.O. & P.S. _ Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.
6. Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 32 years, W/o.
Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
7. Thangjam Yogita Devi, aged about 32 years, D/o. Th.
Munindro Singh, R/o. Khurai Thangjam Leikai, Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
8. Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. S. Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O. - Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.
9. Laishram Irish Singh, aged about 37 years, S/o. L. Surendrakumar Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai, P.O. & Wangjing, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur- 795148.
10. Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 35 years, D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.
11. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, R/o. Chingamathak Pishum Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
12. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41 years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.
13. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795140.
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 12
14. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 32 years, D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.
15. Narengbam Livingstone Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. N. Robindro Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai, Thoubal, B.P.O. - Sangaiyumpham, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148.
16. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 36 years, S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village, Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.
17. John Thanglienmang, aged about 36 years, S/o. Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
18. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 45 years, S/o. (L) K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband Kabrambam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
19. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 48 years, S/o. Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795130.
20. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 36 years, S/o. K. Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. - Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106.
21. Salima Begum, aged about 37 years, D/o. Md. Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai, B.P.O. & P.S.
- Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795008.
22. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 37 years, S/o. Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang, Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
23. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 33 years, S/o. Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane, P.O. - WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 13 Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
24. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 42 years, S/o. Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum, P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur-795147.
25. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 53 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.
26. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 31 years, D/o. Th. Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.
27. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.
- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.
.... RESPONDENTS MC (WP (C)) NO. 145 OF 2021 REF: WP (C) NO. 108 OF 2021
1. Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 31 years, W/o.
Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
2. Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sh.
Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O.
- Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
3. Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 34 years, D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.
4. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, Chingamathak Pishum WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 14 Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
5. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41 years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.
6. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 30 years, D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795140.
7. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.
8. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 35 years, S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village, Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.
9. John Thanglienmang, aged about 35 years, S/o.
Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.
10. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 44 years, S/o. (L) K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband Kabrabam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
11. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 47 years, S/o. Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795130.
12. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 35 years, S/o. K. Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. - Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106. WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 15
13. Salima Begum, aged about 36 years, D/o. Md. Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai, B.P.O. & P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795008.
14. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 36 years, S/o. Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang, Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
15. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 32 years, S/o. Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
16. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 41 years, S/o. Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum, P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur- 795147.
17. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.
....APPLICANTS
-V E R S U S-
1. Rajkumar Surendra Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o.
RK. Karnajit Singh, R/o. Khurai Thoidingjam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.
2. Keisam Bishwajit Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.
Late K. Ibomcha R/o Yaiskul Police Lane, P.O. & P.S.
- Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
3. Longjam Deven Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.
Late L. Tomba Singh, R/o. Yairipok Kekru, P.S. - Yairipok, P.O. - Thoubal, District - Thoubal, Manipur
- 795149.
.... RESPONDENTS WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 16 MC (WP (C) No. 140 OF 2022 REF: WP (C) NO. 755 OF 2021 K. Ibochou Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o. Late K. Ibohal Singh, resident of Sagoltongba Awang Leikai, P.O. - Langjing, P.S. - Patsoi, Imphal West, Manipur - 795113.
....APPLICANT
-V E R S U S-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. -
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Secretary / Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
5. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.
6. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th.
Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001. WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 17
7. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o.
Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.
.... RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners/
applicants :: Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate
in all the writ petitions and for the
applicant in MC(WP(C)) No. 140
of 2022;
Ms. Babita Th., Advocate for the
applicant in MC(WP(C)) No. 145
of 2021.
For the Respondents :: Mrs.Ch. Sundari, GA for the
State Respondents in all the writ
petitions and Misc. cases;
Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate for the
private respondent in MC(WP(C))
No. 145 of 2021;
Mrs. Babita Th., Advocate private
respondent Nos. 5,7,9 to 13, 15 to
23 and 26 for the private
respondents in the writ petitions
and in MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of
2022.
Mr. Kh. Athouba, GA for the
MPSC respondent in WP(C) No.
755 of 2021
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment &
Order :: 02.05.2022
Date of Judgment &
Order :: 24.05.2022
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 18 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) W.P.(C) Nos.108, 191 and 297 of 2022 have been filed by the petitioners to quash the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants working in Public Health Engineering Department, Manipur as on 29.01.2021 and to restrain the official respondents from holding Departmental Promotion Committee in connection with promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department on the basis of the impugned final seniority list dated 29.01.2021.
2. W.P.(C) Nos.755 and 849 of 2021 have been filed by the petitioners to quash the order dated 30.10.2015 issued by the Under Secretary (PHED), Government of Manipur filling up three vacancies of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, coupled with the prayer to quash the seniority list dated 29.01.2021. In the said petition, the petitioner has also sought a prayer to direct to fill the three vacancies of Assistant Engineer arose due to promotion of H.Ibotombi Singh, WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 19 L.Brojendro Singh and Th. Joychandra Singh to the post of Executive Engineer on 8.4.2020, 8.4.2020 and 28.2.2020 respectively by promotion by holding necessary DPC/Review DPC.
3. In W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021, this Court passed an order dated 10.2.2021 not to hold DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, PHED. Aggrieved by the said interim order, respondent Nos.5, 7, 9 to 13, 15 to 23 and 26 in the said writ petition have filed M.C.(WP) No.145 of 2021 to vacate the interim order dated 10.2.2021. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.755 of 2021 has also filed M.C.(WP) No.140 of 2021 to restrain the respondents from disturbing the present posting place of the petitioner.
4. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
5. Since the grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is almost similar, W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 is taken as a lead case for disposal of these petitions.
6. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 20 The petitioners became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in the year 1993 being Section Officer Grade-I (Degree Holders) as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, continued to remain stagnant for a considerable long period of time due to the inaction of the Government in holding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) at regular annual intervals against the vacancies occurring during the course of a year as per the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. Instead of filling up the vacancies of Assistant Engineers arose from time to time, the State Government had issued various orders allowing Section Officers Grade-I to function as Assistant Engineers without any extra remuneration. 6.1. As per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 2009, 60% of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment. In view of a complete ban on direct recruitment, the only means to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Engineer in the Department is by way of promotion. However, the Government of Manipur had issued requisition for filling up 25 out of 27 vacancies of the period from 2007 to 2012 by direct recruitment during the subsistence of complete ban on direct recruitment. Accordingly, 16 vacancies had to be filled up by promotion and 11 by direct recruitment.
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 21 6.2. On 8.9.2014, the Government of Manipur issued appointment orders filling up 22 vacancies of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment. The issuance of appointment orders was subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, by the judgment dated 2.9.2015, the Civil Appeal Nos.6783, 6784 and 6785 of 2015 were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While disposing of the appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellants therein for promotion against the promotion quota keeping the questions of law raised by them open. However, contrary to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in contravention of the admitted fact of the Government to fill up 16 vacancies by promotion including four vacancies of the year 2010, the respondent authorities have issued orders dated 30.10.2015 filling up three out of the said four vacancies of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. 6.3. The issue with regard to the appointment of direct recruitment Assistant Engineers in the tentative seniority list was pending before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016. However, the petitioners came to understand that a process is underway for holding DPC for promotion to the post of Executive WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 22 Engineer in the Department based on the seniority position of the Assistant Engineers reflected in the final impugned seniority list. 6.4. According to the petitioners, in the eventuality of holding such DPC, the direct recruit Assistant Engineers reflected at Serial Nos.1 to 21 in the impugned seniority list would be considered for promotion as per the provisions of P.W.D./I.F.C.D. (including MI Department)/ P.H.E.D/Electricity Department, Manipur Executive Engineer (Elect/Mech)/(Civil/Mech) Recruitment Rules, 1986 requiring six years of regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer to be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Unless the placement of the said direct recruit Assistant Engineers above the petitioners in the impugned final seniority list is quashed or in the alternative, unless the official respondents are restrained from holding DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the Department, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and injustice.
7. The official respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the calculation for direct/promotion quota are done from the vacancies occurring from time to time and also carrying forward the back-log quota of direct/promotion as the case may WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 23 be. Though in the year 2013, the State Government decided to hold DPC, the same could not be held due to the direction of this Court dated 4.12.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.852 of 2013. Subsequently, the said interim order stands vacated and the DPC for promotion quota was held in the year 2015. It is stated that three vacancies were filled as per the outcome of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6783 of 2015.
8. According to the official respondents, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2018, whereas the appointment of the private respondents were in the year 2014 and 2015 respectively. As such, the petitioners are juniors than the private respondents. The tentative seniority list was notified properly and therefore, the claim of the petitioners is baseless and without any proof. The notification of the tentative seniority list is just addition of newly promoted Assistant Engineers and deletion of retired Assistant Engineers and in doing so all standing rules of Government have been followed. Several objections/applications by the Assistant Engineers of PHED on the tentative seniority list as on 15.9.2020 were made, including claims were received from the concerned officers to their seniority position. The respondent State after examining the matter minutely and also considering all objections received from the officers, found that the claims made by them WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 24 are not admissible under the relevant guidelines for fixing the seniority position of Government employees. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is not admissible under the relevant guidelines for fixing of seniority position and thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. The private respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that leaving of vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineers unfilled in time inspite of the existence of the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 might be due to certain reasons other than financial crunch. As regards the stagnation, it is a fact that the petitioners themselves admitted that they were allowed to function as Assistant Engineers in the Department. The petitioners were in fact granted financial upgradation under ACP/MACP.
10. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the interim order on 3.7.2014 in SLP No.35459 of 2013 allowing the State Government to fill up 22 of the 25 vacancies requisitioned on 2.2.2013 for direct recruitment by keeping three posts unfilled. In the subsequent connected cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed orders with a direction that appointments made pursuant to the notification dated 7.5.2013 issued on the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 25 basis of requisition dated 2.2.2013 shall be subject to the outcome of those subsequent petitions. On 8.9.2014, the Government of Manipur issued an order giving appointment to 22 persons as Assistant Engineers on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC). On 2.9.2015, the Hon;ble Supreme Court passed a final judgment to the effect that all the cases connected with the requisition of 25 posts of Assistant Engineers on direct recruitment quota and 16 for promotion quota. Accordingly, the State Government was allowed to fill up both direct and promotion quota.
11. It is also stated that out of 25 posts of Assistant Engineers advertised for direct recruitment quota, appointments were given to 22 persons on 8.9.2014. As per Standing Order 21, Grade-I officers were also given promotion as Assistant Engineers on the recommendation of the MPSC in its meeting held on 19.12.2015 and 22.12.2015 respectively. Filling up of 25 posts on direct recruitment and 21 on promotion was done by maintaining year-wise vacancies and the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. In fact, the petitioners have not challenged the appointment of 21 Section Officers Grade-I on promotion to Assistant Engineers. Though final seniority list was notified in pursuance of the order of this Court, it was again WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 26 challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.407 and 442 of 2017 and the petitioners were still in the Grade of SO Grade-I, but not Assistant Engineers or equivalent. In fact, the petitioners have not challenged the promotion of 21 SO Grade-I officers to Assistant Engineers against promotion quota.
12. It is stated that the vacancy against promotion quota for the years 2007 to 2015 comes to 21 and against these 21 vacancies of SO Grade-I were given promotion on 29.12.2015 and the petitioners were not within the zone of consideration for giving promotion against these 11 vacancies inspite of their eligibility. The petitioners were given appointment on promotion as Assistant Engineers against promotion quota on 23.2.2018. The petitioners became Assistant Engineers only with effect from 23.2.2018, cannot claim for retrospective seniority and challenge the seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 29.1.2021. The petitioners who were given appointment on promotion against the vacancies available after 2015 by a subsequent DPC are to be juniors to the private respondents in the grade of Assistant Engineers and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
13. Assailing the impugned seniority list dated 29.1.2021 and the impugned appointment order dated WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 27 30.10.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are Section Officers Grade-I (Degree Holders) and as per Column 10 of the PWD, IFCD and PHED, Manipur A.E. (Civil/Mechanical)/ASW Recruitment Rules, 2019 [for short, "the Rules of 2019'], 60% of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment. Out of 60% promotion quota, 50% of the vacancies are to be filled by Section Officer Grade-I (Degree Holder) and the remaining 50% by Section Officer Grade-I (Diploma Holder). Thus, it is the number of vacancies against which the provisions of this Rule would apply in the ratio of 60% by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment.
14. The learned counsel further submitted that the Chief Engineer issued a letter dated 29.8.2012 reflecting 27 vacancies of Assistant Engineers and out of 27 vacancies, 16 had to be filled up by promotion and 11 had to be filled up by direct recruitment. However, 25 out of 27 vacancies were carved out to be filled by direct recruitment, leaving one vacancy of the year 2010 and another of the year 2012. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the calculation of the aforesaid vacancies, as the calculation made in the said letter is in violation of the relevant rules.
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 28
15. The learned counsel then submitted that the quota for filling up vacancies has to be applied to the number of existing vacancies and not to the cadre strength of the Department. Allowing the quota for direct recruit and promotion to be calculated on the total cadre strength would cause serious injury to the seniority position of the petitioners. If the vacancies were so filled as per the relevant rules in time, out of 27 vacancies, 16 would have been filled up promotion and, therefore, the 16 direct recruit Assistant Engineers would not have been reflected in the impugned seniority list.
16. The learned counsel next submitted that the administrative instructions which are supplementary to the statutory rules and are binding on the Government and that the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 requires DPCs to be convened at regular annual intervals to draw panels for promotion and making promotion against vacancies year-wise. However, in the instant cases, the official respondents have failed to prepare year-wise selection list for promotion and that the inaction of the Government cannot affect the rights of the employees entitled to be empanelled year-wise against the available vacancies. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 29 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (1975) 3 SCC 503 and B.S.Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, (1983) 4 SCC 582.
17. The learned counsel then submitted that on 2.2.2013, the Department of P&AR (PD), Government of Manipur submitted a requisition to the Secretary, MPSC for recruitment of 25 vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the PHED along with other vacancies of Assistant Engineer in the other Departments like IFCD, PWD, Electricity (Power) etc. without authority during the ban on recruitment. At that time, some of the Sections Officers of the Department submitted a representation to the Department to withdraw the said requisition letter dated 2.2.2013 and they have also filed W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 challenging the letter dated 2.2.2013. During pendency of the said writ petition, the MPSC issued an advertisement dated 7.5.2013 for filling up of the posts consequent to the requisition letter dated 2.2.2013. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Government of Manipur also issued an order dated 12.8.2013 partially lifting the ban on direct recruitment.
18. The learned counsel would submit that W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 came to be disposed of on 25.9.2013 and while WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 30 disposing of the said writ petition, this Court held that if any appointment is made under the direct recruitment quota in excess of the direct recruitment quota as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, the petitioners, if aggrieved, would be at liberty to approach this Court again. Challenging the order dated 25.9.2013, SLP (C) No.35459 of 2013 was filed and by the order dated 29.11.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted conditional stay. The said order dated 29.11.2013 was modified on 3.7.2014 reserving three vacancies for the three petitioners in the said SLP. Soon after the order dated 3.7.2014, the MPSC declared the final merit list of the candidates on 18.7.2014 consequent to the advertisement dated 7.5.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.145 of 2015 before this Court for passing an order in line with the order dated 3.7.2014 and by the order dated 25.7.2014, this Court declined to pass any interim order, however, the Court observed that any appointment made pursuant to the notification shall be subject to the outcome of the case.
19. The learned counsel further submitted that assailing the order dated 25.7.2014, SLP (C) No.29104 of 2014 came to be filed and by the order dated 14.8.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that any appointment made pursuant to the said WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 31 notification shall be subject to the outcome of the case. Thereafter, the Government of Manipur issued an order dated 8.9.2014 for filling up 22 vacancies of Assistant Engineers by way of direct appointment in PHED subject to the outcome of SLP (C) No.35459 of 2013. In fact, by the said order dated 8.9.2014, only the private respondents herein were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the private respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of the interim order for fixing their seniority position amongst the Assistant Engineers of the Department before finally deciding the issue of their basic appointment in the cadre.
20. The learned counsel then submitted that the SLPs preferred were subsequently numbered as Civil Appeals being Nos.6783, 6784 and 6785 of 2015 and by the common judgment dated 2.9.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the case of the appellants therein shall be considered for promotion against promotion quota leaving the questions of law raised by the petitioners open. Since the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not implemented in letter and spirit and that the petitioners were not considered for promotion against the 16 WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 32 vacancies, they have filed W.P.(C) Nos.108, 191 of 2021 and 297 of 2022.
21. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, three vacancies out of the said admitted vacancies were filled by direct recruitment appointing the private respondents 24 to 26 in W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 to the post of Assistant Engineers in the Department vide impugned order dated 30.10.2015 in continuation of the order dated 8.9.2014 inter alia mentioning the outcome of Civil Appeal No.6783 of 2015. This fact of non-filling up of three admitted vacancies of the year 2010 is also depicted in the DPC proceedings held on 19.12.2015 and 22.12.2015 respectively.
22. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court never directed the said three reserved vacancies vide order dated 3.7.2014 to be filled up by direct recruitment. Further, it was not an easy task to fight a case upto the Hon'ble Apex Court which took years of patience involving heavy monetary expenditure. In fact, after achieving a favourable judgment from the Hon'ble Apex Court, all the petitioners were not given their due benefits and it is highly WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 33 injustice to them. Since three out of 25 advertised vacancies were admitted as promotion quota as aforesaid and the same being placed on record, the Hon'ble Apex Court passed the judgment dated 2.9.2015 disposing of the Civil Appeals. In view of the above, the appointment orders dated 30.10.2015 are liable to be quashed and consequently, their names are liable to be struck down from the impugned seniority list and issue a fresh seniority list by setting aside the senior list impugned herein.
23. Per contra, Mrs. Sundari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that on the implementation of ban on direct recruitment of posts as well as promotion, the Department has allowed some Sections Officers Grade-I to hold the post of Assistant Engineers on in- charged basis in their grade of Section Officers Grade-I. If the petitioners were not agreeable to discharge their duties as Assistant Engineers on in-charged basis, they could have turned down the same in writing at the time of their engagement as in- charge Assistant Engineers. In fact, the eligible Section Officers Grade-I were granted ACP/MACP to enjoy the financial benefits.
24. She further submitted that the calculation for direct/promotion quota are done from the vacancies occurring WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 34 from time to time and also carrying forward the backlog quota of direct/promotion, as the case may be and that the State Government decided to hold DPC for promotion quota in the year 2013 and, accordingly, requisition of vigilance clearance and ACRs were made. However, the DPC could not be held due to the interim order of this Court dated 4.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No.852 of 2013 and finally, when the said interim order was vacated, DPC for promotion quota was held in the year 2015.
25. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the three vacancies were filled as per the outcome of the Hon'ble Apex Court ruling in Civil Appeal No.6783 of 2015 etc. and W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013, which is stated in the appointment order itself. According to learned Government Advocate, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2018, whereas the appointments of the private respondents were in the year 2014 and 2015 respectively. As such, the petitioners are juniors than the private respondents.
26. The learned Government Advocate then submitted that even though the petitioners have challenged the appointment of the private respondents in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 35 138 of 2016, the said writ petitions are reserved for judgment and the judgment is yet to be pronounced by the Court concerned.
27. The learned Government Advocate urged that similar case of the same direct recruits of 2014 for Engineering Departments conducted by the MPSC was challenged in W. P.(C) No.217 of 2016 and by the order dated 8.11.2019, this Court held that the petitioners therein have no right to seek retrospective seniority corresponding to the vacancies which arose during 2004 to 2010 along with consequential benefits. According to learned Government Advocate when similar case has been considered and dismissed by this Court, the present writ petitions cannot have different views and, therefore, the writ petitions have any merit and prayed for dismissal of the same.
28. The learned Government Advocate has produced the following citations :
1. Srikant Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2017) 1 SCC 457 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 24 as follows :
"24........................ The cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. The right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 36 given cadre. The percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which from the cadre and has not relevance to the vacancy that would occur."
2. Judgment and order dated 08.11.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in WP(C) No. 217 of 2016 and WP(C) No. 523 of 2014 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed in para 43 as follows :
"43. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no right to seek retrospective seniority corresponding to the vacancies which arose during 2004 to 2010 along with consequential benefits. Further, as stated supra, while disposing of the Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed to consider the petitioners' case for promotion against the promotion quota and accordingly, the respondent authorities have considered the case of the petitioners and given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers which was also admitted by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in these matters and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed."
29. Ms. Babita, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 5,7,9 to 13, 15 to 23 and 26 submitted WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 37 that out of 25 vacancies of Assistant Engineers advertised for direct recruitment quota, appointments were given to 22 persons on 8.9.2014 and another three on 30.10.2015 on the basis of the recommendation of the MPSC. Thus, it did not encroach upon promotion quota. At the same time, 21 Section Officers Grade-I were also given promotion as Assistant Engineers on 29.12.2015 on the recommendation of the MPSC. Thus, filling up of 25 posts on direct recruitment and 21 on promotion were done by maintaining year-wise vacancies and as per the applicable the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules.
30. The learned counsel for the private respondents urged that only as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.463 of 2016 dated 9.3.2017, final seniority list of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants in PHED was notified on 22.4.2017. Though the said final seniority list was notified in pursuance of the order of this Court, it was again challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.407 and 442 of 2017 by the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners did not challenge the promotion of 21 Section Officers Grade-I to Assistant Engineers against promotion quota. Challenge to the seniority list of Assistant Engineers and equivalent made by the petitioners was not tenable in law. Further, presuming but not admitting, that the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 38 challenge of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers and equivalent by the petitioners are tenable in law even they were given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers/equivalent only on 23.2.2018 as per the Rules and that they have accepted their promotions also.
31. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents, the statement of the petitioners that if the vacancies of the year 2007 to 2012 were calculated as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, there could not be any valid justification for filling up of 25 out of 27 vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the Department by way of direct recruitment is incorrect and in fact, the Chief Engineer, in his letter dated 29.8.2012 itself, has furnished the year-wise vacancy position for the period 2007 to 2012.
32. The learned counsel argued that the petitioners were not within the zone of consideration for giving promotion against these 21 vacancies and they were given appointment on promotion as Assistant Engineers against promotion quota vide order dated 23.2.2018 and therefore, they cannot claim retrospective seniority and consequently, challenge the impugned seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 29.1.2021. WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 39 Further, the appointment of 25 Assistant Engineers on direct recruitment basis vide order dated 8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015 suffer from no illegalities.
33. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
34. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers against the later vacancies and that they were placed below the direct recruits in the impugned seniority list. Though the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers during the pendency of the writ petitions, they have also reserved their right to pursue the pending cases. Further, the placement of direct recruits in the seniority list has caused serious injury to them, resulting in the elimination of promotional avenues of the petitioners. Further, the exact number of vacancies are not yet decided by this Court in the earlier round of litigations initiated in W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 and Civil Appeal Nos.6783, 6784 and 6785 of 2015 respectively.
35. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the enjoyment of financial benefits of ACP/MACP has nothing to do with the right of the petitioners to be considered for promotion to WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 40 the next higher post against due vacancies. Further, the Manipur Combined Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment of Assistant Engineer Rules, 2006 has nothing to do with the calculation of vacancies. The impugned appointment orders dated 30.10.2015 and the subsequent promotion orders were not issued as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, in the light of the above, the appointment orders dated 30.10.2015 and the impugned seniority list dated 29.1.2021 are liable to be quashed.
36. First of all, the petitioners herein admitted that they were appointed on promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers in the year 2018 and the private respondents were appointed directly on the recommendation of the MPSC in the year 2014 and 2015 respectively. The validity and correctness of the appointments of the private respondents was questioned in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 and the judgment in the said case was reserved by this Court on 13.6.2019 after hearing all parties and the judgment is yet to be pronounced.
37. Now the claim of the petitioner is that as the tentative seniority list was prepared showing the private respondents above the petitioners and after an objection being WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 41 raised by the petitioners thereto, the impugned final seniority list has also been prepared showing the private respondents above the petitioners.
38. According to the petitioners, the promotion is to be made from Section Officer Grade-I and others in the manner provided under the Recruitment Rules and as per the PWD, IFCD and PHED, Manipur Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mech)/ASW Recruitment Rules, 1984/2009/2013, the vacancies of the post of Assistant Engineer are to be filled up 60% by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment. Out of this 60%, 50% are to be filled by Section Officer Grade-I (Degree Holders) and the remaining 50% are to be filled by Section Officer Grade (Diploma Holders). According to the petitioners, all the above three Rules are pari materia as regards promotion from Section Officer to Assistant Engineer grade. As per the said Rule, a decree holder of Section Officer Grade-I become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after completion of three years regular service in the grade. Thus, the petitioners being Section Officer Grade-I (Degree Holders) claim that they are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers since the year 1993. WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 42
39. On the other hand, the respondent State contended that on the implementation of ban on direct recruitment of posts as well as promotion, the Department has allowed some Section Officers Grade-I to hold the post of Assistant Engineers on in- charge basis in their Grade Pay of Section Officers Grade-I. Accordingly, the petitioners were also agreed to discharge their duties as Assistant Engineers on in-charge basis and they were also granted ACP/MACP to enjoy the financial benefits under Section Officer Grade-I. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they continued to remain stagnant in the same grade as Section Officers for considerable long period of time cannot be accepted.
40. In the aforesaid pleadings, it is appropriate to refer to the earlier proceedings initiated by the parties. As could be seen from the records, on 29.8.2012, the Chief Engineer, PHED submitted a proposal to the Principal Secretary, PHED for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineer in PHED in respect of 25 vacancies out of 27 vacancies and, accordingly, the Department of P&AR vide order dated 2.2.2013 submitted a requisition to the Secretary, MPSC for recruitment of 25 vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the PHED along with other vacancies. Challenging the order dated 2.2.2013, some of the Section Officers of the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 43 Department filed W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 before this Court. Pending writ petition, the MPSC issued an advertisement dated 7.5.2013 consequent to the order dated 2.2.2013 and also during pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Manipur issued an order dated 12.8.2013 lifting the ban partially on direct recruitment. Subsequent to the lifting of ban, W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 came to be disposed of on 25.9.2013 and the operative portion of the order reads thus:
"[10] In view of the above facts, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Courses of the view that the present petition can be disposed of at this stage as follows. Since the Government has already taken a decision as evident from the order dated 12.8.2013 for lifting the ban on direct recruitment partially in respect of certain posts including the post of Assistant Engineer for Public Health Engineering Department, the action taken by the Department for filling up the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineer against direct recruitment quota as mentioned in the impugned letter dated 02.02.2013 cannot be faulted with and accordingly, no writ can be issued to set aside/quash WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 44 the impugned letter dated 02.02.2013. However, as regards the actual number of vacancies to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department which may be filled u by direct recruit is clarified that the State authorities would re-examine the exact number of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota before any appointment is made to the post of Assistant Engineer in terms of the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission on direct recruitment quota, so that any vacancy, which otherwise would fall under the promotion quota is not filled up by direct recruitment. Accordingly, if any appointment is made under the direct recruitment quota in excess of the direct recruitment quota as per the relevant recruitment rules, the petitioners, if aggrieved, would be at liberty to approach this Court again."
41. Challenging the order dated 25.9.2013, SLP (C) No.35459 of 2013 has been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the interim order dated 29.11.2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted conditional stay and the same was subsequently WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 45 modified vide order dated 3.7.2014 allowing the State Government to fill up 22 vacancies out of 25 as requested vide letter dated 2.2.2013 for direct recruitment by keeping three posts unfilled.
42. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.145 of 2014 praying for passing an interim order as per the order dated 3.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.35459 of 2013. By the order dated 25.7.2014, this Court declined to pass such relief and assailing the order dated 25.7.2014, the petitioners have preferred SLP (C) No.29104 of 2014. While issuing notice in the said SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that any appointment made pursuant to the notification shall be subject to the outcome of the case. While so, the Government of Manipur issued order dated 8.9.2014 giving appointment to 22 persons as Assistant Engineers on the recommendation of the MPSC on direct recruitment basis. On a perusal of the proposal/letter dated 5.6.2015 of the MPSC addressed to the Government, it is seen that the number of vacancies of Assistant Engineers against direct recruitment quota and promotion quota stood as 25 and 16 respectively. WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 46
43. The Special Leave Petitions subsequently numbered as Civil Appeals and the relevant portion of the judgment dated 2.9.2015 of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads thus:
"14. As noticed above, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, very fairly submitted that 16 vacancies for promotion against the promotion quota are available and in any case the appellants shall be considered for promotion. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, we dispose of the appeals holding that the appellants' case shall be considered for promotion against the promotion quota as they are much above in the seniority list. The question of law raised by the appellants shall be kept open."
44. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the request made by the petitioners to comply with the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court dated 2.9.2015, the Government of Manipur issued the impugned order dated 30.10.2015, thereby filling three vacancies of Assistant Engineers of the year 2010 by way of direct WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 47 recruitment. According to learned counsel, the said three vacancies filled vide impugned order dated 30.10.2015 were already been admitted by the Government as promotion quota before the Apex Court in the Civil Appeals.
45. Countering the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the private respondents submit that the perusal of the letter dated 5.6.2015 of the MPSC would reveal that direct recruitment and promotion quota were 25 and 16 respectively and as per the information furnished, the number of 16 vacancies for promotion quota includes the vacancies of the year 2010. It is also the say of the respondents that three vacancies were filled as per the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court and the order passed in W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 and the said factum was also stated in the appointment orders itself.
46. It appears that challenging the requisition letter dated 2.2.2013 and the consequent advertisement dated 7.5.2013 and also the impugned appointment orders dated 8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 and the same are still pending. According to the petitioners, in those matters arguments were WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 48 heard and the judgment was reserved. Admittedly, in the said two writ petitions, no stay was granted by the Court concerned from proceeding these matters further. In the absence of stay order, these petitions were taken up and the parties have also agreed for disposal of these matters.
47. It also appears that pending the aforesaid two writ petitions, a tentative seniority list dated 18.5.2016 of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants in PHED was issued. The said tentative list was challenged in W.P.(C) No.463 of 2016 and by the order dated 9.3.2017, the said writ petition was disposed of with the following orders:
"Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.R.K.Nokulsana, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Sanajaoba, learned counsel for the private respondents, Dr. R.K Deepak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Sundarl, learned GA for the respondent No.
1. The present writ petition has been filled challenging the impugned tentative seniority list dated 18-5-2016 and seeking other consequential reliefs. When this matter was taken up, it has been submitted on behalf of the parties that this petition WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 49 can be closed with the direction to the State respondent authorities to finalize the seniority list in respect of Assistant Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department within a time frame so that the respondents can proceed accordingly as regards appointment, promotion etc., in accordance with the final seniority list.
Since all the parties are agreeable with the disposal of the writ petition in that line, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent Nos. 1&2 to finalize the seniority list in respect of Assistant Engineers in the Public Health Engineer Department as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months after considering any representation or objection that may be filled against the tentative seniority list which has been already published.
Dr. R.K Deepak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that as far as Interim arrangements have been made on the basis of the Impugned tentative seniority list, the authorities would not like to disturb the same as far as possible.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction."
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 50
48. Thereafter, the Government of Manipur issued final seniority list of Assistant Engineers and others on 22.4.2017. Challenging the said final seniority list, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.463 of 2016 have filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.407 of 2017 and this Court by the interim order dated 9.6.2017 directed the respondents to not to disturb the places of postings of the petitioners therein. Challenging the very same seniority list dated 22.4.2017, W.P.(C) No.442 of 2017 came to be filed and pending W.P.(C) No.442 of 2017, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers in PHED along with other Section Officers on 23.02.2018.
49. It is pertinent to point out that out of 25 posts of Assistant Engineers advertised for direct recruitment quota, appointments were given to 22 persons on 8.9.2014 and another three on 30.10.2015 mainly based on the recommendation of the MPSC. The aforesaid appointments, in fact, did not encroach upon the promotion quota. At the same time, as rightly argued by learned Government Advocate, 21 Section Officers Grade-I were also given promotion as Assistant Engineers on 29.12.2015 on the recommendation of the MPSC. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioners were not included in the promotion list as they were not within the zone of consideration. WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 51 The aforesaid argument of the learned Government Advocate merits acceptance. Further, the petitioners have failed to challenge the appointment of the aforesaid 21 Section Officers Grade-I on promotion to Assistant Engineers. Therefore, challenging the impugned seniority list of Assistant Engineers and equivalent by the petitioners was not sustainable in the eye of law.
50. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2018, whereas the appointment of the private respondents, as admitted by the petitioners themselves, is of the years 2014 and 2015 respectively. As such, the petitioners are quite juniors than the private respondents. As stated supra, even though the petitioners have challenged the appointment of private respondents in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 before this Court, this Court has not stayed the appointment of the private respondents. As such the remedy available now to the petitioners were to pursue the aforesaid writ petitions.
51. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 2.9.2015, this Court finds that the judgment of the Apex Court amounts to or contributed to the acceptance of the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 52 position that number of posts so far filled up against the direct recruitment and promotion quotas were the vacancies caused during the vacancy years in question and as per the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules of the post.
52. The contention of the respondents is that the vacancy against promotion quota for the years 2010 to 2012 was 7 and for the years 2013 to 2015 was 9 and again it may be stated that the vacancy for the years 2007 to 2008 was 5, thus, the total vacancy against the promotion quota for the years 2007 to 2015 comes to 21 and against these 21 vacancies, 21 Section Officers Grade-I were given promotion on 29.12.2015. Since the petitioners were not within the zone of consideration for giving promotion against the 21 vacancies at the relevant point of time, they were given promotion as Assistant Engineers against the promotion quota only on 23.02.2018.
53. The fact remains that the petitioners were given appointment on promotion as Assistant Engineers against the promotion quota only with effect from 23.2.2018 and therefore, they cannot claim for retrospective seniority and challenge to the seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 29.01.2021 which comprises of 25 Assistant Engineers who were given WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 53 appointment as early as 8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015 respectively against the direct recruitment quota and 21 Assistant Engineers who were given promotion from Section Officer Grade-I earlier than the petitioners.
54. The claim of the petitioners for retrospective seniority with effect from the date of eligibility corresponding to the vacancies that arose during 2007 to 2015 and placing them above the names of the aforesaid appointees in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers is unacceptable, as the petitioners accepted their promotion and they did not challenge the promotion order dated 29.12.2015.
55. It is apposite to mention that similar case for the same direct recruits of 2014 for Engineering Departments conducted by the MPSC was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.217 of 2016 and 523 of 2014 and by the common order dated 8.11.2019, this Court passed the following order:
"43. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no right to seek retrospective seniority corresponding to the vacancies which arose during 2004 to 2010 along with consequential benefits. Further, as stated supra, WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 54 while disposing the Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed to consider the petitioners case for promotion quota and accordingly, the respondent authorities have considered the case of the petitioners and given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer which was also admitted by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in these matters and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed."
56. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the private respondents that when a similar case has been considered and dismissed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.217 of 2016 and 523 of 2014, another similar case, namely the present batch of writ petitions cannot have different views. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that any appeal is pending against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.217 of 2016 and 523 of 2014.
57. The grounds raised by the petitioners for cancellation of the final seniority list dated 29.1.2021 is that the requisition for direct recruitment of 25 vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineers/equivalent grade in PHED vide letter dated WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 55 2.2.2013 during the period 6.11.1999 to 11.8.2013 when there was ban of direct recruitment and the consequent advertisement dated 7.5.2013 by the MPSC was in violation of the relevant Recruitment Rules. Similarly, the petitioners claim that the appointment orders dated 8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015 giving appointment to direct recruits on the basis of the recommendation of the MPSC was illegal. It is also contended by the petitioners that out of 27 vacancies only 11 posts should be filled against direct recruitment quota and thus the appointments of 25 persons on direct recruitment were illegal. Their names should not be in the final seniority list dated 29.1.2021. It is also contended that the out of 25, placement of last three direct recruits should not be above the petitioners in the seniority list. Since W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 are pending at pronouncing judgment stage, no DPC for promotion to the Executive Engineer should be held.
58. On a thorough analysis of these matters, this Court finds that by the order dated 25.9.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013, this Court dismissed the challenge to the requisition dated 2.2.2013 and the advertisement dated 7.5.2013. The SLPs preferred against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 and subsequently numbered as Civil WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 56 Appeals were disposed by the Apex Court on 2.9.2015 holding that the appellants shall be considered for promotion against the promotion quota leaving the question of law raised by the petitioners open. In fact, the Apex Court did not interfere with the order dated 25.9.2013. Therefore, now the appointment of 25 Assistant Engineers on direct recruitment basis cannot be questioned by the petitioners and thus, the impugned appointment order dated 30.10.2015 does not suffer from any illegality.
59. As rightly argued by learned Government Advocate, the petitioners who were given appointment on promotion against the vacancies available after 2015 by a subsequent DPC are admittedly juniors to the private respondents in the grade of Assistant Engineers. Eligibility and promotion to the next higher post which are to be considered accordingly to the relevant Rules. Therefore, the appointment of 25 Assistant Engineers on direct recruitment and 21 on promotion do not cause any prejudice to the petitioners.
60. It is reiterated that admittedly, the petitioners, who are degree holders were appointed as Section Officers Grade-I during 1990 and they were eligible for promotion to the post of WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 57 Assistant Engineers as per the Recruitment Rules of the post in the year 1993. They were also eligible for consideration for promotion against the vacancies caused during the year 2007 to 2015. Since the petitioners were not within the zone of consideration, only 21 Section Officers Grade-I were considered for promotion. The petitioners cannot claim seniority with retrospective effect so as to place their names above the 25 direct recruits and 21 promotees in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers. In fact, the names of the petitioners were appear in the seniority list of Section Officer Grade-I till the day they were given promotion to Assistant Engineers on 23.02.2018.
61. When W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 came up for admission, on 10.2.2021, this Court passed the following interim order:
"Heard Shri E. Premjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they were appointed on promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer in the year 2018. The private respondents were appointed directly on the recommendation of the MPSC in the year 2014. The validity and WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 58 correctness of the appointment of the private respondents was questioned in a writ petition for which the judgment and order is reserved by Court No. 2. As the Tentative Seniority List was prepared showing the private respondents above the petitioners and after an objection being raised by the petitioners thereto, a Final Seniority List has been prepared showing the private respondents above the petitioners.
The validity and correctness of the Seniority List is being challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition on the inter alia grounds that the judgment and order has not yet been delivered by Court No. 2 as regards the validity and correctness of the appointment of the private respondents. In the Seniority List, it appears that the positions of the private respondents have not been made subject to the outcome of the writ petition for which the judgment and order has been reserved.
Without awaiting the pronouncement of the judgment and order, if a DPC is held considering the private respondents for further promotion to the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 59 posts of Executive Engineer, it may create a legal complication in the matter.
In view of the above, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable in three weeks. Smt. Th. Babita, learned counsel submits that he has filed a Caveat today on behalf of some of the respondents but the same is not on board. Since Smt. Th. Babita, learned counsel has filed a Caveat on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 6, 8 and 14, she accepts notice on behalf of them. As regards the remaining respondents, step be taken by the counsel appearing for the petitioners for service of notice upon them by speed post.
List the matter on 18-02-2021 so as to enable Shri Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate to seek instruction in the matter and till then, no DPC be held for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer, PHED."
62. The interim order dated 10.2.2021 mainly passed on the ground that the validity and correctness of the seniority list is being challenged by the petitioners and that the judgment and WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 60 order has not yet been delivered by Court No.2 as regards the validity and correctness of the appointment of the private respondents. Since this Court found that there is no illegality in the seniority list challenged in these writ petitions, the non- delivery of the judgment and order in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 pending before this Court in respect of the correctness of the appointment of the private respondent will not in any way prevent this Court in deciding these petitions based on the materials produced by both sides.
63. As stated supra, while passing the interim order dated 3.7.2014 in the SLP by the Apex Court, it has been clearly stated that the State shall be free to fill up 22 out of 25 vacancies advertised in the direct recruitment quota leaving 3 unfilled. When the Civil Appeals arising out of the SLPs were disposed of on 2.9.2015, the Apex Court did not interfere the order of this Court dated 25.9.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 whereby dismissed the case challenging the requisition letter dated 2.2.2013 and the advertisement dated 7.5.2013. Now 25 posts advertised for direct recruitment quota were given appointment and 21 Section Officers Grade-I who filed W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 and other persons were given promotion to Assistant Engineers, including the petitioners, who were also WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 61 Section Officers Grade-I (Degree Holders) on 23.02.2018 against the Degree Holders quota on the recommendation of the DPC. As per the relevant Rules, the petitioners shall always be juniors to the private respondents in the grade of Assistant Engineers.
64. In fact, on a perusal of the impugned final seniority list, the Joint Secretary (PHE), Government of Manipur has considered the objections/claims made by the concerned officers and after considering the claims/objections, the said authority has passed the impugned order dated 29.1.2021 in the following terms:
"No.2/4/2012-PHE: Whereas, Government of Manipur has notified tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineer/Asst. Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants working in P.H.E. Department, Manipur inviting any claims/objections, if any from the concerned officers vide this Department's Notification of even number dated 18.11.2019.
2. And Whereas, Chief Engineer, PHED has also furnished several applications for claims and objection submitted by Assistant Engineers of PHED, Manipur on WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 62 the tentative seniority list as on 15.9.2020 wherein addition of newly promoted AEs and deletion of retired AEs are made.
3. And Whereas, some objections/claims were received from the concerned Officers to their seniority position. Government have examined minutely all the claims/objections received from the concerned Officers and found that the claims/objections are not admissible under the relevant guidelines for fixing of seniority position of Government employees.
4. Now, therefore, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to issue the Final Seniority List of Assistant Engineer/Asst. Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants working in Department as per Annexure."
65. From the above, it is clear that before publishing the final seniority list impugned, the Government of Manipur notified the tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants working in PHED inviting any claims/objections, if any from the concerned officers vide Department notification dated 18.11.2019. The Chief Engineer, PHED also furnished several applications for claims and WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 63 objections submitted by Assistant Engineers on the tentative seniority list as on 15.9.2020 wherein addition of newly promoted Assistant Engineers and deletion of retired Assistant Engineers are made. Only after minutely examining the objections/claims and finding that the objections/claims are not admissible under the relevant rules and guidelines for fixing the seniority position of the Government employees, the impugned final seniority list dated 29.1.2021 came to be issued. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 and the subsequent promotion orders were not issued as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeals cannot be countenanced. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned seniority list. Since the petitioners were appointed in the year 2018 and the private respondents were appointed in the years 2014 and 2015 respectively, they have been accordingly placed in the seniority list.
66. For all the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. There is no valid ground raised by the petitioners to call in question the WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 64 impugned appointment orders and the seniority list. Finding no merit in these writ petitions, the same are liable to be dismissed.
67. In the result,
(i) The writ petitions are dismissed.
(ii) M.C.(WP) No.145 of 2021 is allowed and the interim order dated 10.02.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 shall stands vacated.
(iii) M.C.(WP) No.140 of 2021 is closed in
view of the dismissal of the W.P.(C)
No.755 of 2021.
(iv) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)