Manipur High Court
Shri Laishram Biramangol Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented By Its ... on 6 September, 2021
Author: Kh. Nobin Singh
Bench: Kh. Nobin Singh
Digitally signed
SHOUGRA by
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA [1]
DEVANAN SINGH
DA SINGH Date: 2021.09.06
10:02:34 +01'00'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review Petn. No. 4 of 2021
Arising out of WP(C ) No.685 of 2020 & 31 of 2021
[Ref: WP(C) No.685 of 2020]
1. Shri Laishram Biramangol Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o L.
Chaoba Singh, a resident of Laitonjam Makha Leikai, P.O.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin - 795134.
2. Shri Kharibam Hitler Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Kh.
Ibotombi Singh, a resident of Lamshang Makha Leikai, SDC
Lamshang Bazar, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin - 795147.
...Review Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by its Commissioner/
Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur,
Imphal, PIN - 795001.
2. The Commissioner/ Secretary (Forest & Environment),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur, PIN -
795001.
3. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, North AOC, DM Road, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-
795001.
4. Mahamuda Begum, aged about 34 years, D/o Abdul Karim of
K.R. Lane Hatta Golapati, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
5. Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu, aged about 38 years, D/o S.
Shyamkishor Singh of Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamlong and Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
...Respondents
-AND-
[Ref: WP(C) No. 31 of 2021]
1. Shri Laishram Biramangol Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o L. Chaoba Singh, a resident of Laitonjam Makha Leikai, P.O. Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin - 795134. Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [2]
2. Shri Kharibam Hitler Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Kh. Ibotombi Singh, a resident of Lamshang Makha Leikai, SDC Lamshang Bazar, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin - 795147.
...Review Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief Secretary, (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal-West, Manipur- 795001.
2. The Secretary/ Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal-West, Imphal, Manipur- 795001.
3. The Under Secretary, (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal-West, Manipur- 795001.
4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong, PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal West, Forest & Department, Manipur - 795001.
5. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented by the Secretary, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District- Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
6. Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu, aged about 38 years, D/o S. Shyamkishor Singh of Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamlong and Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
7. Mahamuda Begum, aged about 34 years, D/o Abdul Karim of K.R. Lane Hatta Golapati, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
8. Mr. Nepolean Rongmei, aged about 28 years, S/o Owen, a resident of Nungnang Village, Khoupum Sub-Division, Noney District, Manipu, Pin - 705147.
9. Ms. Elangbam Nirmala Chanu, aged about 29 years, S/o (L) Elangbam Nilakanta Singh, a resident of Uripok Achom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin - 795001.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [3]
10. Mr. D. John Sha, aged about 36 years, S/o Ngaoni David Sha, a resident of Lakhamai Village, Manipur, P.O. Maram & P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District, Pin-795015.
11. Ms. Vaneichong Singson, aged about 30 years, D/o Lamkholen Singson, a resident of Zomi Village, North AOC Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 795005.
12. Ms. Chinpilhing Kipgen, aged about 36 years, D/o Goupu Kipgen, a resident of New Lambulane, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 795001.
13. Khoisnam Kuber Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o (L) Khoisnam Tomal Singh, a resident of Langol Ningthou Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphelpat, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795004.
14. Naushram Sarat Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) Naushram Tompok Singh, a resident of Khurai Chaithabi Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Porompat, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
15. Pritam Kshetri, aged about 56 years, S/o Ksh. Ibotombi Singh, a resident of Leirak Macha, Elangbam Leikai, Keishamthong, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District- Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH For the petitioners :: Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, Advocate For the Respondents :: Shri R.S. Reisang, Sr. Advocate;
Shri H. Tarunkumar, Advocate;
Shri Ng. Jotindra, Advocate &
Shri Bimal Kumar, Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 24-08-2021
Date of Judgment & Order :: 06-09-2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned Advocate appearing
for the review petitioners; Shri H. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7; Shri Ng. Jotindra Luwang, Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [4] learned Advocate appearing for two of the respondents; Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5 and Shri Bimal Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents. So far as the other respondents are concerned, no one has entered appearance on their behalf nor are they present in the Court.
[2.1] The above review petition has been preferred by the review petitioners questioning a portion of the common judgment and order dated 19-02-2021 passed by this Court disposing of five writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020; WP (C) No. 630 of 2020; WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021. In other words, the review petition has been filed against a portion of the said judgment and order concerning the writ petitions being WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021 only. Since only a portion of the said judgment and order in respect of two writ petitions being WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021 has been questioned, the rest of the judgment and order in respect of the remaining three writ petitions may have attained finality, if no appeal has been preferred against it. The grounds on which the review petition has been filed, are twofold-one, WP(C) No.685 of 2020 had been allowed by this Court without an opportunity being given to the review petitioners who were the respondents therein, to file an affidavit-in-opposition with the result that the writ petition had been allowed without any contest and in view thereof, WP(C) No.31 of 2021 was disposed of and two, some new and crucial documents were Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [5] discovered by them after the common judgment and order being pronounced by this Court which do have bearing on the issues involved in the said two writ petitions. These documents were not in their possession, at the time of hearing and disposal of the said writ petitions, with due diligence.
[2.2] An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.6 & 7 raising an objection as regards the maintainability of the review petition on the ground that the grounds taken therein are not within the scope of filing review petition and in addition thereto, it has been stated that on 27-01-2021 when all the writ petitions were directed to be listed on the next day for final disposal, the review petitioners did not raise any objection nor did they challenge the order dated 27-01-2021 before the appellate forum. A review petition in the guise of an appeal cannot be entertained and moreover, re- appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the review petition for the reason that out of seven documents relied upon by the review petitioners, four had already been placed on record by them. [3.1] Before considering the said two grounds, this Court deems it appropriate to narrate, in short, the facts and circumstances of the case. The review petitioners and the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021 were appointed as the Range Forest Officers in the years between 1986 and 1989, while the petitioners in WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020 were appointed directly as the Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [6] Assistant Conservator of Forest/ MFS Grade-II in the year, 2014 on the recommendation of the MPSC. The post of the MFS Grade-II is a promotional post from the post of the Range Forest Officer and the promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II is to be made in terms of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1986" as amended from time to time. The Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 01-04-2010 amending the Rules, 1986 by which 50% of the authorized permanent strength of the service shall be filled up by promotion in the following manner:-
"Range Forest Officers with diploma in Forestry/Wild Life from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute of Indie recognized by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests who have put in 4 (four) years regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer including those periods spent on training on the Diploma course.
Failing which Range Forest Officers with Certificate in Forestry/Wild Life from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute of Indie recognized by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests who have put in 5 (five) years regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer including those periods spent on training on the Certificate course.
Failing which Range Forest Officers without Diploma/ Certificate in Forestry/ Wild Life who have put in 7 (seven) years regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer."Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [7]
From the aforesaid rules, it is seen that a Range Forest Officer with a diploma in Forestry/ wildlife, is given the first priority for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II/ Assistant Conservator of Forest, if he or she has put in four years regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer. It may be noted at this juncture that a Range Forest Officer is not eligible for undergoing a Diploma Course in Forestry/ Wildlife, in the sense that such a Diploma Course is meant for the Assistant Conservator of Forest and above its rank. [3.2] A meeting of a DPC was held on 31-10-2013 for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II but the review petitioners were not recommended for appointment on promotion on the ground that there was no Range Forest Officer with diploma/ certificate in forestry/ wildlife. The matter was carried to this Court by way of WP(C) No.83 of 2015 and with the interference by this Court, a review DPC was held on 07-07-2018 and this time too, the review petitioners were not recommended on the ground that they were not within the zone of consideration. One of the review petitioners approached this Court by way of WP(C) No.898 of 2018 which was allowed on 20-12-2019 with the direction that a review DPC be held and if the review petitioners were recommended by the review DPC, they should be appointed on promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. On the basis of the recommendation of the review DPC, they were appointed on promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II with retrospective effect from 02-12- 2013 vide Government order dated 31-08-2020, because of which they Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [8] were shown in the final seniority list above the petitioners in WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020. [3.3] The aforesaid five writ petitions can be categorised into two groups in terms of prayers made therein-one, writ petitions where the validity and correctness of the seniority list was challenged and two, writ petitions where the validity and correctness of the promotion being granted to the review petitioners, was challenged. The final seniority list came to be challenged in WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of 2020 by the petitioners therein mainly on the ground that the review DPC failed to consider the fact that the review petitioners had obtained the diploma certificates fraudulently and they could not be permitted to take advantage of it. To substantiate their contentions, the petitioners therein produced copies of the application forms submitted on 01-09- 2005 by the review petitioners to the Wildlife Institute of India.
In WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021, the Government order dated 31-08-2020 by which the review petitioners were promoted to the post of MFS Grade-II, came to be challenged on the grounds that the review petitioners could not have been considered by the review DPC as they were not within the zone of consideration. But taking undue advantage of the diploma certificates obtained by them fraudulently, they were considered by the DPC recommending their names for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. The promotions granted to the review petitioners would have a great impact Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [9] and consequence while considering them for getting further promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I. It is a well settled law that if a particular act is fraudulent, any consequential order issued pursuant to such act is non-est and void ab initio and no person shall be allowed to take advantage of it. The DPC held on 03-08-2020 had failed to consider the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021, even though they were the senior most persons within the zone of consideration. The denial for consideration of the petitioners for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II is arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
[3.4] The allegations made in the writ petitions that the diploma course was undergone fraudulently by the review petitioners in collusion with the officials of the State Government, when they were not eligible for undergoing it, were not denied by the State respondents nor were they denied by the review petitioners. The stand of the State respondents was that the review petitioners were the Range Forest Officers possessing diploma in Wildlife Management from the Wildlife Institute of India, as they underwent diploma course in the years, 2005- 06 through proper official procedure. The MFS Grade-II officers who put in more than six years, were not willing to undergo the diploma course thereby losing the State quota of seats. The stand of the review petitioners as indicated in their affidavit, was almost similar to that of the State respondents.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [10] [4] After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and after having considered the materials on record, this Court passed the judgment and order dated 19-02-2021, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:
[11.3] While passing the said judgment and order dated 20- 12-2019, the Single Judge simply directed that a fresh review DPC be held in terms of the Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 to consider all eligible persons including the contesting private respondents and if they were selected and recommended by the review DPC, they should be appointed on promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II. There is no specific direction in the said judgment and order dated 20-12-2019 that the contesting private respondents should automatically be appointed on promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. All that has been directed by him, is that they should be considered in accordance with law for grant of promotion. The grievance of the petitioners is that the review DPC failed to consider the cases of all the eligible officers in accordance with the provisions of the Manipur Forest services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and in other words, the review DPC had not taken into account the allegation based on the documents that the contesting private respondents had obtained the diploma certificates fraudulently and on the contrary, the review DPC had proceeded on the assumption that they were in possession of the diploma certificates in forestry with the result that they had been promoted to the post of the MFS Grade-II and had, thereafter, been shown in the final seniority list above the petitioners. Their grievance is genuine for the reason that the contesting private respondents were Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [11] considered for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II on the basis of their having undergone the diploma course and not on the basis of their having undergone certificate course. Therefore, the final seniority list for the post of the MFS Grade-II cannot be said to be a legally valid final seniority list and hence, is unsustainable in law.
[12] The second issue relates to the validity and correctness of the diploma certificates which is alleged to have been obtained by the contesting private respondents fraudulently. The allegation is based on the false information furnished by them in their applications which are placed on record and their impersonation of being the Assistant Conservator of Forest. Since the contesting private respondents were in the rank of the Range Forest officers at that point of time, they could not have been allowed to undergo the diploma course but for their false information furnished in their applications, they had been allowed to undergo the diploma course. As has been observed in the preceding paragraphs, the officials of the Forest Department appear to have been involved in furnishing the said false information and in other words, the officials of the Forest Department appear to be in collusion with them, otherwise it would not have been possible for the Forest Department to grant permission to the contesting private respondents for undergoing the diploma course. There is no specific averment made in the affidavit of the contesting private respondents denying categorically the allegations made by the petitioners that the diploma certificates were obtained by them fraudulently except stating that they were deputed for undergoing the diploma course in Wildlife Management by the State Government considering the urgency and the need of wildlife trained manpower in the Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [12] Forest Department and that at that time, as there was no Assistant Conservator of Forest to undergo the diploma course, the Central Government insisted to provide wildlife trained officers in Zoo, national park, Wildlife Sanctuary etc., otherwise its funding would be withdrawn. It has further been stated in their affidavit admitting that the Range Forest Officers cannot be directly considered for undergoing the diploma course but in exceptional cases, the Range Forest officers with honors certificate in Wildlife Management are also considered for deputation. In the past also, the Range Forest Officers had been deputed to undergo the diploma course as a policy decision of the State Government adopted from time to time to encourage the meritorious Range Forest Officers to be equipped and to promote their professional skill for the benefit of the Forest Department. There can be no issue on their averments mentioned above that in exceptional cases, the Range Forest Officers can be allowed by the Wildlife Institute of India to undergo the diploma course for the reason that there is always an exception in the rules. Their averments made in the affidavit appear to be correct to that extent. But it may be noted that the ground on which the validity and correctness of their diploma certificates is being questioned by the petitioners, is that the diploma certificates had been obtained by fraudulent means. In other words, to undergo the diploma course, they had claimed themselves to be the Assistant Conservator of Forests which appears to be absolutely incorrect. What was the need of claiming themselves to be the Assistant Conservation of Forest for deputation, when they could undergo the diploma course as the Range Forest Officers in exceptional circumstances as contended by them. The Forest Department, Manipur, knowing well that the contesting Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [13] private respondents were only in the rank of the Range Forest Officers, endorsed their claim and allowed them to undergo the diploma course on deputation. This conduct of the Forest Department had shown that their officials were hand in glove with them to ensure that they could somehow undergo the diploma course so that they could take advantage of it, while they were being considered for promotion to the next higher post. This is what appears to have exactly happened in the present cases. Thus, it is seen that the allegation of the petitioners has a prima facie case which needs to be gone into and considered by this Court. Once the fraud committed by the contesting private respondents in obtaining the diploma certificate is proved, they cannot be permitted to enjoy the fruits of the diploma certificates in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lts, (1994) 1 SCC 1 relied upon by the counsels appearing for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Facts of the said case are slightly different from that of the present case for the reason that in the said case, the order was obtained by playing fraud on the Court. It is not so in the present cases. However, in Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. UP Board of High School and Intermediate Education & ors, (2003) 8 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed a general order holding that fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. This has been referred to in District Primary School Council, West Bengal Vs. Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [14] Mritunjoy Das & ors, (2011) 15 SCC 111 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no person should be allowed to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. Similar is the case with Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ors, (2013) SCC 363 wherein it has been held that it is settled position of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the law is very clear on the issue relating to any advantage being obtained by playing fraud but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that it may not be appropriate for this Bench to decide the second issue. As has been observed hereinabove, since the validity and correctness of the diploma certificates obtained by the contesting private respondents is under challenge in WP(C) No.116 of 2020 and moreover, WA No.11 of 2020 arising out of the judgment and order dated 20-12-2019 passed by the Single Judge in WP(C) No.898 of 2018 is already pending for consideration by the Division Bench of this Court, it may not be appropriate for this Bench to decide the same issue involved in WP(C) No.630 of 2020 at this stage because any observation made by this Bench in this regard may have a bearing on the said writ appeal.
[13] As regards the third issue, Rule 5(i)(C) of the Rules, 1986 as amended vide Notification dated 01-04-2010, lays down the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II from amongst the Range Forest Officers in order of priority-one, a Range Forest Officer with diploma in Forestry/ Wildlife who has put in four years regular service in Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [15] the grade including those periods spent on training on the diploma course; two, a Range Forest Officer with certificate in Forestry/ Wildlife who has put in five years regular service in the grade including those periods spent on training on the diploma course and three, a Range Forest Officer without diploma/ certificate in Forestry/ Wildlife who has put in seven years regular service in the grade. In other words, there are three categories of the Range Forest Officers who are eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II on priority basis. This rule will have to be followed by the DPC while considering the cases of the Range Forest Officers for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. The grievance of the petitioners in WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021 and in particular, the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021 who were in the rank of the Range Forest Officers and had undergone certificate course in Forestry/ Wildlife like the contesting private respondents, is that the review DPC in its meeting held on 03-08-2020, had failed to consider the above rule in its true spirit and perspective. The review DPC has proceeded on the assumption that since the contesting private respondents had obtained diploma certificates, they had to be considered under the first category. In fact, they had been considered under the first category. According to the petitioners, the contesting private respondents ought to have been considered under the second category for the reason that they had obtained the certificates of the certificate course and that they could not have been considered, as if they were in possession of the certificates of diploma course because the manner in which the diploma certificates were obtained by them was fraudulent and illegal. The consideration of the contesting private respondent by the Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [16] review DPC under the first category is illegal and without taking into account the illegality committed by the review DPC, the State Government had issued the order dated 31- 08-2020 promoting them to the post of the MFS Grade-II with effect from 02-12-2013, as a result of which they had been placed above the petitioners in the final seniority list. The specific case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021 is that they were similarly situated with the contesting private respondents, in the sense that they were also in the rank of the Range Forest Officers along with the contesting private respondents having undergone the certificate course but they were senior to the contesting private respondents. Although the said petitioners have been promoted to the post of the MFS Grade-II in the year, 2019 against the subsequent vacancies, they ought to have been considered for the vacancies which arose in the year, 2010-2013, when the contesting private respondents were considered by the review DPC. The failure on the part of the review DPC as well as the State Government to do that, the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021 who were senior to the contesting private respondents, have become junior to them in the final seniority list with the result that as and when the MFS Grade- II officers are considered for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I, the contesting private respondents would get the advantage over them. Seniority is one of the conditions of service and therefore, when the eligible officers are considered for promotion to the next higher post, the seniority list will have to be considered by the DPC. [5] As regards the first ground advanced by the review petitioners, this Court perused the proceedings of this Court in the said writ petitions including WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and on perusal thereof, it Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [17] is seen that in WP(C) No.685 of 2020, notice was issued by this Court on 22-12-2020 to the respondents including the review petitioners who received it allegedly on 20-01-2021 and 22-01-2021. While issuing the notice, it was directed by this Court that WP(C) No.685 of 2020 be listed along with WP(C) No.606 of 2020 which was already ready for hearing. On 27-01-2021 when all the writ petitions including WP(C) No.685 of 2020, were listed for consideration, there was no any prayer made from the side of the review petitioners for grant of time to file counter affidavits and the only prayer made by their counsel was that the application filed by the review petitioners for vacation of interim order be considered. However, keeping in mind the rival contentions made by the counsels appearing for the parties, this Court expressed the view that instead of considering the application, it would be better if the writ petitions were disposed of finally. Accordingly, the writ petitions were directed to be listed the next day.,28-01-2021 for final disposal and the counsels appearing for the parties permitted to their written submissions. No objection was raised by any of the counsels, when the writ petitions were directed to be listed on 28-01-2021 for final disposal. The reason as to why no such prayer was made by the counsel appearing for the review petitioners that they should be given some time for filing counter in WP(C) No.685 of 2020 appears to be that the facts and circumstances and the allegations made against the review petitioners, were common in all the writ petitions and that the review petitioners had already filed counter affidavits in the connected matters. Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [18] Therefore, the submission of the counsel appearing for the review petitioners that no opportunity was given to them for filing counter affidavit, is incorrect. It appears to be an after-thought on the part of the review petitioners to make such a submission and moreover, even if they were given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit, they could have not filed an affidavit taking a stand contrary to the one taken by them in the connected matters because, according to them, the documents were discovered only after the delivery of the judgment and order. In other words, the copies of their applications, produced by the petitioners therein, wherein the review petitioners had specifically mentioned that the post held by them before the submission of applications, was the Assistant Conservator of Forest, were not denied by them. Therefore, the review petition is misconceived and requires no indulgence of this Court. So far as the writ petition being WP(C) No.31 of 2021 is concerned, it may be noted that after the notice being issued therein, the appropriate steps were not taken by the petitioners therein for service of notice upon the respondents and accordingly, it was not allowed by this Court in terms of or pursuant to the portion of the judgment and order allowing WP(C) No.685 of 2020 but it was simply disposed of without making any observation in view of WP(C) No.685 of 2020, for which no review petition is maintainable. There is no ground at all, on the basis of which the review petitioners can be said to be aggrieved by the disposal of the writ petition without any observation of this Court made therein.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [19] [6] So far as the second ground is concerned, it has been submitted by Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners that some documents, copies of which have been filed along with the review petition, were discovered after the disposal of the writ petitions. According to him, these documents would have a bearing on the issues involved in the said writ petitions. It has further been submitted by him that the review petition be allowed reviewing a portion of the judgment and order so that the review petitioners could get an opportunity to bring the said documents on record and make their submissions thereon. These documents are copies of the letters dated 01-07-2005 addressed to the PCCF, Manipur by the review petitioners; a copy of the letter dated 02-07-2005 addressed to the Deputy Secretary (Forest & Environment), Manipur by the PCCF, Manipur; a copy of the order dated 14-07-2005 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Forest & Environment), Manipur and a copy of the letter dated 21-07-2005 of the PCCF, Manipur along with their applications dated 21-07-2005 and from the perusal thereof, it is clearly seen that although the review petitioners requested the State Government for their up-gradation as i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest, no material has been placed on record by the review petitioners to show that their request had been accepted by the State Government. It is nowhere stated in the order dated 14-07-2005 issued by the State Government that the request of the review petitioners had been accepted by it and it was only an order according sanction for deputation. But in their Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [20] applications dated 21-07-2005 to be forwarded to the Wildlife Institute of India, the review petitioners had written themselves to be i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest which were forwarded by the PCCF, Manipur to the Director, Wildlife Institute of India without disclosing the truth. On receipt of the said letter dated 21-07-2005, the Dean, Faculty of Wildlife Science, Wildlife Institute of India, without knowing the truth, informed the PCCF, Manipur that the review petitioners were found eligible for the said Diploma Course with a request to direct them to report at the Institute vide letter dated 23-08-2005. The Director, Wildlife Institute of India appears to have proceeded on the footing that the review petitioners were i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest, though in fact they were the Range Forest Officers. After the receipt of the said letter dated 23-08-2005, the PCCF, Manipur issued an order dated 30- 08-2005 thereby releasing them to report for undergoing the said Diploma Course. The averments made by the review petitioners hereinabove, if true, are not new facts, the relevant documents of which appear to be already in the records of the State Government and since the review petitioners knew about them, they could have incorporated about the same in their counter affidavits but they failed to do so. The State respondents did not say anything about them in their Counter affidavit. On the contrary, while making the allegations against the review petitioners that they did undergo the Diploma Course fraudulently, the petitioners in the writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of 2020, did produce copies of the application forms wherein the post held Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [21] by the review petitioners, had been written as the Assistant Conservator of Forest. It is really interesting to note that initially the review petitioners wrote in the applications as i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest but within a span of few months, they wrote in their other applications as the Assistant Conservator of Forest, as if they had been promoted in the meantime. In the absence of any order issued by the State Government that they had been upgraded to the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forest on in charge basis or they had been promoted to the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, their writing as i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest or the Assistant Conservator of Forest in the official records as the case may be, would amount to fraudulent act which is illegal. On the basis of the said documents produced by the petitioners therein, this Court had countenanced their allegations against the review petitioners and accordingly allowed the said writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020. [7] As seen from the preceding paragraphs, three writ petitions namely WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020, were allowed by this Court vide its common judgment and order dated 19-02-2021. But the review petition has been filed only in respect of the portion thereof allowing the writ petition being WP(C) No.685 of 2020. The portion of the judgment and order relating to WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of 2020 appears to have attained finality, as it has not been brought to the notice of this Court by Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021 [22] any of the parties that an appeal has been preferred against it. To allow the review petition and pass an order after re-hearing the WP(C) No.685 of 2020 by rejecting it, will render the judgment and order dated 19-02-2021 a conflicting one, in the sense that one portion thereof will be in favour of the petitioners who filed the writ petition being WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and the other portion in favour of the review petitioners, which is not permissible in law. In other words, two conflicting orders cannot be passed by the Court on the basis of the same facts and the same allegations. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the only remedy available with the review petitioners is to prefer an appeal before the appellate forum against the common judgment and order so that the appellate forum can consider it as a whole and interfere with it.
[8] For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the review petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE FR / NFR Devananda Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021