Manipur High Court
Shahid Mohammed Shah vs The State Of Manipur on 30 October, 2023
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: Mv Muralidaran, A. Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (C) No. 917 of 2017
1. Shahid Mohammed Shah, 29 years S/o Md. Nashir Shah, a resident of
Karirang Awang Leikai, P.O. Pangei & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
2. Irom Royal, 28 years, S/o Irom Lolindro Singh, resident of Khongman
Zone - 5, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, Imhpal East District, Manipur.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary
(DP)/Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, Imphal, represented
by its Chairman/Secretary.
3. Kangujam Janeswor Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o K. Ibomcha
Singh, a resident of Bashikhong Kitnapanung, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal
East District, Manipur.
4. M. Victor Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o M. Ibotombi Singh, a
resident of Sangaiprou Mamang Leikai, P.O. Tulihal & P.S. Sangaiprou,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Hajarimayum Ibomcha Sharma, aged about 57 years, S/o (Late) H.
Krishnamahal Sharma, a resident of Top Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
6. Yanglem Sudhirchandra Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o (Late) Y.
Manao, a resident of Top Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur.
Page 1
7. Lairikyengbam Tamocha Roy, aged about 55 years, S/o (Late) L.
Nandakishore Roy, a resident of Lairikyengbam Mayai Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, Imphal East District, Manipur.
8. M. Borchand Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o M. Basanta Singh, a
resident of Awang Sekmai Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
9. R. Ningthouja, aged about 44 years, S/o R. Chaoba Singh, a resident
of Keishamthong Kabui Khul, Imphal West District, Manipur.
10. Tolerence Saka, aged about 43 years, W/o Tongku Saka, resident of
B-58, Game Village, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(Respondents no. 3 to 10 are impleaded in terms of Hon'ble Court
order dated 28.02.2018 in MC(W.P. (C) No. 20 of 2018).
11. S.N. Albert, aged about 55 years, S/o S. Phungyakham, a resident of
31/A, Zone-III, National Games Village, Imphal, Manipur.
12. Md. Liaquat Ali, aged about 59 years, S/o Md. Abdul Ghani, a resident
of Lilong Haoreibi Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Thoubal District,
Manipur.
13. Sarangthem Nabachandra Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o (Late)
Bormani Singh, a resident of Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
14. Ksh. Kameshwar Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o (Late) Ksh. Babu
Singh, a resident of Kongpal Chanam Leikai, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
(Respondents no. 11 to 14 are impleaded in terms of Hon'ble Court
order dated 28.02.2018 in MC(W.P. (C) No. 35 of 2018).
15. O. Indramani Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o (Late) O. Chaoba Singh,
a resident of Okram Chuthek, P.O. Singjamei & P.S. Irilbung, Imphal
East District, Manipur.
16. Remmei Alimmei, aged about 53 years, S/o (Late) R. Kadaikhao, a
resident of Chigmeirong Rongmei Kailuang, P.O. Lamlong & P.S.
Lamphel, Imphal East District, Manipur.
Page 2
(Respondents No. 15 and 16 are impleaded in terms of Hon'ble Court
order dated 28.02.2018 in MC.(W.P. (C) No. 52 of 2018).
17. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, (previously known as
IFC Department), New Secretariat, Babupara, Government of
Manipur.
18. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, (previously known
as IFC Department), P.W.D. Office, Khoyathong, Government of
Manipur.
(Respondents No. 17 and 18 are impleaded in terms of Hon'ble Court
order dated 28.03.2018)
... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. No. 1168 of 2018
Remmei Alimmei, aged about 54 years, S/o (Late) R. Kadaikhao, R/o.
Chigmeirong Rongmei Kailuang, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal
East District, Manipur - 795010.
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Manipur, represented by the Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, Imphal,
Manipur- 795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of
Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Official Respondents
3. Y. Homendro Singh, aged about 38 years old, S/o., (L) Y. Yaima Singh,
a resident of Malom Tuliyaima Singh, P.O. Tuliyaima, P.S., Nambol,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
Page 3
4. K. Kiran Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o., K. Jugeshwor Singh,
Resident of Yairipok Leirongthel Bitra, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, Thoubal
District, Manipur.
5. Rohit Ahanthem, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Ahanthem Tomchou
Singh, Resident of Nongmeibung Wangkheirakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
- Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
6. B. Govind Sharma, aged about 24 years old, S/o. of Brajagopal
Sharma, resident of Nongmeibung Purana Rajbari - 1, P.O. & P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
7. Irom Royal, S/o. Irom Lolindro Singh, resident of Khongman Zone -
5, P.O. - Singjamei, P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur.
8. Kh. Thoilen Angomcha, aged about 25 years old, S/o Kh. Kamdev
Sing, resident of Sagolband Tera Khuraijam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
9. Ph. Chandrakriti Sharma, aged about 39 years old, S/o Ph. Narayan
Sharma, resident of Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. -
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
10. Shahid Mohammed Shah, 29 years, a resident of Kairang Awang
Leikai, P.O. Pangei & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur.
11. Chitan Chongtham, aged about 27 years old, S/o Ch. Chitaranjan
Singh, R/o., Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
12. Ranjan Salam, aged about 25 years old, S/o. S. Rajbabu Singh,
resident of Porompat Thawanthaba Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
13. Jeena Sarungbam, aged about 32 years old, D/o. (L) Sarungbam
Sarat Singh, resident of Haobam Marak Irom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
14. Md. Tafsir Alam, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali, resident
of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
Page 4
15. Irom Maichel, aged about 28 years old, S/o. Irom Irabot Singh,
resident of Uripok Takhllambam Leikai, near NG College Road, P.O. &
P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
16. Haobam Rojika Devi, aged about 34 years old, W/o. Ph. Anil, resident
of Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
17. L. Mahenjo Singh, aged about 25 years old, S/o. L. Bidyachandra
Singh, resident of Kongba Nongthongbam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
18. Wotrami Marchand, aged about 28 years old, S/o. Chanhanpam
Marchang, resident of Nambashi Khonou, P.O. - Nambashi, P.S. -
Kasom Khullen, Ukhrul District, Manipur.
19. Hengkholen Haokip, aged about 35 years old, S/o. S.H. Haokip,
resident of Game Village Zone - 1, D- 71, Imphal West, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
20. Md. Imtiyas Khan, aged about 24 years Old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali,
resident of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Manipur.
21. Mangkhotahang Haokip, aged about 39 years, resident of Langol
Games Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
22. S. Tuamlallian, aged about 26 years old, S/o. S. Doreasveng, resident
of New Lamka, Churachandpur District, Manipur.
23. C. Sangluaia, aged about 31 years, S/o. Lalramhluna, resident of
Hmula Vong, Churachandpur District, Manipur.
24. Paokai Haokip, aged about 32 years, S/o. Paokhosel Haokip, resident
of New Songjang Village, P.O. - Pallel, P.S. - Kengjoi, District -
Chandel, Manipur.
25. Lunminthang Telein Kom, aged about 30 years old, S/o. T. Khupjahao
Kom, resident of National Games Village, Zone - IV, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Private Respondents
With
Page 5
W.P. (C) No. 119 of 2018
1. Irom Royal, 28 years, S/o Irom Lolindro Singh, resident of Khongman
Zone - 5, P.O. - Singjamei, P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
2. Shahid Mohammed Shah, 29 years S/o Md. Nashir Shah, a resident of
Karirang Awang Leikai, P.O. Pangei & P.S. Heingang, Imhpal East
District, Manipur.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary
(DP)/Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, Imphal, represented
by its Chairman/Secretary.
3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, (previously known as
IFC Department), New Secretariat, Babupara, Government of
Manipur.
4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, (previously known
as IFC Department), P.W.D. Office, Khoyathong, Government of
Manipur.
5. Kangujam Janeswor Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o K. Ibomcha
Singh, R/o Bashikhong Kitnapanung, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795008.
6. M. Victor Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o M. Ibotombi Singh, R/o
Sangaiprou Mamang Leikai, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.
7. Hajarimayum Ibomcha Sharma, aged about 57 years, S/o (Late) H.
Krishnamahal Sharma, R/o Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur- 795001.
8. Yanglem Sudhirchandra Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o (Late) Y.
Manao, R/o Top Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795005.
Page 6
9. Lairikyengbam Tamocha Roy, aged about 52 years, S/o (Late) L.
Nandakishore Roy, R/o Lairikyengbam Mayai Leikai, P.O. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur- 795010.
10. M. Borchand Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o M. Basanta Singh, R/o
Awang Sekmai Bazar, Imphal West District, Manipur.
11. R. Ningthoujao, aged about 44 years, S/o R. Chaoba Singh, R/o
Keishamthong Kabui Khul, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.
12. Tolerence Saka, aged about 43 years, W/o Tongku Saka, R/o B-58,
Game Village, Zone-IV, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.
(impleaded vide order dated 28/02/2018 passed in MC(W.P. (C) No.
57 of 2018).
13. Md. Liaquat Ali, aged about 58 years, S/o Md. Abdul Ghani, Lilong
Haoreibi Mayai Leikai, Thoubal District, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Manipur.
14. O. Indramani Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o (L) O. Chaoba Singh of
Okram Chuthek, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East, Manipur.
15. Remmei Alimmei, aged about 53 years, S/o (L) R. Kadaikhao of
Chigmeirong Rongmei Kailuang, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamphelpat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
16. K. Shanta Kabui aged about 58 years, S/o(L) Khemrung Kabui of
Langthabal Khoupum, P.S. Singjmaei & P.O. Canchipur, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
17. Sarangthem Nabachandra Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o (L) S.
Bormani Singh of Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
18. Ksh. Kameshwar Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o (L) Ksh. Babu Singh
of Kongpal Chanam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
(Respondent Nos. 13 to 18 impleaded vide order dated 28.02.2018
passed in MC(W.P. (C) No. 61 of 2018.
... Respondents
Page 7
With
W.P. (C) No. 164 of 2018
1. Kangujam Janeswor Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o K. Ibomcha
Singh, R/o. Bashikhong Kitnapanung, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795008.
2. M. Victor Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o M. Ibotombi Singh, R/o.
Sangaiprou Mamang Leikai, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.
3. Hajarimayum Ibomcha Sharma, aged about 57 years, S/o Late H.
Krishnamahal Sharma. R/o. Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur- 795001.
4. Yanglem Sudhirchandra Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Y.
Manao, R/o. Top Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795005.
5. Lairikyengbam Tamocha Roy, aged about 52 years, S/o Late L.
Nandakishore Roy, R/o. Lairikyengbam Mayai Leikai, P.O. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur- 795010.
6. M. Borchand Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o M. Basanta Singh, R/o.
Awang Sekmai Bazar, Imphal - West District, Manipur.
7. R. Ningthoujao, aged about 44 years, S/o R. Chaoba Singh, R/o.
Keishamthong Kabui Khul, Imphal - West District, Manipur- 795001.
8. Tolerence Saka, aged about 43 years, W/o Tongku Saka, R/o. B-58,
Game Village, Zone- IV, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.
... Petitioners.
- Versus -
1. State of Manipur, represented by the Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, Imphal,
Manipur- 795001.
2. The State of Manipur, represented by Chief Secretary (DP)/Secretary
(DP), Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel
Division), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
Page 8
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of
Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, Imphal,
represented by its Chairman/Secretary.
... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 166 of 2018
1. B. Govind Sharma, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Brajagopal Sharma,
resident of Nongmeibung Purana Rajbari - 1, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. Y. Homendro Singh, aged about 38 years old, S/o., (L) Y. Yaima Singh,
a resident of Malom Tuliyaima Singh, P.O. Tuliyaima, P.S., Nambol,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
3. Rohit Ahanthem, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Ahanthem Tomchou
Singh, Resident of Nongmeibung Wangkheirakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
- Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
4. Kh. Thoilen Angomcha, aged about 25 years old, S/o Kh. Kamdev
Singh, resident of Sagolband Tera Khuraijam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Chitam Chongtham, aged about 27 years old, S/o Ch. Chitaranjan
Singh, resident of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
6. Ranjan Salam, aged about 25 years old, S/o. S. Rajbabu Singh,
resident of Porompat Thawanthaba Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
7. Jeena Sarungbam, aged about 32 years old, D/o. (L) Sarungbam Sarat
Singh, resident of Haobam Marak Irom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
8. Md. Tafsir Alam, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali, resident
of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
Page 9
9. Irom Maichel, aged about 28 years old, S/o. Irom Irabot Singh,
resident of Uripok Takhellambam Leikai, near NG College Road, P.O.
& P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
10. Haobam Rojika Devi, aged about 34 years old, W/o. Ph. Anil, resident
of Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
11. Laishram Mohenjo Singh, aged about 25 years old, S/o. L.
Bidyachandra Singh, resident of Kongba Nongthongbam Leikai, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
12. Hengkholen Haokip, aged about 35 years old, S/o. S.H. Haokip,
resident of Game Village Zone - 1, D- 71, Imphal West, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
13. Md. Imtiyas Khan, aged about 24 years Old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali,
resident of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Manipur.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary
(DP)/Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department (previously known as IFC
Department), New Secretariat, Babupara, Government of Manipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (previously known
as IFC Department), PWD Office, Khoyathong, Government of
Manipur.
4. Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, Imphal, represented
by its Chairman/Secretary.
... Official Respondents
5. S.N. Albert, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
Page 10
6. Md. Liaquat Ali, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
7. K. Kirti Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
8. P. Ingocha Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
9. S. Nabachandra Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources
Department (previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control
Department), Government of Manipur.
10. Remmei Alimmei, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
11. K. Shanta Kabui, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
12. I. Lolindro Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
13. Ksh. Kameshore Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources
Department (previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control
Department), Government of Manipur.
14. O. Indramani Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources
Department (previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control
Department), Government of Manipur.
15. K. Janeshore Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources
Department (previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control
Department), Government of Manipur.
Page 11
16. M. Victor Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
17. H. Ibomcha Sharma, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources
Department (previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control
Department), Government of Manipur.
18. Y. Sudhirchandra Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources
Department (previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control
Department), Government of Manipur.
19. L. Tamocha Roy, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
20. M. Borchand Singh, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources
Department (previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control
Department), Government of Manipur.
21. R. Ningthoujao, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
22. Tolerence Saka, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
23. Y.K. Simon, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
24. M. Lamzathang, Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department
(previously known as Irrigation & Flood Control Department),
Government of Manipur.
... Private Respondents
Page 12
With
W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2018
1. Shri Kangujam Janeswor Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o K. Ibomcha
Singh, R/o. Bashikhong Kitnapanung, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795008.
2. Shri M. Victor Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o M. Ibotombi Singh,
R/o. Sangaiprou Mamang Leikai, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
3. Shri Hajarimayum Ibomcha Sharma, aged about 57 years, S/o Late H.
Krishnamahal Sharma. R/o. Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur- 795001.
4. Shri Yanglem Sudhirchandra Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Y.
Manao, R/o. Top Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795005.
5. Shri Lairikyengbam Tamocha Roy, aged about 52 years, S/o Late L.
Nandakishore Roy, R/o. Lairikyengbam Mayai Leikai, P.O. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur- 795010.
6. Shri M. Borchand Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o M. Basanta Singh,
R/o. Awang Sekmai Bazar, Imphal - West District, Manipur.
7. Shri R. Ningthoujao, aged about 44 years, S/o R. Chaoba, R/o.
Keishamthong Kabui Khul, Imphal - West District, Manipur- 795001.
8. Shri Tolerence Saka, aged about 43 years, W/o Tongku Saka, R/o. B-
58, Game Village, Zone- IV, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.
... Petitioners.
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Manipur, New Secretariat, Imphal,
Manipur- 795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of
Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
... Official Respondents
Page 13
3. Shri Y. Homendro Singh, aged about 38 years old, S/o., (L) Y. Yaima
Singh, a resident of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O.- Tulihal, P.S., Nambol,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
4. Shri K. Kiran Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o., K. Jugeshwor Singh,
resident of Yairipok Leirongthel Bitra, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, Thoubal
District, Manipur.
5. Shri Rohit Ahanthem, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Ahanthem
Tomchou Singh, Resident of Nongmeibung Wangkheirakpam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
6. Shri B. Govind Sharma, aged about 24 years old, S/o. of Brajagopal
Sharma, resident of Nongmeibung Purana Rajbari - 1, P.O. & P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
7. Shri Irom Royal, S/o. Irom Lolindro Singh, resident of Khongman Zone
- 5, P.O. - Singjamei, P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur.
8. Shri Kh. Thoilen Angomcha, aged about 25 years old, S/o Kh. Kamdev
Singh, resident of Sagolband Tera Khuraijam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
9. Shri Ph. Chandrakriti Sharma, aged about 39 years old, S/o Ph.
Narayan Sharma, resident of Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak, P.O. &
P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
10. Shri Shahid Mohammed Shah, 29 years, a resident of Kairang Awang
Leikai, P.O. Pangei & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur.
11. Shri Chitan Chongtham, aged about 27 years old, S/o Ch. Chitaranjan
Singh, R/o., Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
12. Shri Ranjan Salam, aged about 25 years old, S/o. S. Rajbabu Singh,
resident of Porompat Thawanthaba Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
13. Shri Jeena Sarungbam, aged about 32 years old, D/o. (L) Sarungbam
Sarat Singh, resident of Haobam Marak Irom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Page 14
14. Md. Tafsir Alam, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali, resident
of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
15. Shri Irom Maichel, aged about 28 years old, S/o. Irom Irabot Singh,
resident of Uripok Takhllambam Leikai, near NG College Road, P.O. &
P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
16. Shri Haobam Rojika Devi, aged about 34 years old, W/o. Ph. Anil,
resident of Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
17. Shri L. Mahenjo Singh, aged about 25 years old, S/o. L. Bidyachandra
Singh, resident of Kongba Nongthongbam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
18. Shri Wotrami Marchang, aged about 28 years old, S/o. Chanhanpam
Marchang, resident of Nambashi Khonou, P.O. - Nambashi, P.S. -
Kasom Khullen, Ukhrul District, Manipur.
19. Shri Hengkholen Haokip, aged about 35 years old, S/o. S.H. Haokip,
resident of Game Village Zone - 1, D- 71, Imphal West, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
20. Shri Md. Imtiyas Khan, aged about 24 years Old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali,
resident of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Manipur.
21. Shri Mangkhotahang Haokip, aged about 39 years, resident of Langol
Games Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
22. Shri S. Tuamlallian, aged about 26 years old, S/o. S. Doreasveng,
resident of New Lamka, Churachandpur District, Manipur.
23. Shri C. Sangluaia, aged about 31 years, S/o. Lalramhluna, resident of
Hmula Vong, Churachandpur District, Manipur.
24. Shri Paokai Haokip, aged about 32 years, S/o. Paokhosel Haokip,
resident of New Songjang Village, P.O. - Pallel, P.S. - Kengjoi, District
- Chandel, Manipur.
25. Shri Lunminthang Telein Kom, aged about 30 years old, S/o. T.
Khupjahao Kom, resident of National Games Village, Zone - IV, P.O.
& P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Page 15
... Private Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 665 of 2022
1. B. Govind Sharma, aged about 28 years, S/o Brajagopal Sharma,
resident of Nongmeibung Purana Rajbari-1, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. Rohit Ahanthem aged about 28 years, S/o Ahantham Tomchou Singh,
resident of Nongmeibung Wangkheirakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
3. Irom Royal, 32 years, S/o Irom Lolindro Singh, resident of Khongman
Zone - 5, P.O. - Singjamei, P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
4. Shahid Mohammed Shah, 33 years S/o Md. Nashir Shah, a resident of
Karirang Awang Leikai, P.O. Pangei & P.S. Heingang, Imhpal East
District, Manipur.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by Chief Secretary (DP)/Secretary
(DP), Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel
Division), Government of Manipur, Imphal, Old Secretariat, Babupara.
2. Manipur Public Service Commission, A.T. Road, North AOC, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001 represented by its
Chairman/Secretary.
3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department (previously known as IFC
Department), New Secretariat, Babupara, Government of Manipur.
4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (previously known
as IFC Department), PWD Office, Khoyathong, Government of
Manipur.
... Respondents
Page 16
With
W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2022
1. Kambam Kiran Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Kambam Jugeshor
Singh, resident of Leirongthel Piba, Yairipok Thambal, P.O. P.S.
Yairipok, Imphal East District, Manipur. Pin: 795149.
2. Ranjan Salam aged about 28 years S/o S. Rajau Singh, resident of
Lane No. 6, Porompat Thawanthaba Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur. Pin: 795005.
3. Laishram Mahejo Singh, aged about 28 years S/O L. Bidyachandra
Singh, resident of Kongba Nongthombam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur Pin: 795001.
4. Md. Imtiyas Khan, aged about 27 years S/O Md. Rahimuddin Khan,
resident of Hafiz Hatta, Ekola Road, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur. Pin: 795005.
5. Mangkhothang Haokip aged about 42 years, S/o Otkhothanng Haokip,
resident of A/9, Zone-IV, National Games Village, Lamphel, P.O. & P.S.
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur. Pin: 795004.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through its Chief Secretary (DP), Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division),
Government of Manipur, having its office at Old Secretariat Building,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN:
795001.
2. The Commissioner (Water Resource) Department, Government of
Manipur, having its office at Babupara Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN: 795001.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of
Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, Imphal, Manipur- 795001.
Page 17
4. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary,
having its office at AT. Road, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur. PIN: 795001.
5. Tolerence Saka, aged about 47 years, D/o. Tongkhu Saka, R/o.
Lamlongei, Mantripukhri, Catholic Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Heingang,
Imphal West District, Manipur- 795002.
... impleaded as Respondent No. 5, vide order dt. 19.07.2022 passed
in MC(W.P. (C) No. 191 of 2022.
... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 99 of 2018
1. Rohit Ahanthem, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Ahanthem Tomchou
Singh, resident of Nongmeibung Wangkheirakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
- Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. Y. Homendro Singh, aged about 38 years old, S/o., (L) Y. Yaima Singh,
a resident of Malom Tuliyaima Singh, P.O. Tuliyaima, P.S., Nambol,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
3. B. Govind Sharma, aged about 24 years old, S/o. of Brajagopal
Sharma, resident of Nongmeibung Purana Rajbari - 1, P.O. & P.S. -
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
4. Kh. Thoilen Angomcha, aged about 25 years old, S/o Kh. Kamdev
Singh, resident of Sagolband Tera Khuraijam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Chitan Chongtham, aged about 27 years old, S/o Ch. Chitaranjan
Singh, resident of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
6. Ranjan Salam, aged about 25 years old, S/o. S. Rajbabu Singh,
resident of Porompat Thawanthaba Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
7. Jeena Sarungbam, aged about 32 years old, D/o. (L) Sarungbam Sarat
Singh, resident of Haobam Marak Irom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
Page 18
8. Md. Tafsir Alam, aged about 24 years old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali, resident
of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
9. Irom Maichel, aged about 28 years old, S/o. Irom Irabot Singh,
resident of Uripok Takhellambam Leikai, near NG College Road, P.O.
& P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
10. Haobam Rojika Devi, aged about 34 years old, W/o. Ph. Anil, resident
of Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
11. Laishram Mohenjo Singh, aged about 25 years old, S/o. L.
Bidyachandra Singh, resident of Kongba Nongthongbam Leikai, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
12. Hengkholen Haokip, aged about 35 years old, S/o. S.H. Haokip,
resident of Game Village Zone - 1, D- 71, Imphal West, P.O. & P.S. -
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
13. Md. Imtiyas Khan, aged about 24 years Old, S/o. Md. Anwar Ali,
resident of Lilong Bazar Masjid Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Manipur.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary
(DP)/Secretary (DP), Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department (previously known as IFC
Department), New Secretariat, Babupara, Government of Manipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (previously known
as IFC Department), PWD Office, Khoyathong, Government of
Manipur.
4. Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, Imphal, represented
by its Chairman/Secretary.
Page 19
5. Kangujam Janeswor Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o K. Ibomcha
Singh, R/o. Bashikhong Kitnapanung, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795008.
6. M. Victor Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o M. Ibotombi Singh, R/o.
Sangaiprou Mamang Leikai, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.
7. Hajarimayum Ibomcha Sharma, aged about 57 years, S/o Late H.
Krishnamahal Sharma. R/o. Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur- 795001.
8. Yanglem Sudhirchandra Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Y.
Manao, R/o. Top Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur- 795005.
9. Lairikyengbam Tamocha Roy, aged about 52 years, S/o Late L.
Nandakishore Roy, R/o. Lairikyengbam Mayai Leikai, P.O. Lamlong,
Imphal East District, Manipur- 795010.
10. M. Borchand Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o M. Basanta Singh, R/o.
Awang Sekmai Bazar, Imphal - West District, Manipur.
11. R. Ningthoujao, aged about 44 years, S/o R. Chaoba, R/o.
Keishamthong Kabui Khul, Imphal - West District, Manipur- 795001.
12. Tolerence Saka, aged about 43 years, W/o Tongku Saka, R/o. B-58,
Game Village, Zone- IV, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.
Impleaded as Respondent No. 5 to 12 vide order dated 28.02.2018
passed in MC(W.P. (C) No. 48 of 2018
... Respondents
Page 20
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioners : Mrs. Bisheshwari, Advocate; Mr. K. Roshan,
Advocate & Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Lenin Hijam, A.G. assisted by Mr. Dimal
Kumar Haobam, Advocate for State; Mr. R K
Deepak, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. L.
Rajesh, Advocate; Mrs. Momota Devi,
Advocate; Mrs. Ayangleima, Advocate for
MPSC; Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate,
assisted by Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate; Mr. S.
Biswajit Meitei, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms.
N. Prista, Advocate for private respondents.
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2023/28.02.2023/21.03.2023/
29.03.2023/18.04.2023/21.06.2023/
05/07/2023/01.08.2023/07.08.2023/
08.08.2023/14.08.2023.
Date of Judgment & : 30.10.2023
Order
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
[1] Heard Mrs. H. Bisheshwari & Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General, on behalf of the State Respondents; Mr. R K Deepak, learned Sr. Advocate, Mrs. O. Momota, learned counsel & Mrs. Ayangleima, learned counsel on behalf of MPSC; Mr. HS Paonam, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Biswaji, learned Sr. Advocate & Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel for the private respondents.
Page 21 [2] These petitions involve the question of validity of the insertion of 'failing clause' in the Manipur Civil Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 as applicable to Irrigation and Flood Control Department (IFCD) [now, redesignated as Water Resources Department] with respect to the rules prescribing promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) to the post of Executive Engineer (EE). Schedule-III to the adopted Rules of 2016 stipulates regular service in the feeder cadre as the eligibility criteria for promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Executive Engineer as- (a) in case of Degree holders, 6 years; (b) in case of Diploma holders, 9 years; and (c) in case of Diploma holders who have passed both Sections of A & B of AMIE Examination of Institute of Engineers (India), 6 years from the date of passing the examination or 7 years in the grade, whichever is shorter. While adopting the Manipur Civil Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 and the Manipur Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 in the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control (IFCD), [now known as Water Resources Department] vide Notification dated 14.12.2016, the offending 'failing clause' (impugned in the present petitions) was added. The 'failing clause' reads as "Failing which, Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistant possessing at least Diploma in Civil Engineering with 17 years of regular service in the grades of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer Grade-I/Equivalent out of which at least 3 years of regular service shall be in the grade of Assistant Engineer". The Direct Recruit Assistant Engineers challenge this clause as violative of principle of equality enshrined under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
Page 22 Some of the writ petitions challenge the subsequent Department Promotion Committee (DPC) and the subsequent promotion order; the Seniority List dated 01.02.2018 of Assistant Engineers; and also Notification dated 04.01.2018 which introduced 'one time relaxation' in the 'failing clause' reducing the 3 years to 2 years. The failing clause has subsequently been deleted by another Notification dated 17.11.2021 and in WP(C) No. 78 of 2022, some of the Direct Recruits (who have now completed stipulated 6 years of regular service in the grade) pray for conducting fresh DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers in Water Resource Department in terms of Notification dated 17.11.2021. Since all these writ petitions are related to the same issue of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer in Water resource Department and the vires of 'failing clause' in the recruitment rules, these petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
[3] Brief facts of the present cases shredding all unnecessary details are that vide Notification dated 14.12.2016, Government of Manipur adopted the Manipur Civil Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 and the Manipur Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 in the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control (IFCD), now known as Water Resources Department. While adopting the Rules of PWD, the impugned 'failing clause' has been introduced for the first time in the adopted rules concerning Water Resources Department.
[4] Vide another Notification dated 04.01.2018, State Government introduced 'one time relaxation clause' in qualifying period of service for Page 23 promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) as 17 years regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer put together with at least 2 years of regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineers. The 'one time relaxation clause' reads as- "By promotion from amongst the Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical) with 17(Seventeen) years regular service in the grades of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) and Section Officer (Civil/Mechanical) put together, out of which atleast 2(two) years of regular service shall be in the grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical)." This 'one time relaxation' would be valid till 31.03.2018. [5] Later on, vide Notification dated 17.11.2021, State Government dropped the failing clause and restored the rules in the original position. However, 'one time relaxation clause' valid for 3 months from the date of notification by adding clause (d) and the same reads as- " ....OR, (d) By promotion from amongst the Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical) with 20 years of regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer put together with a minimum year of 4 years in AE level". [6] The Notifications dated 14.12.2016; 04.01.2018 & 17.11.2021 issued by the State Government adopted recruitment rules with respect to Water Resources Department are reproduced below for easy reference.
(I) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL DIVISION) NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 14th December, 2016 No. 33/48/12-DR/DP: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to adopt the Manipur Civil Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 and the Manipur Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 in the Department of Irrigation and Flood Page 24 Control (IFCD), Manipur in case of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mech.) as the same is approved by the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 24-11-2016.
2. These Rules shall come into force with effect from the date of publication in the official gazette of Manipur.
By orders & in the name of Governor, YUMNAM ROBITA, Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur.
GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL DIVISION) NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 20th October, 2016 No. 1/18/16-SR(PWD)DP: In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the PWD/IFCD/PHED/MID/ Electricity Department, Manipur (Chief Engineer) Recruitment Rules, 1994, the PWD/IFCD/PHED/MID/Electricity Department, Manipur (Additional Chief Engineer) Recruitment Rules, 1993, the PWD/PHED/IFCD/Electricity Department/MID, Manipur (Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Superintending Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1992, the PWD/IFCD (including MI Department)/PHED/Electricity Department, Manipur [Executive Engineer (Elect/Mech)/(Civil/Mech)] Recruitment Rules, 1996 and the PWD/IFCD/PHED, Manipur [Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mech)/Assistant Surveyor of Works] Recruitment Rules, 2013 in so far as Civil Engineering posts in PWD are concerned, the Governor of Manipur hereby makes the following rules, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Manipur Civil Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
...
Page 25
7. Future maintenance of the Service.- The vacant duty posts in any of the grades referred to in Schedule-I, after the initial constitution under rule 6, shall be filled in the following manner, namely:-
(i) 40% of the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistant shall be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of the results of the Manipur Combined Competitive Examination for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers conducted by the Commission. The educational qualifications, age limits and other eligibility conditions for direct recruitment to the grade shall be as specified in Schedule-II;
(ii) 60% of the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistant and all the vacancies in the grades of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works/Engineering Officer and above shall be filled by promotion by selection from amongst the officers in the lower grade(s) with minimum qualifying service as specified in Schedule-III;
(iii) The selection of officers for promotion to various grades of the Service shall be made by a Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of -
(a) Chairman/Member, MPSC - Chairman
(b) Secretary (DP) or his nominee - Member
(c) Secretary (Works) - Member
Explanation.- 'Secretary' includes Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary and Commissioner.
(iv) Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service or two years, whichever is less.
By orders and in the name of Governor, YUMNAM ROBITA, Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur.
Page 26 SCHEDULE-III [see rule 7(ii)] Method of recruitment, field of promotion and minimum qualifying service in the immediate lower grade/grades for appointment of officers on promotion to duty posts included in the various grades of the Manipur Civil Engineering Service (PWD).
Sl. Name of duty post Method of Field of selection, minimum qualifying service and No. and grade recruitment educational qualification for promotion (1) (2) (3) (4)
1. Executive Engineer/ By promotion Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Surveyor of Works Works/Engineer Assistant with the following period of regular service in the grade:-
(a) in the case of Degree holders, 6 years;
(b) in the case of Diploma holders, 9 years; and
(c) in the case of Diploma holders who have passed both Sections A & B of AMIE Examination of Institution of Engineers(India), 6 years from the date of passing the Examination or 7 years in the grade, whichever is shorter;
Failing which, Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistant possessing at least Diploma in Civil Engineering with 17 years of regular service in the grades of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer Grade-I/Equivalent out of which at least 3 years of regular service shall be in the grade of Assistant Engineer.
(II) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (Personnel Division) NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 4th January, 2018 No. 33/48/12-DR/DP(Pt-I): In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order the relaxation of the provisions occurred in Schedule III Sl. No. 4 of the Manipur Civil Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 2016 and Schedule III Sl. No. 2 of Page 27 the Manipur Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 2016 which are adopted in IFCD in case of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) regarding the qualifying period of service for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) as one time measure as follows-
"By promotion from amongst the Assistant Engineers(Civil/Mechanical) with 17(Seventeen) years regular service in the grades of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) and Section Officer (Civil/Mechanical) put together, out of which atleast 2(two) years of regular service shall be in the grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical)."
2. It is also ordered that the concerned Rules and also standing orders/instruction bearing upon the subject and which are in force at present shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly as one time relaxation.
3. This is issued under the power of relaxation provided in Rule 15 each of Manipur Civil Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 2016 and Manipur Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 2016 which are adopted in IFCD in case of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical), and in consultation with MPSC.
4. This one time relaxation shall be valid till 31/03/2018.
ANNA ARAMBAM, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur.
(III) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (Personnel Division) NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 17th November, 2021 No. DR-19/1/2020-DP-DP: In exercise of the powers conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with the approval of the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 15-10-2020, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order the relaxation of the provisions contained in Column No. (11) of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) in Water Resources(WR)/IFC Department in the field of promotion:
Page 28 "PROMOTION
(a) In the case of Degree holders, 6 years
(b) In case of Diploma holders, 9 years and
(c) In the case of Diploma holders who have passed both section A&B of AMIE examination of the institution of engineers (India), 6 years from the date of passing the examination or 7 years in the grade whichever is shorter.
OR
(d) By promotion from amongst the Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical) with 20 years of regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer put together with a minimum year of 4 years in AE level".
-In place of-
"PROMOTION Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mech) and Assistant Surveyor of Works(Civil/Mech) with the following period of regular service in the grade:-
(a) in the case of Degree holders, 6 years;
(b) in the case of Diploma holders, 9 years; and
(c) in the case of Diploma holders who have passed both Sections A & B of AMIE Examination of Institution of Engineers (India), 6 years from the date of passing the Examination or 7 years in the grade, whichever is shorter".
2. It is also ordered that the concerned Rules and also standing orders/instruction bearing upon the subject and which are in force at present shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly as one time relaxation.
3. This one time relaxation shall be valid for 3(three) months from the date of Notification.
By orders & in the name of Governor, K. NALINI DEVI, Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur.
[7] Vide order dated 24.01.2018 in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, this Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim order directing not to hold DPC till 31.01.2018 and on 31.01.2018 the interim order was extended till 05.02.2018. In another writ petition being WP(C) No. 80 of 2018, field by two direct recruit Assistant Engineers challenging seniority list dated Page 29 25.11.2017, vide order dated 31.01.2018, this Court passed an interim order not to hold DPC till 02.02.2018. However, WP(C) No. 80 of 2018 was closed on 02.02.2018 as infructuous as the authority produced another seniority list and accordingly, interim order dated 31.01.2018 was vacated. [8] On 05.02.2018 when WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners informed this Court that the authorities conducted DPC on 03.02.2018 by issuing a Notice dated 01.02.2018 and on the same day, ie, on 03.02.2018 promotion order for 20 Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers. Vide order dated 05.02.2018, the authority issued transfer and posting order of those 20 promoted Executive Engineers. Having found prima facie materials for invoking suo motu contempt proceedings for conducting DPC and issuing promotion order during the subsistence of interim order, this Court issued notice the officials concerned including the DPC Members for personal appearance on 12.02.2018.
[9] After passing of order dated 05.02.2017 in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017, the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) wrote a letter dated 07.02.2018 to the Secretary, Water Recourses, Govt. of Manipur stating that the DPC was conducted on 03.02.2018 on the information furnished by the department that the interim order not to hold DPC was vacated on 31.01.2018 and without verifying the record, the DPC was conducted. On coming to know of this bonafide mistake, MPSC decided on 07.02.2018 to withdraw the concurrence to the DPC proceeding held on 03.02.2018. On Page 30 12.02.2018, the officials of MPSC appeared before this Court and explained in details the manner the DPC was conducted on 03.02.2018 and the same was withdrawn on 07.02.2018 on coming to know about the subsistence of interim order. The personal appearance of the officials was dispensed and earlier interim order dated 24.01.2018 in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 was extended from time to time. It may be noted that there were two interim orders both dated 31.01.2018 directing not to hold DPC- one in WP(C) No. 917 of 2018 and another in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017. The interim order dated 31.01.2018 in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 was extended till 05.02.2018 while interim order dated 31.01.2018 in WP(C) No. 80 of 2018 was vacated on 02.02.2018 on disposal of the writ petition as infructuous. This might be the reason for confusion in MPSC about the existence of interim order. [10] Two set of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 156 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 164 of 2018 were filed by the promotees to challenge the letter dated 07.02.2018 issued by MPSC withdrawing the concurrence to the DPC held on 03.02.2018. Some of the direct recruit-Assistant Engineers also filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 166 of 2018 challenging the DPC proceedings dated 03.02.2018; promotion order dated 03.02.2018 and transfer and posting order dated 05.02.2018, being violative of the interim order in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017.
[11] Vide common order dated 23.03.2018 in WP(C) No. 156 of 2018, WP(C) No. 164 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 166 of 2018 and while considering the prayer for interim relief in these petitions, this Court observed Page 31 that the DPC proceeding held on 03.02.2018 and consequent promotion and posting orders could not be given effect as the same were issued during the subsistence of interim order in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017. This Court did not grant any interim order with regard to prayer for staying MPSC letter dated 07.02.2018 withdrawing the concurrence to the DPC conducted on 03.02.2018 and leaving the issues raised to be considered at the time of final hearing. With respect to WP(C) No. 166 of 2018, this Court suspended the DPC proceedings dated 03.02.2018, the promotion order dated 03.02.2018 and posting order dated 05.02.2018 until further orders. However, the question of validity was kept open for consideration at the time of final disposal.
[12] These are the brief facts involved in the present case. It may be noted that vide order dated 03.08.2022, WP(C) No. 156 of 2018 was dismissed as infructuous. The prayers in the pending writ petitions under consideration are reproduced below to have a bird's eye view of the relief sought for.
(i) Prayer in W.P. (C) No. 917 of 2017:-
1. Issue a Rule-in-Nisi;
2. Call for the relevant records and examine the same;
3. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash, cancel and set aside the impugned portion of "The Manipur Civil Engineering Service (PWD) Rules, 2016" at Schedule -
II [see rule 7(ii)], column 4, Sl. No. 4 containing the words "Failing which, Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistant possessing atleast Diploma in Civil Engineering with 17 years of regular service in the grades of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer Grade-
Page 32 I/Equivalent out of which at-least 3 years of regular service shall be in the grade of Assistant Engineer." As null and void;
4. Issue any other Writ of order(s) or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the case;
5. Cost of litigation: Interim prayer to stay the operation of the portion pending disposal of the petition.
(ii) Prayer in WP No. 1168 of 2018:-
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Requisition No. 3/11/2003-DR/DP (Pt) dated 02.02.2013 (Annexure P/7) and the Advertisement No. 7/2/2013-MPSC (DR) dated 07.05.2013 (Annexure P/8) so far it relates to the direct recruitment of Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department Government of Manipur and the consequent appointment order No. 3/2/2012-AE/IFC dated 16.09.2014 issued by Under Secretary (IFC), Government of Manipur (Annexure P/9) and order No. 3/2/2012-AE/IFC dated 12.08.2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary (IFC), Govt. of Manipur (Annexure P/10) in favour of Private Respondents 3 to 24 and 25 respectively.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Final Seniority List of Assistant Engineers in the Water Resources Department issued by Under Secretary (WR), Govt. of Manipur dated 01.02.2018 (Annexure P/16) in respect of Private Respondent Nos. 3 to 25 herein as being violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for declaring the said appointments and the Final Seniority List as illegal and place the petitioner above the direct recruit Assistant Engineers in the Seniority List;
c) Award cost of this Petition in favour of the Petitioners;
d) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
-AND-
In the interim:
Page 33
a) Suspend the Final Seniority List dated 01.02.2018 issued by Under Secretary (WR), Govt. of Manipur in respect of Private Respondents pending final disposal of the instant Writ Petition;
b) Restraint the Official respondents from issuing any order filling up the post of Executive Engineer & Superintending Engineer on in-
charge basis as per the Final Seniority List dated 01.02.2018 pending disposal of the instant writ petition.
c) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Prayer in W.P. (C) No. 119 of 2018:-
1. Issue a Rule-in-Nisi;
2. Call for the relevant records and examine the same;
3. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash, cancel and set aside the amendment made in Recruitment Rules as published in the IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION bearing no. 33/48/ 12-DP (pt-I) dated 04.01.2018 of the Extra Ordinary Manipur Gazette, amending provisions occurred in schedule II Sl. No. 4 of Manipur Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 2016 and Schedule II, Sl. No. 2 of the Manipur Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (Civil/Mechanical) regarding the qualifying period of promotion of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) which impugned amendment is reproduced below;
"By promotion from amongst the Assistant Engineers(Civil/Mechanical) years regular service in the grades of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) and Section Officer (Civil/Mechanical) put together, out of which atleast 2(two) years of regular service shall be in the grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical)" and accordingly quash the impugned amendment as illegal, null and void;
4. Issue any other Writ of order(s) or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the case;
5. Cost of litigation:
(iv) Prayer in WP(c) No. 164 of 2018:-
Page 34 In the facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: -
i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC in short) letter No. 8-A/8/2018-MPSC (P) dated 07.02.2018 withdrawing the concurrence to the DPC proceedings held on 03.02.2018 for promotion to Executive Engineers in Water Resources Department (Annexure No. P/ 25 );
ii) Pass any further order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
-AND-
In the interim a. Restrain the Respondents from acting in pursuance of the above said impugned letter No. 8- A/8/2018-MPSC (P) dated 07.02.2018 withdrawing the concurrence to the DPC proceedings held on 03.02.2018 for promotion to Executive Engineers in Water Resources Department issued by MPSC;
b. Pass any further order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and Proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Prayer in W.P. (C) No. 166 of 2018:-
1. Issue a Rule-in-Nisi;
2. Call for the relevant records and examine the same;
3. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash, cancel and set aside the illegal proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 03.02.2018, for appointment by way of promotion from Assistant Engineers to Executive Engineers of the Private Respondents, working in Water Resources Department, Govt. of Manipur and consequent impugned promotion order bearing no. 3/7/2016-IFC (Promo) dated 03.02.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 2, the impugned Transfer and posting of Private Respondents dated 05.02.2018 and all other consequential orders by holding the same to be illegal, null, void and unlawful.
Page 35
4. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the State Respondents to consider the provision of Rule 7(iv) of Manipur Civil Engineering Service(PWD) Rules, 2016 and declare the petitioner as having completed the requisite qualifying years of service in Grade of Assistant Engineers AND ELIGIBLE for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Irrigation and Flood Control Department (now re-named as Water Resources Department), when Junior Assistant Engineers in inter se Final Seniority List dated 01.02.2018 are considered for promotion in any future DPC/Review DPC.
5. Issue any other Writ of order(s) or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the case;
6. Cost of litigation:
(vi) Prayer in WP No. 274 of 2018:-
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the Final Seniority dated 01.02.2018 issued by Under Secretary (WR), Govt. of Manipur in respect of respondent No. 3 to 25 herein (Annexure No. A/20) and the order dated 12.08.2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary (IFC), Govt. of Manipur in favour of Respondent No. 25 as illegal and arbitrary (Annexure No. A/14);
ii. Direct the Official Respondents to place the petitioners above the Private Respondents in Seniority List of Assistant Engineers in Water Resources Department;
-AND-
In the interim, iii. Restrain the Official Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 from making any appointment to the post of Executive Engineers either on in-charge or on regular basis in favour of the Private Respondents herein pursuant to the said impugned Final Seniority List dated 01.02.2018; iv. Pass any further order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Page 36
(vii) Prayer in W.P. (C) No. 665 of 2022:-
1. Issue a Rule-in-Nisi;
2. Call for the relevant records and examine the same;
3. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash, cancel and set aside the amendment made in Recruitment Rules as published in the impugned Notification bearing no.
DR-19/2020-DP-DP dated 17.11.2021 at Clause No. (d) of the Extra Ordinary Manipur Gazette, amending provisions occurred in Column no. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) in Water Resources Department/IFC Department and as provided in Schedule II Sl. No. 2 of the Manipur Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (PWD) Service Rules, 2016 as adopted in IFCD in case of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) regarding the qualifying period of service for promotion of Executive Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) which impugned amendment/relaxation is reproduced below:
"(d) By promotion from amongst the Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical) with 20 years of regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer put together with a minimum year of 4 years in the AE level"
4. Issue any other Writ of order(s) or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the case;
5. Cost of litigation:
(viii) Prayer in W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2022:-
Admit the writ petition and issue Rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/directive (s) should not be issued for directing the Respondents to hold the DPC to the post of Executive Engineers (WRD) Manipur in terms of Final Seniority List dated 30.07.2021 of AEs/ASWs/EAs and its amended Recruitment Rules Notification dated 17.11.2021 against the regular vacancies in the facts and circumstances of the present petition.
(ix) Prayer in W.P. (C) No. 99 of 2018:-
1. Issue a Rule-in-Nisi;
2. Call for the relevant records and examine the same;
Page 37
3. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the state respondent to consider the provision of Rule 7(IV) of Manipur Civil Engineer Service (PWD) Rules, 2016 and declare the petitioner as having completed the requisite qualifying years of service in Grade of Assistant Engineer AND AS ELIGIBLE for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Irrigation and Flood Control Department (now re-named as Water Resources Department), when junior Assistant Engineers in inter se Final List dated 01.02.2018 are considered for promotion.
4. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash, cancel and set aside the impugned requisition letter no. 3/7/2016-IFC (promo) dated 24.01.2018 issued by the state Respondent by holding the same to be illegal and unlawful.
5. Issue any other Writ of order(s) or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the case;
6. Cost of litigation:
[13] Learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 and connected writ petitions submits that out of 23 direct recruit Assistant Engineers, 22 of them were appointed on regular basis on 16.09.2014, one was appointed on 16.09.2015; whereas 10 out of the 20 promotees promoted vide DPC proceeding and appointment order dated 03.02.2018 are their juniors, having been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers only on 02.02.2016. It is vehemently argued that the 'failing clause' was inserted in the recruitment rules of Water Resources Department with a malafide intention to adjust the promotees alone and the same is in violation of the fundamental rights of the direct recruits in general and of the petitioners in particular. It is pointed out that at the level of Assistant Engineer, all the direct recruits and promotees merge into one unified cadre and lose the 'birth mark' of being 'direct recruit' and 'promotee'. The learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the Schedule-III appended to Page 38 the Recruitment Rules of 2016 concerning the column prescribing eligibility criteria for promotion to Executive Engineer/ Surveyor of Works which prescribes the same as 100% by promotion. In the case of cadre of Assistant Engineer, it is 60% by promotion and 40% by way of direct recruitment. It is the specific case of the petitioners that bifurcating the common cadre of Assistant Engineer by inserting failing clause for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer is patently illegal and violates the doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India. If relaxation in the tenure in cadre post is to be given to the promotees by inserting 'failing clause' in the relevant RR, the same benefit ought to be given to the direct recruits who are similarly placed with the promotees in the same cadre of Assistant Engineer.
[14] On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India: AIR 1967 SC 1889 which held that '.... once the direct recruits and promotees are absorbed in one cadre, they formed one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade C...'. Referring to another decision in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa: (1974) 1 SCC 19, it is clarified that the impediment imposed by Roshan Lal's case for classification is favouring source of recruitment, but other consideration such as educational qualification can be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners draw the attention of this Court to the case of State of Mysore v. M H Krishna Page 39 Murthy: (1973) 3 SCC 559 holding that '..... unjustifiable discrimination in a single category, without any reference either to merit or seniority, or educational qualifications, could justify the differences in promotional chances. .... Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution must be held to be violated when members of one class are not even considered for promotion. ...'. It is prayed that the 'failing clauses' inserted by Notifications dated 14.12.2016 and 04.01.2018 giving preference in promotion to the promotees over direct recruits be set aside and also consequent DPC proceedings dated 03.02.2018, the order dated 03.02.2018 promoting 20 private respondents (promotees Assistant Engineers) to the post of Executive Engineers and their transfer and posting order 05.02.2018 be set aside as violation of the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution as held in the above cited case laws.
[15] In alternative, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the 'failing clause' was subsequently deleted from the RR vide Notification dated 17.11.2021 and a new final seniority list dated 30.07.2021 has been issued. The latest seniority is not challenged till date. Moreover, the direct recruits and promotees have completed the qualifying regular services of 6 years in case of Degree holder and 9 years in case of Diploma holder. The reliefs sought in the pending writ petitions, except for WP(C) No. 78 of 2022, have become infructuous. It is suggested that the writ petitions may be disposed of with a direction to the authority to hold fresh DPC in terms of the latest RR and new seniority list.
Page 40 [16] Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of State respondents, has raised the question of maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the direct recruits. It is pointed out that on the date of the filing of the writ petitions in the years 2017 & 2018, the direct recruits who were appointed in the year 2014 & 2015 did not complete the requisite tenure of 6 years regular service in the feeder cadre of Assistant Engineer for being considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. It is submitted that ineligible persons cannot challenge the rules nor claim relaxation of the eligibility criteria. Reliance is placed on the latest decision in the case of State of UP v. Vikash Kumar Singh: (2022) 1 SCC 347 which dismissed the original writ petition filed before the High Court by ineligible employee praying for direction in the nature of mandamus.
[17] Learned Advocate General has explained the object of introducing the 'failing clause' in the recruitment rules in connection with promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. As per Schedule-III, an Assistant Engineer with a qualifying regular service is eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer- (a) in case of Degree holder, 6 years; (b) in case of Diploma holder, 9 years; (c) in case of Diploma holder who passed both Sections A & B of AMIE Examination, 6 years from the date of passing such examination or 7 years in the grade, whichever is shorter. It is also stated that there is no quota system for promotion to Executive Engineer and all the Assistant Engineers are to be considered from a common list. If none is available from any of the categories as mentioned in (a) to (c), promotion Page 41 can be given from those who fall in the 'failing clause'. It is explained that the 'failing clause' has been introduced to fill up the large number of vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineers with special consideration of ongoing projects such as Thoubal Project, etc. Resort to 'failing clause' will be exercised only when none is found eligible with the regular service tenure. Keeping in mind all these factors and vide Notification dated 14.12.2016, State Government introduced for the first time the 'failing clause' for considering Assistant Engineers possessing at least Diploma with 17 years of regular services in the grades of Assistant Engineer and Section Officer together out of which 3 years regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer. Vide another Notification dated 04.01.2018, as 'one time measure' valid till 31.03.2018 in the 'failing clause', the 3 years regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer is further reduced to 2 years. [18] Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned AG further submits that Rule 7(iv) of RR 2016 will not be applicable in cases covered by 'failing clause', as the said clause is meant for the purpose of 'Future Maintenance of the Service'. Attention is drawn to the decision in the case of N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India: (2010) 5 SCC 692 @ Para 33 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the failing clause of considering Section Officer holding Diploma with 6 years of service in the grade in case of non-availability of Section Officer holding Degree with 3 years of service in the grade in the 50% quota earmarked for promotion of Degree holder.
Page 42 [19] Learned AG refers to the decisions of Jaghnath v. Union of India: (1992) Supp (2) SCC 105 & State of U P v. J P Chaurasia:
(1989) 1 SCC 121 to highlight the settled proposition of law that classification based on the experience is a reasonable classification. It was held that the quality of work performed by persons of longer experience is superior than the work of the newcomers. In the present case, it is pointed out that the direct recruits/petitioners had an experience of only 3 years at the time of filing writ petitions while the promotees had already more than 20 years of experience.
[20] Learned AG has further cited the case of R Prabha Devi v. Government of India: (1988) 2 SCC 233 to the point that a senior has to be eligible for consideration for promotion and seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. It is further held that rule making authority is the best judge in prescribing the eligibility criteria and to amend the rule and no court shall interfere unless it is shown to be violative of any fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen. Similar finding was held in the case of P U Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad: (2003) 2 SCC 632. Reference is made to the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of J&K: (1998) 4 SCC 179 which held that the Government can exercise the power to relax the Rules in all those cases in which hardship is caused in the implementation of those Rules to meet a particular situation or where injustice has been caused to either individual employee or class of employees. It is submitted that the promotees are long and genuine sufferers Page 43 whose services were stagnant for a considerable period of time in the grade of Section Officer for the period ranging from 18 to 37 years due to various reasons such as litigations, etc. Most of them were on the verge of retirement at the relevant time and now only 6 of them are now in service. In fact, 'failing clause' may be considered as a last compensation for their long suffering due to fault not attributable to them. If the 'failing clause' is quashed by this Court, their loss cannot be compensated. It is submitted that the introduction of 'failing clause' is valid in terms of the decisions cited above. The available vacancies are sufficient to adjust the direct recruits and remaining promotees as per the new RR. It is prayed that the writ petitions challenging the 'failing clauses' be dismissed as not maintainable as well on merit.
[21] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of some of the private respondents/promotees adopts the submission of learned AG. He further points out that the present RR has been adopted from the RR of PWD. The parent RR of PWD has not been challenged and many promotions have been made in the PWD. In case the 'failing clauses' are set aside by this Court, many confusions may happen. It is pointed out that 'failing clause' is to be resorted only when none is found eligible under the normal criteria. The ineligible Assistant Engineers, whether direct recruits or promotees, can be considered when they become eligible. It is prayed that the writ petitions challenging the vires of 'failing clause' be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Page 44 [22] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel appearing for some of private respondents/promotees has raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of writ petitions as the petitioners/direct recruits were not eligible for considering for promotion in the year 2017 & 2018. He refers to the case law of B Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association: (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II) which held that writ of certiorari can be exercised at the instance of the person who is qualified to the post and who is a candidate for the post and ineligible person cannot challenge the appointment made. Referring to the decisions reported as (1983) 3 SCC 601, it is submitted that to meet the exigencies of service, Government can promote employees who have sufficient experience to the satisfaction of the authority. It is pointed out that the policy of one-time relaxation in absence of eligible candidates, falls within the exclusive domain of the executive/legislature and court ought not to interfere in the policy matter of service rules as held in (2008) 2 SCC 750. It is stated that the promotees should not be made to suffer due to interim order as held in (1997) 1 SCC 111. It is submitted that this Court declined to interfere with the new service rule of Manipur Education Service Rules, 2012 vide judgment/order dated 02.02.2018 in WP(C) No. 974 of 2014. It is prayed that the writ petitions challenging the validity of 'failing clause' be dismissed.
[23] Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel for the some of the private respondents and for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 164 of 2018 submits that Page 45 the 'failing clause' will be resorted to only when eligible candidates as per normal rule are not available. If sufficient number of eligible persons are available, the impugned clause will not be applicable. In other words, the 'failing clause' does not discriminate the interest of any employee whether belonging to direct recruits or promotees. Learned counsel relies on the decisions in the cases of Ganga Ram v. Union of India: (1970) 1 SCC 377 and State of Gujarat v. C G Desai: (1974) 1 SCC 188 to highlight the point that direct recruits and promotees constitute different classes and such classification is reasonable to the touchstone of reasonableness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further refers to the cases of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary Home: (1988) Supp SCC 519, State of Tripura v. K K Roy: (2004) 9 SCC 65 & A Satyanarayana v. S Purushotam: (2008) 5 SCC 416 for necessity of providing at least two promotional avenues to the employees during their whole service tenures. It is pointed out that the promotees do not have enough promotional opportunity and they were stagnant at the stage of entry level for a considerable period of time for more than 20 years. It is submitted that the 'failing clause' was introduced keeping in mind all these factors and the same cannot be alleged to be violative of the principles embodied in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel adopts the submission of learned AG and prays for dismissing the writ petition challenging the 'failing clause' and for granting the benefit of the DPC proceedings dated 03.02.2018 and promotion order dated 03.02.2018, as the interim order in Page 46 WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 will not be effective on the dismissal of the main petition.
[24] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of MPSC have also adopted the submissions of learned Advocate General with respect to the question of validity of the 'failing clause'.
[25] We have considered the rival submissions made at bar, the materials on record and the relevant law in this regard. On perusal of Schedule-III appended to the Rules of 2016 as adopted in the Water Resources Department, it is seen that the nature of appointment to the post of Executive Engineer is 100% by promotion from the feeder cadre of Assistant Engineer which regular service tenure of 6 years for Degree holder, 9 years for Diploma holder and 6 or 7 years for Diploma holder who passes both Section A & B of AMIE. It is also admitted fact there is no sub-quota for Degree holder, Diploma holder or AMIE passed Assistant Engineers and all such officers are to be considered subject to the satisfaction of fulfilling the eligibility criteria as mentioned therein. Only when eligible persons with the requisite service tenure as stated above are not available, the 'failing clause' will apply. In the impugned clause, experience is the only consideration and not the source of recruitment. This clause has been introduced to fill up the large number of vacancies existing in the grade of Executive Engineer and such an exercise was required for completion of pending major projects in the State such as Thoubal Project, etc. 'Failing Clause' cannot be resorted to at the first instance when eligible persons are available. It is only a stop gap Page 47 arrangement to tide up the actute vacancy situation in the department. Another object is to grant at least a chance of promotional avenue to the long sufferers promotees who are stagnant for a long time in the initial post a long time, even more than 20 years without any promotion due to varios factors such as litigations, etc. The only consideration in the 'failing clause' is experience in the service.
[26] In the present cases, when the writ petitions were filed in the years 2017 & 2018, the writ petitioners/direct recruit Assistant Engineers had only 3 years of regular service and as such they did not complete the minimum requirement of 6 years of tenure as prescribed by RR. We find merit in the submissions of learned AG as well as of Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel for the private respondents that the writ petitions praying directions in the nature of mandamus and certiorari filed by ineligible candidates are not maintainable. In the case of Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar: (1973) 1 SCC 485, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person who is not eligible for consideration for appointment at the relevant point of time has no right to question the appointments made under the rule, since he is not an aggrieved person. We are of the view that the writ petitions challenging the vires of the 'failing clause' are not maintainable as the petitioners/direct recruits were not eligible at the relevant time for considering for promotion as they did not have requisite service tenure of 6 years as prescribed by the rules.
Page 48 [27] The main contention of the petitioners is that the homogenous group of Assistant Engineers cannot be bifurcated for the purpose of promotion into direct recruits and promotees, as they lost their 'birth marks' when all of them are appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment and/or on promotion. It is vehemently argued that preferring only promotees in the 'failing clause' is in violation of doctrine of equality as referred in the cases cited before this Court. [28] On the face of it, this submission is attractive, but on close scrutiny it lacks force. In the cases cited by the petitioners themselves, such as, Roshan Lal (supra), Trilok Nath (supra) and Krishna Murthy (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that classification based on source of recruitment cannot be used for further promotion, but it was held that qualification, experience, etc. are sources of reasonable classification. In the cases of Suresh Nathan (supra) and Jaganath (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that experience can be a basis for valid classification. We are of the considered opinion that experience of 17 years prescribed in the impugned 'failing clauses' introduced by Notifications dated 14.12.2016 and 04.01.2018 are held to be valid classification and the same do not violate the doctrine of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
[29] Accordingly, writ petitions challenging the vires of 'failing clauses' are dismissed. Other writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous due to the subsequent developments of deleting the 'failing clause' and Page 49 publication of new seniority list. WP(C) No. 78 of 2022 is disposed of with a direction to consider the cases of direct recruits and promotees in terms of the new rule as they have now completed the requisite tenures in view of law settled by the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar:
(2023) 3 SCC 773.
[30] From case record, it is seen that there are 31 posts in the cadre of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works/Engineers Officers, ie, 20 nos. of Temporary, 7 nos. of Permanent and 4 nos. of Supernumerary. Due to the interim order, all these posts are lying vacant. 14 Executive Engineers promoted by DPC proceedings dated 03.02.2018 and promotion order dated 03.02.2018, have already retired from service and only 6 of them are now in service. The 23 direct recruit-Assistant Engineers can be considered in the remaining 25 vacant posts of Executive Engineers, after adjusting the serving 6 Executive Engineers promoted vide DPC proceeding dated 03.02.2018. [31] Since the writ petition being WP(C) No. 917 of 2017 and connected matters challenging the 'failing clauses' are dismissed, the interim orders are vacated and merged with the final decision. It is held in the recent case of State of U P v. Prem Chopra: 2022 Live Law (SC) 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interim order merges with the final order. We are of the view that the proceedings of DPC dated 03.20.2018 and promotion order dated 03.02.2018 can be acted upon, as the only impediment in the form of interim order is now vacated. This is for the fact that the DPC proceedings and promotion order were conducted/issued as per relevant Page 50 rules and were kept in abeyance due to the interim order. In other words, the authority had jurisdiction to exercise this power and the same might only be considered as an irregular proceeding as defined in para 15 of the Constitution Bench judgment in the celebrated case of Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka: (2006) 4 SCC 1 and such irregular appointment can be regularised. A Constitution Bench of 5 Judges held in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills: (1974) 4 SCC 656 held that the 'doctrine of eclipse' is also applicable to post constitutional law and such law is not void ab initio. Only the offending part is kept suspended. When the impediment is removed, such law is enforceable. This principle is followed in the case of Dulare Lodh v. Addl District Judge, Kanpur: AIR 1984 SC 1260. Since the DPC proceeding and promotion order were in consonance with the relevant rule, these will be effective when the interim orders are vacated. It is also clarified that vide order dated 23.03.2018 in WP(C) No. 166 of 2018, this Court only kept in suspension the DPC proceedings dated 03.02.2018 and consequent promotion order dated 03.02.2018 leaving the rest for deciding on merit at the time final order. On vacation of the interim order upon dismissal of WP(C) No.917 of 2017, the validity and enforceability of such proceeding/order will not be affected on application of the 'doctrine of eclipse' with respect to post constitutional law to the peculiar facts of the present case.
Page 51 [32] In terms of the above findings, observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
FR/NFR
Indrajeet
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2023.10.31
MARING 14:17:12 +05'30'
Page 52