Manipur High Court
Shri K. Meghachandra Singh Aged About 44 ... vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 24 November, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
SHAMURAILATPA Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
M SUSHIL SHARMA SHARMA
Date: 2022.12.05 12:40:37 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017
1. Shri K. Meghachandra Singh aged about 44 years,
S/o. (L) K. Lukhoi Singh, a resident of Okshongbung
Leikai, PO & PS Moirang, Bishnupur District,
Manipur.
2. Shri Thokchom Vikramjit Singh, aged about 43
years, S/o. (L) Thh. Navakumar Singh, resident of
Sagolmang Mamang Leikai, PO & PS Lamlai,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
3. Shri Wahengbam Singhajeet Singh, aged about 43
years, resident of Nambol Khathong, PO & PS
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division)
Government of Manipur.
2. The Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Government of
Manipur.
3. The Director General of Police, Government of
Manipur
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |2
4. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC)
through the Secretary.
...RESPONDENTS
5. T. Arunkumar Singh.
6. S. Nandakishore Singh
7. Sh. Jugeshore Sharma
8. R.K. Khomdon Singh
9. S. Somorjit Singh
10. Th. Nungsi Singh.
11. W. Mubi Singh.
12. Th. Sarat Singh.
13. K. Mangi Singh.
14. S. Surendra Sharma.
15. L. Kulachandra Singh.
16. S. Shamu Singh (SC)
17. Akhuba Kabui (ST).
18. Thamei Gaipuiril Kabui.
19. S. Ingo Singh.
20. S. Punyaban Singh.
21. S. Meghachandra Singh.
22. H. Gyaneshore Singh.
23. M. Kumarjit Singh.
24. Y. Rajendro Singh.
25. P. Binod Ranjan Singh.
26. I. Chitaranjan Singh.
27. Mangkhojang Kipgen.
28. Seikhomang Touthang.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |3
29. K. Ajitkumar Singh.
30. N. Manglemba Singh.
31. H. Jitendra Singh.
32. N. Dhange Meetei.
33. K. Pukehao Mao.
34. L. Thangboi Kuki (ST).
35. N. Angam Ningsiam (ST).
36. S. Ashok Kumar Singh.
37. Ksh. Rajendra Singh.
38. T. Thangjapao (ST).
39. H. Pearlson TKL.
40. Ningam Siro.
41. N.L. Kongam Anal (ST)
... PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
WP(C) No. 346 of 2021
Lunkhomang Khongsai, aged about 43 years,
S/o Lhunhol Khongsai, resident of Langching
Village, P.O. & P.S. Sugnu, Chandel District,
Manipur. Pin: 795127;
2. S. David Piaklian, aged about 39 years, S/O S.
Thuamza Dam, resident of New Lamka, P.O. &
P.S. Churchandpur, Churchandpur District,
Manipur, PIN 795128;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |4
3. Luikham Lanmiyo, aged about 41 years, S/O L.
Asing, Addl. SP, Bishnupur, Bishnupur District,
P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, Manipur, Pin: 795134;
4. Sarangthem Ibomcha Singh, aged about 45
years, S/o (L) S. Kulla Singh, resident of Kongba
Uchekon, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
5. Watham Basu Singh aged about 37 years, S/O
W. Brajachand Singh, resident of
Thangmeiband Watham Leirak, P.O. Lamphel,
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin:
795004;
6. Wahengbam Singhajit Singh, aed avout 47
years, resident of Nambol Khathong, P.O. &
P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur,
Pin:795134;
7. Rajkumar Manbindu Singh, aged about,
resident of Sangolband Ingudam Leirak, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin:
795001;
8. Polem Manjit Singh, aged about 39 years, S/O
P. Ranjit Singh, Khoyathong Polem Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur,
PIN: 795001;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |5
9. K. Meghachandra Singh, aged about 48 years,
S/O (L) K. Lukhoi Singh, resident of
Okshongbung Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang,
Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin: 795133
... PETITIONERS.
-VERSUS-
1. The Union Public Service Commission through
its Secretary, having its office at Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road New Delhi, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi, Pin: 110069;
2. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)
through its Secretary having its office at North
Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Pin:
110001;
3. The Ministry of Home Affairs through its
Secretary having its office at North Block,
Raisina Hill, Delhi, Pin: 110001;
4. The State of Manipur represented by Chief
Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division),
Government of Manipur, having its office at
Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin:
795001
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |6
5. The Joint Secretary (D.P.) Government of
Manipur, having its office at Secretariat
Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur, Pin:795001
... OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS
6. Ningam Siro S/O (L) Thodai Siro Leishiphung
Vill. A/P Tribal Colony, Qtr. No. 6/III Checkon,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
7. S. Somorjit Singh, Commandant 8th MR, Leikun,
P.O. & P.S. Chandel, Chandel District, Manipur,
Pin 795127;
8. L. Deben Singh aged about 53 years, S/O L.
Tompok Singh of Khoyathong Polem Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District, Imphal West,
Manipur, Pin: 795001;
9. A. Ghanashyam Sharma, Superintendent of
Police, Jiribam, Jiribam District, Manipur; Pin:
795116;
10. Jemkhansuan Paite, Commandant 6 MR,
Ukhrul, Pin: 795142;
11. Ch. Adani Mao Superintendent of Police.
Kamjong, Kamjong District, Manipur, Pin:
795145;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |7
12. M. Kumarjit Singh, Commandant 6 IRB, Pangei,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
13. I. Chitaranjan Singh Superintendent of Police,
CPCR near 1st MR Jail Road, Imphal, Imphal
West District Manipur, Pin: 795001;
14. Mangkhojang Kipgen Commandant 7 IRB,
Uchathon, Jiribam District, Manipur, Pin:
795116;
15. Seikhomang Touthang Assistant Director
Manipur Police Training Centre, Pangei, Imphal
East District Manipur, Pin: 795005;
16. K. Ajit Kumar Sharma Superintendent of Police
Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, Pin: 795142;
17. L. Thangboi Kuki Assistant Director, Manipur
Police Training Centre, Pangei, Imphal East
District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
18. Angam Ninghian Superintendent of Police
Immigration, C/O Police Head Quarter, Imphal,
Manipur, Pim:795001 and
19. T. Thongjapao Commandant 2nd IRB,
Naransena, Bishnupur District, Manipiur, Pin:
795134
... PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |8
WP(C) No. 923 of 2021
1. Polem Manjit Singh, aged about 39 years, S/o P.
Ranjit Singh a resident of Khoyathong Polem Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
2. Dr. Sarangthem Ibomcha Singh, aged about 49
years, S/o (L) S. Kulla Singh, a resident of Kongba
Uchekon P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795001.
3. Victoria Yengkhom, aged about 41 years, D/o
Yengkhom Pushkar Singh presently residing at Qtr
No.6, Manipur Police Housing Corporation Ltd.,
Imphal-795001.
4. Rashini Yengkhom, aged about 47 years, D/o Y.
Nimai Singh a resident of Kakching Turel Wangma,
P.O. & P.S. Kakching, Kakching District, Manipur.
5. Sarangthem Asana, aged about 38 years, d/o
Sarangthem Dinokumar a resident of Haobam
Marak Keisham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
6. Bembem Nongthombam, aged about 37 years, D/o
N. Dilipkumar Singh a resident of Moirangkhom
Makha Loklaobung, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
... Petitioners
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Page |9
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Chief
Secretary/Special Secretary/ Commissioner (DP &
AR) Government of Manipur, Secretariat, South
Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Chief Secretary (Home), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
3. The Manipur Public Service Commission
represented by its Secretary, North A.O.C., P.O. &
P.S. Imphal-795001.
4. The Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),
Government of India, North Block , Central
Secretariat, New Delhi-110001
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North
Block, Rasina Hill, Delhi-110001.
6. Union Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Dholpur House Shahjahan Road New
Delhi, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110069.
... Respondents.
7. Shri T. Arunkumar Singh
8. S. Nandakishore Singh
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 10
9. Thamei Gaipuiril Kabui
10. Sh. Jugeshore Sharma
11. R.K. Khomdon Singh
12. S.Somorjit Singh
13. Th. Nungshi Singh
14. W. Mubi Singh
15. L. Deben Singh
16. A. Ghanashyam Sharma
17. Th. Sarat Singh
18. K. Mangi Singh
19. A.Surendra Sharma
20. L. Kulachandra Singh
21. S. Shamu Singh(SC)
22. Akhuba Kabui (ST)
23. S. Ingo Singh
24. S. Punyaban Singh
25. S. Meghachandra Singh
26. H. Gyaneshore Singh
27. M. Kumarjit Singh
28. Y. Rajendro Singh
29. P. Binod Ranjan Singh
30. I. Chitaranjan Singh
31. Mangkhojang Kipgen
32. Seikhomang Thouthang (ST)
33. K. Ajitkumar Sharma
34. N. Manglemba Singh
35. K. Pukehao Mao
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 11
36. L. Thangboi Kuki(ST)
37. N. Angam Ningsiam (ST)
38. T. Thongjapao (ST)
39. JS Peter Makanmi (ST)
40. H. Pearlson TKL
41. Ningam Siro
42. N.L. Kongam Anal (ST)
43. Swelling Hope Chiru
44. G. Jemkhansuan Paite(ST)
45. Ch. Adani Mao(ST)
46. Ginjamang Vaphei(ST)
...Private Respondents
MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022
REF: - (i) W.P. (C) NO. 923 OF 2021; and
(ii) MC(WP(C)) NO. 317 OF 2021
1. Salam Somorjit Singh, MPS, aged about 56
years, S/o (L) S. Ningthemjao Singh a resident of
Sagolband Sayang Kurao Makhong, PO & PS
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001;
2. Adhikarimayum Ghanashyam Sharma, aged
about 56 years, S/o. (L) A. Mani Sharma of
Brahmapur Aribam Leikai, PO & PS Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005;
3. Shamurailatpam Jugeshwor Sharma, aged
about 59 years, S/o. (L) Sh. Shamungou Sharma
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 12
of Khongman Mangjil Mamang Kongba Road, PO
Porompat, PS Irilbung, Imphal East District,
Manipur - 795005.
... APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. Shri Polem Manjit Singh, aged about 39 years,
S/o. P Ranjit Singh a resident of Khoyathong
Polem Leikai, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
2. Dr. Sarangthem Ibomcha Singh, aged about 49
years, S/o (L) Kulla Singh, a resident of Kongba
Uchekon, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur-795001.
3. Victoria Yengkhom, aged about 41 years, D/o
Yengkhom Pushkar Singh presently residing at
Qtr. No. 6, Manipur Police Housing Corporation
Ltd., Imphal-795001.
4. Rashini Yengkhom aged about 47 years, D/o Y.
Nimai Singh a resident of Kakching Turel
Wangma, P.O. & P.S. Kakching, Kakching
District, Manipur.
5. Sarangthem Asana, aged about 38 years, D/o
Sarangthem Dinokumar a resident of Haobam
Marak, Keisham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 13
6. Bembem Nongthombam, aged about 37 years,
D/o N. Dilipkumar Singh a resident of
Moirangkhom Makha Loklaobung, P.O & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
...RESPONDENTS
7. The State of Manipur through the Chief
Secretary/ Special Secretary/ Commissioner (DP
&AR) Government of Manipur, Secretariat, South
Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur - 795001.
8. The Chief Secretary (Home), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
9. The Manipur Public Service Commission
represented by its Secretary, North A.O.C., P.O.
& P.S. Imphal - 795001.
10. The Union of India represented by the Secretary
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),
Government of India, North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi - 110069.
11. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North
Block, Rasina Hill, Delhi - 110001.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 14
12. Union Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Dholpur House Shahjahan Road New
Delhi, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110069.
13. Shri T. Arunkumar Singh.
14. S. Nandakishore Singh.
15. Thamei Gaipuiril Kabui.
16. R.K. Kohomdon Singh.
17. Th. Nungshi Singh.
18. W. Mubi Singh.
19. I. Deben Singh.
20. Th. Sarat Singh.
21. K. Mangi Singh
22. A. Surendra Sharma
23. L. Kulachandra Singh
24. S. Shamu Singh(SC)
25. Akhuba Kabui (ST)
26. S. Ingo Singh
27. S. Punyaban Singh
28. S. Meghachandra Singh
29. H Gyaneshore Singh
30. M. Kumarjit Singh
31. Y. Rajendro Singh
32. P. Binod Ranjan Singh
33. I. Chitaranjan Singh
34. Mangkhojang Kipgen
35. Seikhomang Thouthang (ST)
36. K. Ajitkumar Sharma
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 15
37. N. Manglemba Singh
38. K. Pukehao Mao
39. L. Thangboi Kuki (ST)
40. N. Angam Ningsiam (ST)
41. T. Thongjapao (ST)
42. JS Peter Makanmi (ST)
43. H. Pearlson TKL
44. Ningam Siro
45. N.L. Kongam Anal (ST)
46. Swelling Hope Chiru
47. G. Jemkhansuan Paite (ST)
48. Ch. Adani Mao(ST)
49. Ginjamang Vaphei (ST)
... PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 346 of 2021
1. Lunkhomang Khongsai, aged about 43 years, S/o
Lhunhol Khongsai, resident of Langching Village,
P.O. & P.S. Sugnu, Chandel District, Manipur.
Pin: 795127;
2. S. David Piaklian, aged about 39 years, S/O S.
Thuamza Dam, resident of New Lamka, P.O. &
P.S. Churchandpur, Churchandpur District,
Manipur, PIN 795128;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 16
3. Luikham Lanmiyo, aged about 41 years, S/O L.
Asing, Addl. SP, Bishnupur, Bishnupur District,
P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, Manipur, Pin: 795134;
4. Sarangthem Ibomcha Singh, aged about 45
years, S/o (L) S. Kulla Singh, resident of Kongba
Uchekon, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
5. Watham Basu Singh aged about 37 years, S/O
W. Brajachand Singh, resident of Thangmeiband
Watham Leirak, P.O. Lamphel, P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin: 795004;
6. Wahengbam Singhajit Singh, aed avout 47 years,
resident of Nambol Khathong, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur,
Pin:795134;
7. Rajkumar Manbindu Singh, aged about, resident
of Sangolband Ingudam Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin:
795001;
8. Polem Manjit Singh, aged about 39 years, S/O P.
Ranjit Singh, Khoyathong Polem Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, PIN:
795001;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 17
9. K. Meghachandra Singh, aged about 48 years,
S/O (L) K. Lukhoi Singh, resident of
Okshongbung Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang,
Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin: 795133
... PETITIONERS.
-VERSUS-
1. The Union Public Service Commission through
its Secretary, having its office at Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road New Delhi, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi, Pin: 110069;
2. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)
through its Secretary having its office at North
Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Pin:
110001;
3. The Ministry of Home Affairs through its
Secretary having its office at North Block,
Raisina Hill, Delhi, Pin: 110001;
4. The State of Manipur represented by Chief
Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division),
Government of Manipur, having its office at
Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin:
795001
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 18
5. The Joint Secretary (D.P.) Government of
Manipur, having its office at Secretariat
Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur, Pin:795001
... OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS
6. Ningam Siro S/O (L) Thodai Siro Leishiphung
Vill. A/P Tribal Colony, Qtr. No. 6/III Checkon,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
7. S. Somorjit Singh, Commandant 8th MR, Leikun,
P.O. & P.S. Chandel, Chandel District, Manipur,
Pin 795127;
8. L. Deben Singh aged about 53 years, S/O L.
Tompok Singh of Khoyathong Polem Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District, Imphal West,
Manipur, Pin: 795001;
9. A. Ghanashyam Sharma, Superintendent of
Police, Jiribam, Jiribam District, Manipur; Pin:
795116;
10. Jemkhansuan Paite, Commandant 6 MR,
Ukhrul, Pin: 795142;
11. Ch. Adani Mao Superintendent of Police.
Kamjong, Kamjong District, Manipur, Pin:
795145;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 19
12. M. Kumarjit Singh, Commandant 6 IRB, Pangei,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
13. I. Chitaranjan Singh Superintendent of Police,
CPCR near 1st MR Jail Road, Imphal, Imphal
West District Manipur, Pin: 795001;
14. Mangkhojang Kipgen Commandant 7 IRB,
Uchathon, Jiribam District, Manipur, Pin:
795116;
15. Seikhomang Touthang Assistant Director
Manipur Police Training Centre, Pangei, Imphal
East District Manipur, Pin: 795005;
16. K. Ajit Kumar Sharma Superintendent of Police
Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, Pin: 795142;
17. L. Thangboi Kuki Assistant Director, Manipur
Police Training Centre, Pangei, Imphal East
District, Manipur, Pin: 795005;
18. Angam Ninghian Superintendent of Police
Immigration, C/O Police Head Quarter, Imphal,
Manipur, Pim:795001 and
19. T. Thongjapao Commandant 2nd IRB,
Naransena, Bishnupur District, Manipiur, Pin:
795134
... PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 20
MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
Ref:- (i) WP(C) No. 923 of 2021
(ii) MC(WP(C)) No. 317 of 2021
Lourembam Deben Singh aged about 57 years S/o
L. Tompok Singh presently serving as Manipur
Police Training , resident of Khuyathong Polem
Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
.....Applicant
-VERSUS-
1. Polem Manjit Singh, aged about 39 years, S/o.
P. Ranjit Singh, a resident of Khoyathong
Polem Leikai, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001;
2. Dr. Sarangthem Ibomcha Singh, aged about
49 years, S/o (L) Kulla Singh, a resident of
Kongba Uchekon, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795001;
3. Victoria Yengkhom, aged about 41 years, D/o
Yengkhom Puskar Singh, presently residing at
Qtr No. 6, Manipur Police Housing Corporation
Ltd., Imphal-795001;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 21
4. Rashini Yengkhom aged about 47 years, D/o
Y. Nimai Singh, a resident of Kakching Turel
Wangma, P.O. & P.S. Kakching, Kakching
District Manipur.
5. Sarangthem Asana, aged about 38 years, D/o
Sarangthem Dinokumar, a resident of Hoabam
Marak, Keisham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
6. Bembem Nongthombam, aged about 37
years, D/o N. Dilipkumar Singh, a resident of
Moirangkhom Makha Loklaobung, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
.... Respondents
7. The State of Manipur, through the Chief
Secretary/Special Secretary Commissioner
(DP & AR), Government of Manipur,
Secretariat, South Block, Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001;
8. The Chief Secretary (Home), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur -795001;
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 22
9. The Manipur Public Service Commission,
represented by its Secretary, North A.O.C.,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal-795001;
10. The Union of India, represented by the
Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Training (DoPT), Government of India, North
Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-
110069;
11. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Noth
Block, Rasina Hill, Delhi -11001;
12. Union Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Dholpur House Shajahan Road,
New Delhi, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-
110069;
13. Shri T, Arunkumar Singh;
14. S. Nandakishore Singh;
15. Thamei Gaipuiril Kabui;
16. Sh Jugeshore Singh;
17. R.K. Khomdon Singh;
18. S. Somorjit Singh;
19. Th Nungshi Singh;
20. W. Mubi Singh
21. A. Ghanashyam Sharma
22. Th Sarat Singh
23. K. Mangi Singh'
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 23
24. A. Surendra Sharma
25. L. Kulachandra Singh
26. S. Shamu Singh (SC)
27. Akhuba Kabui (ST)
28. S. Ingo Singh
29. S. Punyaban Singh
30. S. Meghachandra Singh
31. H. Gyaneshore Singh
32. M. Kumarjit Singh
33. Y. Rajendro Singh
34. P. Binod Ranjan Singh
35. I. Chitaranjan Singh
36. Mangkhojang Kipgen
37. Seikhomang Thouthang (ST)
38. K. Ajitkumar Sharma
39. N. Manglemba Singh
40. K. Pukehao Mao
41. L. Thangboi Kuki (ST)
42. N. Angam Ningsiam (ST)
43. T. Thongjapao (ST)
44. JS Peter Makanmi (ST)
45. H. Pearlson TKL
46. Nigam Siro
47. N.L. Kongam Anal (ST)
48. Swelling Hope Chiru
49. G. Jemkhansuan Paite (ST)
50. Ch. Adani mao (ST)
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 24
51. Ginjamang Vaiphei (ST)
... PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner :: Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. S. Biswajit, Advocate
Mr. O. Ratan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate
Mr. H. Debendra, GA
Mr. RS Reisang, Sr. Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 08.09.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 24.11.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P.(C) No.867 of 2017 has been filed by the
petitioners to set aside the impugned proceedings of the review
DPC meeting held on 1.7.2013 and 19.8.2016 and the orders
dated 18.10.2013 and 15.9.2016 and to restrain the respondents
from publishing final seniority list of MPS Grade-II on the basis of
tentative seniority list dated 15.9.2017.
2. W.P.(C) No.346 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioners to set aside the impugned placement order dated
31.3.2021 from MPS Grade-I to MPS Junior Administrative Officer
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 25
in respect of the private respondents issued by the Department of
P&AR (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur and to direct
the official respondents not to consider the private respondents in
their next induction to the cadre of Indian Police Service from
Manipur Police Service till the disposal of pending W.P.(C)
Nos.867 of 2017; 101 of 2021 and 885 of 2016.
3. W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioners to set aside the impugned proceedings of the DPC held
for promotion of 41 posts of MPS Grade-II dated 21.1.2007; review
proceedings held on 19.8.2016 along with promotion order dated
1.3.2007; orders dated 18.10.2013 and 15.9.2016 and to direct the
respondents not to give effect to the proceedings made on the
basis of the letter dated 28.5.2021 in any manner pending disposal
of the writ petition.
4. Since the prayers made in these writ petitions are
intertwined with common petitioners and respondents and also the
issue involved is one and the same, all the writ petitions were
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022,
MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022
P a g e | 26
FACTS:
5.1. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2017 is that they are direct recruits selected through Manipur Public Service Commission to the post of MPS Grade-II on 14.8.2007 and after completion of their training and discharging their duties at various police stations in Manipur Police Department in the capacity of SDPO, Assistant Commandant etc., they were promoted to the post of MPS Grade-I and were allowed to discharge as in-charge Superintendent of Police and Commandant in the Manipur Police and Manipur Rifles, including the Indian Reserve Battalion. As per Rule 5(b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, the Inspector of Police/Subedar were promoted to the post of MPS Grade-II vide Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 12.1.2007 and its recruitment process was initiated only in the month of January, 2007. 40 Inspectors of Police/Subedar promotees were promoted to the post of MPS Grade-II on 1.3.2007 and on 25.8.2006 a proposal was sent by the DGP to the Chief Secretary for immediate filling up of vacancies in MPS Grade-II under promotion quota.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 27 5.2. Challenging the promotion order dated 1.3.2007, aggrieved persons have filed W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and the said writ petition was allowed thereby quashing the promotions to the post of MPS Grade-II. Challenging the order in W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007, writ appeal, being W.A.No.174 of 2012 has been filed and the same was dismissed on 13.9.2012. After setting aside the promotion order, a review DPC was held on 1.7.2013 for promotion from Inspector/Subedar to MPS Grade-II and as per the recommendation of the review DPC dated 1.7.2013, 40 Inspectors/ Subedars were promoted to the post of MPS Grade-II by inserting 4 new incumbents and 4 Inspectors of Police/Subedar who were already promoted in the DPC meeting held on 12.1.2007 have been reverted to their respective post with effect from 1.3.2007.
5.3. According to the petitioners, aggrieved by the proceedings of the review DPC dated 1.7.2013 and its promotion order dated 18.10.2013, W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 has been filed and by the order dated 23.10.2015, this Court quashed the proceedings of the review DPC dated 1.7.2013 and the promotion WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 28 order dated 18.10.2013 and, inter alia, directed for convening review DPC to consider all the cases of eligible candidates who were within the zone of consideration as on 12.1.2007 for appointment to the post of MPS Grade-II. Consequently, review DPC was held on 19.8.2016 for filling up of 41 vacant posts, for the vacancy year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and the order dated 15.9.2016 was issued thereby promoting the private respondents numbering 40 with effect from 1.3.2007. However, in the review DPC meetings held on 1.7.2013 and 19.8.2016, the 19 posts for 50% of the deputation/training/leave reserve and 6 post for the remaining 50% of vacancies going to be created by promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II officers to Grade-I on the basis of the DPC held on 24.8.2006. According to the petitioners, the respondent authorities published a tentative seniority list of the MPS on 15.9.2017 by placing the private respondents above the petitioners. Challenging the same, the said writ petition has been filed.
6.1. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.346 of 2021 is that they are direct recruits selected through MPSC and appointed on 14.8.2007 through direct recruitment. The private WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 29 respondents cannot claim their promotion under regular vacancy. The DGP, Manipur and the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur have written a DPC Note to the higher authority for filling up the vacant posts of 2 for 2005-2006 and 20 vacancies for the year 2006-2007 and 19 posts for reserve posts like deputation reserve/leave reserve and training reserve. Hence, the private respondents cannot be above the petitioners in the final seniority list of MPS in the Manipur Police Department. The State Government shall prepare a seniority list afresh in respect of MPS officers as per the observation made in W.P.(C) No.366 of 2013. 6.2. It is stated that while preparing the seniority list of MPS officers, the State Government shall follow the guidelines/instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 7.2.1986 and 13.11.1987 as directed vide order dated 18.2.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.235 of 2012. But the respondent authorities published the final seniority list dated 21.12.2020 by violating Rule 28 and the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 and challenging the same, W.P.(C) No.101 of 2021 has been filed. The final seniority list dated 21.12.2020 placing the MPS Grade-I to MPS WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 30 Grade-I Junior Administrative Officer (non-functional officer) was issued on 31.3.2021 without considering the pending cases.
7. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021 is that they are aggrieved by the inclusion of candidates appointed against the temporary vacancies (deputation/leave/training reserved vacancies) in the seniority list by treating the temporary vacancies as substantive vacancies while giving promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II in the year 2007. According to the petitioners, when DPC was held in 2007, there was only 22 substantive vacancies for the promotion quota, however, by taking 19 temporary vacancies (deputation/leave/training reserved vacancies) altogether 40 officers were appointed as MPS Grade-II on substantive vacancies. Thus, the officers appointed under the 19 category vacancies cannot in any event be considered as officers borne on the cadre because they have been recommended by the MPS against temporary vacancies. Hence, W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021 has been filed for setting aside the impugned DPC proceedings held for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II in the year 2007 WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 31 and its subsequent review DPC held in 2013 and 2016 respectively along with consequential orders. 8.1. Resisting W.P.(C) No.867 of 2017, first respondent State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the then existing MPS (1st Amendment) Rules, 1996, appointment to the service shall be (a) 50% of the substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of the service shall be filled by direct recruitment in the matter specified in part IV of the rules; and (b) the remaining 50% of such substantive vacancies shall be filled by selection in the manner specified in part V from amongst the officers who are substantively borne on the cadre of Inspectors of Police, Inspectors of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors of Manipur Rifles employed under the State of Manipur.
8.2. It is stated that 50% of vacancies under deputation/leave/ training reserve was also proposed to be filled up by promotion in the original DPC held on 12.10.2007 as well as in the subsequent review DPCs held on 01.07.2013 and 19.8.2016 because of the then acute shortage of MPS-II officers. As against the sanctioned strength of 125, only 37 MPS Grade-II were WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 32 available at that time. Although action to fill up MPS Grade-II officers by direct recruitment had been taken up, the officers so appointed would be available for duty for nearly a couple of years. 8.3. It is further stated that as for the claim for filling up of 6 anticipated vacancies on account of promotion, 12 vacancies were available due to promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II to MPS Grade-I on 25.8.2006 which is the date earlier to the date of sending of requisition to MPSC on 2.1.2007 and hence can be treated as substantive vacancies, 50% of which can be filled up by promotion. It is stated that the order dated 15.9.2016 issued by the Department of P&AR based on the recommendations of the review DPC held on 19.8.2016 was given retrospective effect from 1.3.2007 and hence the private respondents were placed above the petitioners in the tentative seniority list of MPS notified on 15.9.2017 by using the interpretation of "recruitment year" as "financial year" as interpreted by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.366 of 2013 and 120 of 2014 dated 7.7.2017. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9.1. Respondent No.4/MPSC filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the Note for DPC submitted to the MPSC by the WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 33 Department of Personnel, the total number of posts for promotion to MPS Grade-II from Inspectors of Police/Subedar Majors/Subedars of Police Department was 41 and the total number of vacancy for the year 2005-06 was 4 and for the vacancy year 2006-07 were 12, 27 and 37 respectively. It is stated that 50% of the vacant was to be filled up by promotion and thus, for the vacancy year 2005-06, the vacancies were 2 and for the vacancy year 2006-07, the vacancies were 6, 14 and 19 respectively.
9.2. It is stated that 6 vacancies occurred due to promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II to the post of MPS Grade-I on 25.8.2006. The 14 vacancy arose due to Amendment of MPS Rules, 1965 from time to time. The vacancy of 19 occurred due to 20% of deputation reserve, 5% of leave reserve and another 5% of training reserve against 125 numbers of sanctioned posts of MPS Grade-II. The reasons as stated in the said Note for proposing to fill up 50% of deputation/leave/training reserve was because of the acute shortage of MPS Grade-II officers and as against the sanctioned strength of 125, only 37 were available. In the said Note, it has been mentioned that although action to fill up WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 34 MPS Grade-II officers by direct recruitment had been taken up at that time, the officers so appointed would not be available for duty for nearly a couple of years. It is further stated that as regards, the 6 posts for 50% of vacancies, the vacancy arose due to promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II to the post of MPS Grade-I on 25.8.2006 and the DPC would cover such vacancies that have arisen just before sending proposal to the MPSC for DPC or even anticipated vacancies in that vacancy year, for which the DPC was taken up. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the proceedings of the DPC held in association with the MPSC. 10.1. Respondents 7 and 8 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioners have no legally enforceable right against the private respondents and have to establish the locus standi to challenge the impugned orders. The MPSC issued an advertisement dated 22.8.2005 for direct recruitment of various Civil Service Combined Service, including 32 posts of MPS Grade- II and clearly stated for the vacancy of 2004-2005. The petitioners are impugning appointment of private respondents who are promoted to the post of MPS Grade-II from Inspector/Subedar/Inspector(Legal)/Subedar Majors in the WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 35 50%vacancies of 2006 and 2007 in promotees quota and there is no connection in vacancy wise with direct recruit of 2005-2006 base.
10.2. It is stated that 41 vacancies mentioned in the letter dated 25.8.2006, the DGP mentioned the vacancy position and shares of direct recruits and promotees quota. It is stated that the Department of P&AR issued consolidated instruction on 29.4.1999 and as per the said instruction, if excess post was filled up by the Government, which is alleged by the petitioners as illegal, in that case equal number of direct recruit MPS Grade-II appointees are also illegal, but their appointments were not challenged, yet they also necessary party. Hence the present writ petition suffer from lack of necessary parties and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. Further, if excess posts are filled up by promotees, in that event some of the promotees MPS Grade-II shall be kept as reserved, however, that has not happened simply because no promotion was given in excess to the sanctioned post. It is further stated that reason behind the filing of the present writ petition and the subsequent W.P.(C) Nos.101 and 346 of 2021 was on account WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 36 of losing hope to get the seniority over the private respondents and to disturb their seniors who had already retired long time back. 10.3. It is stated that in compliance of the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.8833-8835 of 2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an order dated 21.12.2020 was issued by the Department of P&AR publishing the final seniority list of MPS officers. The petitioners after exhausting all legal remedies have now filed the writ petition, which is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Respondent No.22 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that 50% of vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment and another 50% is to be filled up by promotion. The claim of the petitioners is that out of 41 vacancies, 19 and 6 posts cannot be included as regular sanctioned posts, as 19 posts are temporary and reserved for deputation/training/leave reserve and another 6 posts were not yet created at the time of DPC is twisting and manipulating in order to fit the case. It is stated that the order dated 15.9.2016 issued by the Department of P&AR based on the recommendation of the review DPC held on 19.8.2016 has been given retrospective effect from 1.3.2007 and hence the private WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 37 respondents were placed above the petitioners in the tentative seniority list of MPS notified on 15.9.2017 by using the interpretation of "recruitment year" as "financial year" as per the order dated 07.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 366 of 2013 and 120 of 2014.
12. Respondents 26, 27 and 30 filed affidavit-in- opposition stating that the petitioners are misusing the process of law to stop the promotion of the private respondents for their personal benefits. Since the department divided the whole vacant posts available for MPS Grade-II at the ratio of 50:50 for direct recruits as well as for promotees as per the Manipur Police Service Rues, 1965, there is no question of encroaching the quota for direct recruits by the promotees. The petitioners have failed to challenge the letter dated 25.8.2006 of the DGP which determines the vacancy position of the promotees. Moreover, all the DPCs were held as per the vacancies determined by the said letter. The order dated 15.9.2016 issued by the Department of P&AR based on the recommendations of the review DPC held on 19.8.2016 have been given retrospective effect from 1.3.2007 as per the rules and therefore, the private respondents were placed above WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 38 the petitioners in the tentative seniority list of MPS notified on 15.9.2016 by using the interpretation of "recruitment year" as "financial year" as stated by this Court in the order dated 7.7.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.366 of 2013 120 of 2014. 13.1. Resisting W.P.(C) No.346 of 2021, the respondent State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that in compliance of the order dated 26.3.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.334-335 of 2020 arising out of Civil Appeal Nos.8836-8837 of 2019, due process for induction of eligible MPS officers to Indian Police Service was initiated and the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of Rajendro Singh and Mubi Singh. It is stated that the letter dated 25.8.2006 was submitted for filling up all the vacancies falling in promotion quota of MPS Grade-I and MPS Grade-II stating shortage of supervisory officers adversely affecting the efficiency and management of the force and the number of vacancy in MPS Grade-II was stated as 47 posts and in the light of the proposal received from the DGP for utilization of 20% deputation reserve, 5% leave reserve and 5% training reserve on account of vacancies which had adversely affected the efficiency and management of the work force, which WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 39 was required in the light of election to the 9th Manipur State Assembly and the direct recruits not being available in service as they had to undergo training during that time. The total vacancies for the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 being 85 posts calculated as 47+38=45 wherein 38=30% of 125, resulting in the vacancies proposed with reference to promotion of MPS Grade-II officers and direct recruits at 43 posts each, calculated at 50% of 85 as per the provisions of Rule 5 of the MPS Rules.
13.2. It is stated that upon receiving the letter dated 28.12.2006 from the Principal Secretary (Home) to fill up vacancies in MPS Grade-II under promotion quota, proposal for filling up 41 posts of MPS Grade-II was sent to MPSC on 2.1.2007 with a proposal for convening DPC for appointment by promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II in the Police Department consisting of Form No.6, Note for DPC and integrity certificate/vigilance certificate. In the Note for DPC forwarded to MPSC, the total vacancy for the year 2005-2006 is 4, wherein 2 was allotted to promotees as 50% of vacancy to be filled up by promotion as per Rule 5 of MPS Rules and further the total vacancy for the year WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 40 2006-2007 was counted as 12, 27, 37 wherein the vacancy meant for promotees were 6, 14, 19 respectively.
13.3. It is further stated that the placement of 51 MPS Grade-I officers to MPS Junior Administrative Grade (non- functional) on the recommendation of Selection Committee was done in compliance with the order dated 7.7.2017 passed by this Court and the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8833-8835 of 2019 read with Civil Appeal No.8838 of 2019 and 8836-8837 of 2019 and the order dated 8.3.2021 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.334-335 of 2020.
13.4. It is stated that the promotion order of 43 promotees to the post of MPS Grade-II notified vide DP's order dated 12.2.2010 was made on the recommendation of DPC held on 9.2.2010 in view of vacancy arising in the year 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Before the impugned final seniority list of MPS officers as on 1.10.2013 was published, another final seniority list of MPS officers as on 1.10.2013 was published vide order dated 29.6.2019 by placing the MPS direct recruits appointed on 1.3.2007 en-block senior to the MPS promote officers appointed WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 41 on 14.8.2007 basing on the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The placement of 51 MPS Grade-I officers were made under Rule 29(B)(i) and Rule 29(C)(ii) of Manipur Public Service Rules, 1965 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee meeting held on 20.03.2021.
14. Respondent No.8 filed affidavit stating that the petitioners are trying to re-open the matter already settled as per various orders of this Court as well the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The 19 posts are long term vacancies and the said vacancies occurred due to 20% of deputation reserve, 5% on leave reserve and 5% training reserve against 125 numbers of sanctioned post of MPS Grade-II. The DPC Note clearly states that "the Post of Commandants, Deputy Commandant, Assistant Commandants created for IR Bns, though manned by IPS/MPS officers were not part of the MPS Cadre post till they were encadre to the cadre post of MPS by amending Manipur Police Service Rules vide notification dated 14.8.2006. In lieu of the amendment of the Manipur Police Service Rules, the zone of consideration is fixed for general category at 86 and for SC/ST at 205. As such, respondent No.8 and other respondents are well within the zone WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 42 of consideration. It is stated that the petitioners are direct recruits for the vacancy year 2005-2006 and the private respondents are promotees of 2006-2007 vacancy years and thus, the petitioners have no locus standing to challenge the same. The review DPC has been conducted and order dated 15.9.2016 was issued giving effect the promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II with effect from 1.3.2007 and, as such, the said promotion order dated 12.2.2010 has become redundant.
15. Resisting W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021, the first respondent State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the provision of Rule 5 of MPS Rules as applicable on 12.1.2007, the method of recruitment to the post of MPS Grade-II is 50% of the substantive vacancy by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% of the substantive vacancies by promotion and hence quota of each direct recruit and promote in the MPS is fixed in such a manner. The inter se seniority dispute in the MPS Grade-II officers cadre between direct recruits and promotees were settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019. The consideration for promotion of all eligible officers was on merit and the writ petition is barred WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 43 by limitation. The initiation of due process of induction of eligible MPS officers to IPS vide Department of Personnel's letter dated 28.5.2021 was made subsequently in compliance of the order dated 26.3.2021 passed in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.334-335 of 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos.8833-8837 of 2019. It is stated that the promotion order dated 12.02.2010 in respect of 43 officers to their promotions to MPS Grade-II was issued upon recommendation of the DPC associated with the MPSC held on 9.2.2010. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
16. Respondent No.3/MPSC filed affidavit stating that the DPC held on 12.1.2007 was in pursuance of the proposal letter dated 25.8.2006 submitted by the DGP, Manipur requesting the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur for immediate filling up of MPS Grade-II under promotion quota in the vacancies. The said letter clearly states that vacancies to be filled up for 41 posts of MPS Grade-II and the DPC proceedings were held in association with the MPSC for appointment by promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II in accordance with the proposal given by the Administrative Department and, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the DPC proceedings.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 44 17.1. Respondent No.6/UPSC filed affidavit stating that the UPSC discharging their functions and duties assigned to them under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the provisions in the All India Services Act, 1951, separate recruitment rules have been framed for IAS/IPS/IFoS. In pursuance of these rules, the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 have been framed. In accordance with the provisions of the said Regulations, the Selection Committee presided over by the Chairman/Member of the UPSC makes selection of State Police Service officers for promotion to the Indian Police Service. It is stated that as per Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations, the number of vacancies against which selection is to be made for a particular select list for promotion to the IPS of a State cadre is determined by the Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) in consultation with the State Government concerned. Thereafter, the State Government forwards a proposal to the Commission along with the seniority list, eligibility list of the State Police Officers, integrity certificates, certificates regarding disciplinary/criminal proceedings, certificate regarding communication of adverse remarks, details of penalties imposed WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 45 on the eligible officers etc. and complete ACR desires of the eligible officers.
17.2. It is stated that the State Government vide letter dated 28.5.2021 had furnished proposal for preparation of year- wise select list of 2016 onwards for promotion of MPS officers to the IPS of Manipur cadre. In the proposal, the State Government had intimated that the proposal is based on seniority list of MPS officers prepared in pursuance of the order dated 19.11.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the vacancies were determined by the Government of India for the year 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 as 5, 1, 4, 1 respectively, a Selection Committee meeting was held on 3.12.2021 for preparation of year-wise select list of 2016 to 2019 for promotion to IPS of Manipur Cadre and the Minutes of the Committee dated 13.12.2021 was forwarded to the State Government. In view of the direction dated 20.12.201 passed by this Court for maintaining status quo as on 20.12.201 in respect of the proposal submitted by the State Government vide letter dated 28.5.2021, further action has not been taken by the UPSC.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 46
18. Respondent No.15 filed affidavit stating that the order for promotion of 41 posts of MPS Grade-II held on 21.1.2007, review proceedings held on 19.8.2016 and review DPC held on 19.8.2016 along with promotion order dated 1.3.2007 and order dated 18.10.2013 have been time and again challenged and already settled by various orders of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and only to foster their illegal claim, the matter has been again brought afresh only to frustrate the service condition of the private respondents. The main ground of the writ petition is for encroachment of quota ratio which was never pleaded in the earlier rounds of litigation, which already attended finality and the petitioners themselves have also admitted that "before all these Hon'ble Courts including Apex Court, none of the party has contended on the issue as to whether officers appointed against substantive/temporary vacancy will be given the benefit of substantive appointment treating them as officers borne on the day" and as such it is clear that the petitioners are trying to reopen the issue not pleaded in the earlier rounds of litigation while the service position has already been settled and acted upon. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 47
19. Respondent Nos.10, 12, 16, 31 and 36 filed affidavit stating that having accepted the proposition of law laid down by this Court which has been upheld by the Supreme Court that all the promote officers in respect of the earlier issued involved in W.P.(C) Nos.366 of 2013 and 120 of 2014 would be en bloc above the direct recruit officers including the petitioners after examining and accepting the promotion orders which are being challenged in the present writ petition, the petitioners cannot file a fresh writ petition to do away the impact of the earlier writ petitions. In fact, all the orders including the DPC and review DPC proceedings have been discussed in the said writ petitions. It is stated that the seniority list dated 21.12.2020 is the incidental outcome of the DPC proceeding meeting held on 12.1.2007 and promotion order dated 1.3.2007, review DPC meeting held on 19.8.2016 and promotion order dated 15.9.2016 which has attained finality by virtue of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction. As such, challenge to the above mentioned proceedings and order may contradict the directions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby making the earlier directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as null and void, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 48 SUBMISSIONS MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.867 OF 2017:
20. Assailing the impugned proceedings of the review DPC dated 1.7.2013 and its promotion order dated 18.10.2013 and the review DPC dated 19.8.2016 and its promotion order dated 15.9.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the review DPC held on 1.7.2013 and in the review DPC held on 19.8.2016, the 19 posts for 50% of deputation/training/leave reserve and 6 posts for 50% of vacancies going to be created by promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II officers to MPS Grade-I on the basis of the DPC held on 24.8.2006 were illegally and conveniently encroached upon and added to the quota for the promotees in order to accommodate the private respondents and the same cannot be treated as vacancies for the regular promotees. The learned counsel would submit that at the time of calculating the total vacancies for the regular promotees the 19 posts as well as the 6 posts are to be subtracted and if subtracted, the total vacancies for regular promotees came to only 16 posts as well as 6 posts to the total vacancies of the regular promotees in excess and promoted the private respondents to the post of MPS Grade-II vide order dated 18.10.2013 and thus WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 49 issuance of the order dated 15.9.2016 is in violation of the established norms and rules of service jurisprudence.
21. The learned counsel added that those 19 posts for the 50% of deputation/training/leave reserve and the 6 posts for the 50% of vacancies going to be created by promotion on the basis of the DPC held on 24.8.2006 will inevitably affect in the preparation of the seniority list of the MPS Grade-II in the Manipur Police Department. Hence, the above orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside.
22. In reply, the learned Government Advocate submitted that 50% of the vacancies under deputation/leave/training reserve were proposed to be filled up by promotion in the original DPC held on 12.10.2007 as well in the subsequent review DPC held on 1.7.2013 and 19.8.2016 because of the then shortage of MPS Grade-II officers. As against the sanctioned strength of 125, only 37 MPS Grade-II by direct recruitment had been considered and the officers so appointed would be available for duty for nearly a couple of years. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 50
23. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that insofar as the claim of filling up of 6 anticipated vacancies on account of promotion, 12 vacancies were available due to promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II to MPS Grade-I on 25.8.2006 which is the date earlier to the date of sending of requisition to MPSC on 2.1.2007 and hence, the said vacancies can be treated as substantive vacancies, 50% of which can be filled up by promotion. He would submit that since the order dated 15.9.2016 issued was based on the recommendation of the review DPC dated 19.8.2016 giving retrospective effect from 1.3.2007, the private respondents were placed above the petitioners in the impugned tentative seniority list dated 15.9.2017. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders as well as the seniority list dated 15.9.2017.
24. The learned counsel for the respondent/MPSC submitted that the total number of vacancy for the vacancy year 2005-06 was 4 and for the vacancy year 2006-07 were 12, 27 and 37 and that 50% of the vacant was to be filled up by promotion and accordingly, for the vacancy year 2005-06, the vacancy was 2 and for the vacancy year 2006-07, the vacancies were 4, 14 and 19. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 51 He would submit that the 6 vacancy occurred was due to promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II to the post of MPS Grade-I on 25.8.2006 and that 14 vacancy arose due to amendment of MPS Rules from time to time.
25. The learned counsel for the respondent/MPSC added that the reason for proposing to fill up 50% of deputation/leave/training reserve was because of the shortage of MPS Grade-II officers as against the sanctioned strength of 125, only 37 were available. Although action to fill up MPS Grade-II officers by direct recruitment had been taken up at that time, the officers so appointed would not be available for duty for nearly a couple of years. As regards the 6 posts for the 50% of the vacancies, the vacancy arose due to promotion of 12 MPS Grade- II to the post of MPS Grade-I on 25.8.2006 and the DPC would cover such vacancies that have arisen just before sending the proposal to the MPSC for DPC or even anticipated vacancies in that vacancy year for which the DPC was conducted. Arguing so, the learned counsel contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned proceedings of the DPC held in association with the MPSC. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 52 26.1. Supporting the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that since the Department divided the whole vacant posts available for MPS Grade-II at the ratio of 50:50 for the direct recruit as well as for the promotees as per the Manipur Police Service Rules, there is no question of encroaching the quota for direct recruits by the promotees and that by assuming but not admitting that the plea of the petitioners is correct in respect of 19 posts of deputation/training/leave reserved and another 6 posts created by promotion of 12 MPS Grade-II to MPS Grade-I i.e. total 25 vacant posts cannot be filled up by promotees, then similarly 25 posts allocated to the direct recruits cannot be enjoyed by the direct recruits. Thus, the petitioners cannot have a plea to deny the promotees something when the same benefit is claimed by them as their entitlement. The claim of the petitioners that out of 41 vacancies 19 and 6 posts cannot be included as regular sanction posts for the promotees, as 19 posts are temporary and reserved for the deputation/training/leave reserve and the 6 posts were not yet created at the time of DPC is manipulating in order to fit their case as 50% of the similar vacancies have been filled up by the direct recruitment. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 53 26.2. Further, the impugned order dated 15.9.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel based on the recommendation of the review DPC held on 19.8.2016 giving retrospective effect from 1.3.2007 and therefore, the private respondents were placed above the petitioners in the tentative seniority list dated 15.9.2017 by using the interpretation of "recruitment year" as "financial year"
as observed by this Court in the order dated 7.7.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.366 of 2013 and 120 of 2014.
27. The learned counsel for the private respondents further submitted that the petitioners impugning appointment of private respondents who are promoted to the post of MPS Grade-
II from Inspector/Subedar/Inspector(Legal)/Subedar Majors in the 50% of vacancies of 2006 and 2007 in promotees quota and that there is no connection in vacancy wise with direct recruit of 2005- 2006 base. In the letter dated 25.8.2006, the DGP has clearly stated about the vacancy position and sharing of direct recruit and promotion quota in respect of the 41 vacancies.
28. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for some of the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2017 and 923 of 2021 submitted that the seniority dispute of direct recruit WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 54 and the promotees MPS Grade-II of 2005-2006 base and 2006- 2007 was already settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, an order dated 21.12.2020 was issued by the Department of P&AR, thereby publishing a final seniority list of the Manipur Police Service (MPS) officers. After exhausting all legal remedies, the petitioners have now filed the writ petition to reopen the settled issue and that the settled seniority position should not be unsettled.
SUBMISSIONS MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.346 OF 2021:
29. Assailing the impugned order dated 31.3.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the placement of MPS Grade-I officers to MPS Grade-1 Junior Administrative officers was without considering the grievance of the petitioners and contrary to the directions issued in the earlier litigations and also violating Rule 28 of the Manipur Public Service Rules.
30. The learned counsel further submitted that the private respondents who were appointed against the 19 posts of deputation reserve/leave reserve/training reserve in the MPS Grade-II were confirmed to their respective posts of MPS Grade-
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 55 II only in the year 2010 vide their promotion order dated 12.2.2010 and therefore, their names cannot be above the direct recruits of 2007 appointees, the seniority list in respect of the private respondents are against the MPS (Amendment) Rules, 1965. The private respondents cannot be considered their induction from MPS Grade-I to Indian Police Service without the disposal of the pending cases.
31. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State contended that a proposal was received from the DGP for utilization of 20% deputation reserve, 5% leave reserve and 5% training reserve on account of vacancies which had adversely affected the efficiency and management of the work force and that upon receipt of the letter from the Government to fill up vacancies in MPS Grade-II under promotion quota, proposal for filling up 41 posts of MPS Grade-II was sent to the respondent MPSC with a proposal for convening a DPC for appointment by promotion and thereafter upon following the procedures, promotions were made on the recommendation of the DPC.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 56
32. The learned Government Advocate added that the impugned final seniority list of MPS officers as on 1.10.2013 was published by placing the MPS direct recruits appointed on 1.3.2007 en-bloc senior to the MPS promote officers appointed on 14.8.2007 based on the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. N.R.Parmar and others, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340 and the judgment passed in Civil Appeal Nos.8836-8837 of 2019.
33. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, 51 MPS Grade-I officers who were found eligible for consideration for placing MPS - Junior Administrative Grade under MPS Rules were placed to the Manipur Police Service Administrative Grade (non-functional) on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee vide order dated 31.3.2021 and that due process of induction of eligible MPS officers to IPS was initiated. The placement of 51 MPS Grade-I officers were made under Rule 29(B)(i) and Rule 29(C)(ii) of MPS Rules on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Arguing so, the learned Government WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 57 Advocate submitted that the relief claimed in W.P.(C) No.346 of 2021 is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
34. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that the petitioners are trying to re-open the matter already settled as per various orders of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and in fact the 19 posts are clear vacancies which occurred due to 20% of deputation reserve, 5% on leave reserve and 5% training reserve against 125 sanctioned posts of MPS Grade-II. The petitioners are direct recruits for the vacancy year 2005-2006 and the private respondents are promotees of 2006-2007 vacancy years and therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the orders impugned in W.P.(C) No.346 of 2021 and no ineligible officers that too who are not within the zone of consideration were considered and that as per rules, the incumbents including the private respondents were considered and promotion orders were issued to them.
35. The learned counsel for the private respondents added that some of the private respondents filed W.P.(C) No.366 of 2013 and 120 of 2014 challenging the seniority list and some of the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.235 of 2012 challenging the WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 58 seniority list dated 11.11.2008 and in the entire proceedings, there was not even a single plea that the private respondents are outside the zone and there was not a whisper that the private respondents are not eligible to be promoted and that W.P.(C) N.346 of 2021 is an attempt to do redo what has been denied by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the earlier round of litigations. Thus, a prayer is made to dismissed W.P.(C) No.346 of 2021.
SUBMISSIONS MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.923 OF 2021:
36. Challenging the impugned DPC proceedings held on 21.1.2007 for promotion of 41 posts of MPS Grade-II; review proceedings dated 19.8.2016 and the promotion order dated 1.3.2007, 18.10.2013 and 15.9.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when DPC was held in 2007, there were only 22 substantive vacancies for promotion quota. However, by taking 19 temporary vacancies altogether 40 officers were appointed as MPS Grade-II on substantive vacancies. The officers appointed under the 19 temporary vacancies cannot in any event be considered as officers borne on the cadre as they have recommended by the MPSC against the temporary vacancies. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 59
37. The learned counsel further submitted that a careful reading of the three promotion orders, namely 1.3.2007, 18.10.2013 and 15.9.2016 arising out of the DPC Note of 2007 would reveal various changes in respect of the officers who might have been recommended against the 19 temporary and thus last 19 names in the three orders have ex facie indicated that candidate who might not be in the zone of consideration against the substantive vacancies of 22 as given in the DPC note seems to have been included as candidates in the zone of consideration in all the aforesaid three DPCs. Therefore, for doing complete justice and for preventing erring officers who are the author of such misdeeds in bringing candidates within the zone of consideration illegally to escape from accountability, it becomes utmost important and necessary to set aside the proceedings of the all three DPCs.
38. The learned counsel next submitted that the State Government in its letter dated 28.5.2021 have furnished names of eligible officers for induction in IPS for the select list year of 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 wherein the names of the private respondents are found to be included and if once the aforesaid WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 60 officers are inducted into the IPS with uncertainty of their eligibility in the event DPC proceedings which are being questioned in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2017 is interfered, a chaotic and never ending complicacy in the Police Department would arise which may not be a conducive working atmosphere in the Department. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside the orders impugned in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions:
(1) Rupa Rani Rakshit and others v. Jarkhand Gramin Bank and others, (2010) 1 SCC 345. (2) D.Ganesh Rao Patnaik and others v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2005) 8 SCC 454. (3) Keshav Chandra Joshi and others v. Union of India and others, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 272. (4) Sanjay K. Sinha-II and others v. State of Bihar, (2004) 10 SCC 734. (5) Ramchandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others, (2003) 8 SCC 319. (6) Goodyear India and others v. State of Haryana and another, (1990) 2SCC 71.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 61 (7) State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1996) 6 SCC 172.
39. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate contended that as per the provision of Rule 5 of the MPS Rules as applicable on 12.1.2007, the method of recruitment to the post of MPS Grade-II is 50% of the substantive vacancy by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% of the substantive vacancy by promotion and, therefore, the quota of each direct recruit and promote in the MPS is fixed in such a manner and that the inter se seniority dispute in the MPS Grade-II between direct recruits and promotees were settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.8833-8835 of 2019 decided on 19.11.2019.
40. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/MPSC submitted that the DPC was held in association with the MPSC for appointment by promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II in accordance with the proposal given by the Administrative Department and, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the DPC proceedings impugned in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 62
41. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/UPSC submitted that the State Government vide letter dated 28.5.2021 furnished the proposal for preparation of year- wise select list of 2016 onwards for promotion of MPS officers to the IPS of Manipur cadre and in the proposal, the State Government had intimated that the proposal is based on the seniority list of MPS officers prepared in pursuance of the order dated 19.11.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would submit that the as the vacancies were determined by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs for the year of 2016, 2017, 2018 an 2019 as 5, 1, 4, 1 respectively, the Selection Committee meeting was held on 3.12.2021 for preparation of year- wise select list of 2016-2019 for promotion to IPS of Manipur cadre.
42. The learned counsel urged that in view of the direction dated 20.12.2021 passed by the High Court for maintaining status quo as on 20.12.2021 in respect of the proposal submitted by the State Government vide letter dated 28.5.2021, further action in terms of Regulations 7 for finalization of the select list prepared by the Selection Committee dated 3.12.2021 for WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 63 promotion to the IPS of Manipur cadre has not been taken by the UPSC and that the preparation and maintenance of seniority list of State Police Service officers is the exclusive domain of the State Government.
43. The learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the petitioners have admitted that final seniority list of MPS Grade-II were finalized on 17.5.2013, 19.2.2014 and 1.10.2014, wherein direct recruitee of 2007 MPS Grade-II were found to be placed above promotee officers which was subject matter of W.P.(C) Nos.366 of 2013 and 120 of 2014 filed by the promotee officers and that the petitioners have also admitted that in all the cases, encroachment of quota ratio as well as entitlement of seniority by officers appointed and promoted under temporary vacancies was not at all considered and decided. The learned counsel submitted that such issue was not raised by any of the party and the matter has already attained finality.
44. The learned counsel for the private respondents next submitted that the post of Commandants, Deputy Commandants created for IR Bns, though manner by IPS/PMS officers were not part of the MPS cadre post till they were encadred to the cadre WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 64 post of MPS by amending Manipur Police Service Rules. As a result, the total sanctioned post of MPS in different grades has been increased and that in lieu of the amendment of Manipur Police Service Rules, the zone of consideration is fixed for general category at 86 and for SC/ST at 205.
45. The learned counsel urged that had the DPC had recommended excess cadre strength and there is no defect in quota ratio in the promotion of MPS Grade-II. The learned counsel would submit that in the earlier round of litigations, there was no plea that the private respondents are outside the zone or any quota ratio has been violated. The filing of W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021 is a futile exercise for re-opening matters which have adjudicated and effected by various orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, the said writ petition filed by the petitioners is barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
46. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
DISCUSSION:
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 65
47. The grievance of the petitioners, who are direct recruits to the post of MPS Grade-II, is that out of 41 posts in which the private respondents/promotees were promoted, 19 posts meant for deputation/training/leave reserve and the 19 promotees were promoted not against the vacant posts and therefore, the promotion given them is illegal.
48. The private respondents contested the writ petitions by raising maintainability issue, apart from denying the averments set out in the writ petitions. The private respondents also raised the issue of locus standi, delay and laches, res judicata, constructive res judicata and principle of estoppel.
49. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners pertain to an inter se seniority dispute in MPS Grade-II officers. The petitioners are direct recruits and the private respondents are promotees and prior to the induction of the private respondent on 1.3.2007 to MPS Grade-II, they were serving as Inspector of Police and they were granted promotion on the basis of a duly constituted DPC. The petitioners are directly recruited into MPS Grade-II cadre vide orders dated 14.8.2007 and 24.11.2007 respectively. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 66
50. Appointment and seniority in the Manipur Police Service is governed by Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.235 of 2012, dated 18.2.2013, the Government of Manipur issued an order on 17.5.2013 publishing the final seniority list as on 1.4.2013 of the MPS Grade-II officers. The promotees challenged the aforesaid seniority by filing W.P.(C) No.366 of 2013 before this Court by contending that they entered into the MPS Grade-II on 1.3.2007, whereas the petitioners were appointed subsequently on 14.8.2007 and 24.11.2007 and, therefore, they should be regarded as senior to the direct recruits.
51. W.P.(C) No.366 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.120 of 2014 were tried together and by the order dated 7.7.2017, while quashing the impugned orders, the learned single Judge directed that the batch of promotees appointed on 1.3.2007 must be given seniority above the direct recruits appointed on 14.8.2017. The operative portion of the order dated 7.7.2017 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"(14) For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petitions being WP(C) No.366 of 2013 and WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 67 WP(C) No.120 of 2014 are allowed and consequently, the Government orders dated 17-
05-2013, 20-01-2014 and 19-02-2014, impugned herein, in respect of the petitioners and the private respondents, are quashed and set aside with the following directions:
(a) The State Government shall prepare a seniority list afresh in respect of the MPS Officers, after taking into account the observations made by this Court hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order;
(b) While preparing the seniority list of MPS Officers, the State Government shall follow the guidelines/instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 07-02-1986 which is adopted by the State Government vide its Office Memorandum dated 13-11-1987 as directed vide order dated 18-022013 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.235 of 20212.
There shall be no order as to costs.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 68
52. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, few direct recruits have filed W.A.No.49 of 2017 and was transferred to Gauhati High Court and numbered as W.A.No.66 of 2018. By the judgment dated 26.9.2018, a Division Bench upheld the conclusion of the learned single Judge. Some of the petitioners have also filed Review Petition No.10 of 2019 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by the order dated 10.4.2019. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in the writ appeal, direct recruits filed Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19565-67 of 2019 (Civil Appeal Nos.8833-8835 of 2019). By the judgment dated 19.11.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Paragraphs 47 to 50 are relevant and the same are quoted hereunder:
"47. As earlier discussed, the Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service. In particular Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct recruits, provides that seniority shall be determined by the order in which the appointments are made to the service. If WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 69 seniority under Rule 28(i) is to be determined based on the date of appointment, it cannot be said that for the purpose of Rule 28(iii), the seniority of direct recruits should be determined on the basis of the date of initiation of the recruitment process. The term "Recruitment Year" does not and cannot mean the year in which, the recruitment process is initiated or the year in which vacancy arises. The contrary declaration in N.R. Parmar, in our considered opinion, is not a correct view.
48. In view of the foregoing, let us now consider the Government order (29.06.2019) produced by the Manipur Advocate General in the Contempt Case. As it appears the seniority list published on 29.06.2019 could not be an independent exercise but its purpose should be to give effect to the judgments passed by the High Court. Since the judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench, the seniority list must be prepared in accordance with the High Court's direction. It is certainly not permissible to prepare a fresh seniority list as an independent exercise, without reference to the decisions of the Court. When we test the validity of the list (29.06.2019), there is no WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 70 escape from the conclusion that the list ignores the decision of the single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench. It is declared so accordingly.
49. In consequence, the appeals arising out of SLP(C)No.19565-67 of 2019 filed by the direct recruits are dismissed. On the same reasoning, the appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.19568-69 of 2019 filed by the State of Manipur are not entertained and the same shall stand dismissed. With the above finding on the Contempt Case No.224 of 2018 and quashment of the 29.06.2019 proceeding produced in that case before the High Court, the appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.17007 of 2019 filed by Ningam Siro against the High Court's order in the Contempt Case No.224/2018 is disposed of.
50. In view of the foregoing, the orders of the High Court in the Writ petition and the Writ Appeal are upheld. The State of Manipur is accordingly directed to prepare a revised inter- se seniority list in the MPS Group-II cadre in light of the above discussion and the High Court's Orders. This shall be done within 8 weeks from today. All consequential actions WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 71 will follow from this judgment. It is ordered accordingly."
53. Alleging willful disobedience of the order passed in C.A.No.8836-37 of 2019, Contempt Pet. (C) No.334-335 of 2020 have been filed. By the order dated 26.3.2021, the contempt petitions are closed with following observation:
"The appellant/petitioner is satisfied with the action taken by the respondents and the contempt stands purged. She, however, makes additional submissions that in terms of para 3(f), the State Government has initiated due process of induction of eligible MPS officers to IPS as per the fresh seniority list notified on 21.12.2020. But her apprehension is that the process should not become endless.
The Chief Secretary is present before us and assures us that he will not take more than two months to complete his part of the job for the State Government but will endeavor to do it earlier, if possible. He submits that thereafter the matter is dependent on the timely action to be taken by the UPSC and the Central Government. In his view, about two months WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 72 thereafter should be sufficient for the said purpose.
We consider appropriate to record the aforesaid statement and to issue directions to the Central Government and the UPSC that once the State Government forwards the necessary papers, the needful should be done within a maximum period of two months thereafter in view of the prolongation of time which has already taken place at the cost of the appellant/petitioner.
The contempt petitions are closed with the aforesaid directions and notice stands discharged.
A copy of the order passed by us should accompany the proposal of the State Government to the UPSC and the Central Government so that the timelines are kept in mind."
54. When W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021 was taken up on 17.12.2021, this Court passed the following order:
"Heard Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 73 [1] By the instant writ petition, the validity and correctness of various proceedings dated 21-01- 2007, 01-07-2013 and 19-08-2016 are under challenge in this writ petition and in addition thereto, a prayer has been made to direct the respondents no to act upon the letter dated 28- 05-2021.
[2] The subject matter in issue relates to the validity and correctness of the aforesaid proceedings, by which many of the respondents have been considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
[3] From the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioners and the respondents, have been, in one way or the other, getting involved in various litigations because of which, the facts and circumstances have become complicated.
[4] Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate submits that pursuant to the letter dated 28-05-2021, a DPC was held sometime in the first week of December and the recommendation thereof is being awaited by the State Government and accordingly, he prays that he may be given some time for seeking WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 74 instruction in the matter before any interim order is passed by this Court.
[5] Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate, this Court is of the view that the interim order staying the operation of the said letter dated 28-05-2021 cannot be passed, at this stage, for the reason that the DPC's meeting has already been held pursuant to the said letter.
[6] in view of the above, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable in four weeks. Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 3, MPSC. Shri Vijayanand Sharma, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri B.R. Sharma, learned Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. So far as the respondent No. 6 is concerned, appropriate step shall be taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners for service of notice upon it by speed post. As regards respondent Nos. 7 to 46, it has been submitted by Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 75 appearing for the petitioners that since the detailed addresses of all of them are not known, he is permitted to serve upon them by substituted service by way of publication in two local dailies
- one, in Vernacular and another, in English, for which he shall take appropriate steps.
[7] List the matter before another bench on 22- 12-2021 for consideration of the interim prayer after an approval being obtained from the Hon'ble Chief Justice in view of the nature of the issue involved herein."
55. On 20.12.2021, this Court granted an order of status quo to be maintained by all the parties till the next date i.e. 22.12.2021. The order dated 20.12.2021 reads thus:
"This is an application filed by the applicant/ petitioner praying for rectification of the order as regards the status-quo to be maintained by the parties. While dictating the order, it had been mentioned that the status quo be maintained by all parties. But when the draft order was being finalized, the same had been inadvertently omitted. This being a mistake on the part of the Court, the instant application is allowed with the direction that the status-quo as of today shall be WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 76 maintained by all the parties till the next date i.e., 22-12-2022.
This order shall form part of the earlier order passed on 17-12-2021."
56. By the order dated 22.12.2021, this Court passed the following order:
"[1] Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.923 of 2021; Mr. M.Devenanda, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.101 of 2021, WP(C)No.346 of 2021 and WP(C)No. 867 of 2017; Mr. S. Biswajit, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 10, 12, 16, 31 in WP(C) No.923 of 2021 & respondent Nos. 5,10, 14, 17, 19 in WP(C) No. 101 of 2021; Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned counsel for the State respondents; Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in WP(C) No.923 of 2021; Mr. Debendra, learned GA for the State respondents in WP(C) No.101 of 2021; WP(C)No.867 of 2017 and WP(C) No.346 of 2021; Mr. Mohendro, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No. 101 & 867 of 2017.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 77 [2] When the matters are taken up today, Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) 101 of 2021, WP(C)No.346 of 2021 and WP(C)No.867 of 2017 represented that some of the respondents have already been filed counter affidavit in WP(C)No.101 of 2021 and none of the respondents have filed their counter affidavits in WP(C) No.346 of 2021. He further reported that pleadings are completed in WP(C) No.867 of 2017.
[3] Anyhow, the respondents seeks further time to file their counter affidavits. Therefore, the respondents are directed to file their counter affidavits on the next returnable date without fail.
[4] Therefore, post these matters on 17.01.2022. Since both the parties mentioned that there is urgency in these matters and hence, the respondents are directed to file their counter affidavits on that date without fail.
[5] Earlier interim order is extended till then.
[6] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties to their Whapsapp/e-mail."
57. On 17.12.2021, this Court passed the following order:
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 78 "Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the applicants in MC[W.P.(C)] No. 280 of 2021 as well as the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.346 of 2021 & 867 of 2017 and Mr. H. Debendra, learned GA for the Respondent in MC[W.P.(C)] No. 280 of 2021 and W.P.(C) Nos. 346 of 2021; Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2021 and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the Respondent in W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2021.
[2] Mr. H. Debendra, learned GA for the Respondent in MC[W.P.(C)] No. 280 of 2021 and W.P.(C) Nos. 346 of 2021 and Mr.Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the Respondent in W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2021 seek time to file counter affidavit.
[3] Therefore, post these matters on 14.02.2022.
[4] Interim order already granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2021 is extended till then.
[5] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their whatsapp/e- mail."
58. Thereafter, the interim order was extended from time to time and the same is in force till date. Respondent No.15 has WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 79 filed Misc. Case (WP) No.88 of 2022 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 17.12.201 passed in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021 read with order dated 20.12.2021 passed in MC (W) No.317 of 2021. Similarly respondent Nos.10, 12, 16 have filed MC (WP) No.20 of 2022 to vacate the interim order dated 17.12.2021.
59. The petitioners have also filed MC (WP) No.280 of 2021 seeking direction on the official respondents not to hold the Screening Committee for induction to IPS from the Manipur Police Service in Manipur cadre from the proposal dated 28.5.2021 till the disposal of pending Writ Petition (C) No.857 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.101 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.885 of 2016.
60. As per the then existing MPS (1st Amendment) Rules, 1996, appointment to the service shall be made by the following methods under Rule 5:
(a) 50% of the substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in authorized permanent strength of the service shall be filled by direct WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 80 recruitment in the manner specified in Part IV of the rules; and
(b) The remaining 50% of such substantive vacancies shall be filled by selection in the manner specified in part V of the rules amongst the officers who are substantively borne on the cadre of Inspectors of Police, Inspectors of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Major of Manipur Rifles employed under the State of Manipur.
61. It appears that 50% of vacancies under deputation/ leave/training reserve were also proposed to be filled up by promotion in the original DPC held on 12.2.2007 as well as in the subsequent review DPCs held on 1.7.2013 and 19.8.2016, as there was shortage of MPS Grade-II officers. In that process, no quota for direct recruit has been encroached by the promotees. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 81
62. Admittedly, the petitioners have challenged the DPC proceeding held on 12.2.2007 and its subsequent promotion order dated 1.3.2007; review DPC proceeding held on 1.7.2013 and its subsequent promotion order dated 18.10.2013; review DPC proceeding held on 19.8.2016 and its subsequent promotion order dated 15.9.2016 after a delay of about 17 years from the first DPC; 8 years from the review DPC of the year 2013 and 6 years of the review DPC of the year 2016.
63. The argument of the learned counsel for the private respondents is that delay and laches is a relevant factor for a Court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by the petitioners deserve consideration and that on the ground of delay and latches, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support, the learned counsel for the private respondents placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein, it has been held as under:
"23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 82 on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:
"16. .... Filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."
24. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in GhulamRasool Lone v. State of J&K, (2009) 15 SCC 321.
25. In NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278, the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 83 factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction."
64. By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal and others v. International Airport Authority of India and others, 1980 (Supp) SCC 449, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petitions filed several years after the appointment/promotion and that when the prayer in the writ petition is primarily confined to seniority list and consequences flowing therefrom legality of the appointment/promotion also questioned, the same cannot be re- opened.
65. In RoshanLal, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"4. ..... We do not think we will be justified in reopening the question of the legality of the appointment of respondents as Airport Officers several years after their appointment. We also notice that the prayer in the writ petitions also is confined primarily to the seniority list and the consequences flowing from the seniority list."
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 84
66. The decision in RoshanLal, supra, squarely applies to the case on hand, as stated supra, in the case on hand, after several years, the petitioners are now questioning the appointment on promotion of the private respondents and their seniority and that too when the issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigations.
67. By placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. S.S.Kothiyal and others, (1998) 8 SCC 682, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/MPSC also submitted that the writ petitions of the petitioners are suffer from delay and latches and therefore, the same are liable to be dismissed on the sole ground itself.
68. In S.S.Kothiyal, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"3. In our opinion, the admitted facts of this case alone are sufficient to reverse the judgment fo the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench of the High Court. According to the version of Respondent 1 himself, his representation against non-
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 85 promotion as Deputy Commandant was rejected on 10-6-1971, the second such representation made on 19-8-1971 was rejected on 4-11-1974 and the third representation made on 12-4-1977 was rejected on 11-7-1977. It is obvious that on rejection of his representation in June 1971, there was no occasion for Respondent 1 to wait any longer to challenge his non-promotion and, therefore, the filing of the writ petition 8 years thereafter in December 1978, was highly belated and deserved to be rejected on the ground of laches alone in view of the settled principles relating to interference in service matters of this kind in exercise of the power of judicial review. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court completely overlooked this aspect. The fact that Respondent 1 waited for several years till he was actually promoted as Deputy Commandant in 1972 and even as Commandant in 1975 and more than three years elapsed even thereafter before he had filed the writ petition, is itself sufficient for the rejection of the writ petition."
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 86
69. The decision in the case of P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, relied upon by Mr.Velmurugan, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents, it has been held as under:
"2. ... A person aggrieved by an order of promotion a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and true to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 87 was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal."
70. It is well-settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. In S.S.Balu and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2022. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. ...."
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 88
71. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
72. It is trite law that a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. In the case on hand, nothing has been produced to establish that there exists continuing wrong in the case of the petitioners. The wrong which is alleged to have been stated by the WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 89 petitioners in their pleadings cannot be treated and/or termed as continuing wrong in the case of the petitioners.
73. In view of above, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.923 of 2021 are distinguishable and the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the said decisions are not elaborated in this order. Primarily, no material has been produced by the petitioners to show that outside the quota promotions were given to the private respondents.
74. Prima facie, this Court finds that the writ petitions suffer from delay and laches. No convincing explanation was forthcoming from the side of the petitioners qua the delay and laches. Since the petitioners approached the High Court after an inordinate delay, the reliefs sought by them cannot be granted on the ground of delay and laches in view of the settled principles relating to interference in service matters of this kind in exercise of the power of judicial review and also as discussed hereinabove.
75. Now coming to the merits and demerits of the claim made by the parties, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners were WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 90 appointed on 14.8.2007 as MPS Grade-II, whereas the private respondents/promotes were appointed as MPS Grade-II on 1.3.2007. Thus, it is clear that when the private respondents were appointed as MPS Grade-II, the petitioners, who are direct recruits were not borne in the cadre. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the promotion given to the private respondents, including the seniority list of the year 2017.
76. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents contended that since the petitioners are direct recruits, they have no right to challenge the promotion of the private respondents as long as the promotes have not encroached upon the quota of direct recruits. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents, the direct recruits are third parties and more over, they have not prayed for writ of quo warranto. This Court is also find some force in the said submission raised by learned counsel for the private respondents. Since the Department dived the whole vacant post available for MPS Grade-II at the ratio 50:50 for direct recruits as well as for promotees as per the MPS WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 91 Rules, there is no question of encroaching the quota for direct recruits by the promotees.
77. By producing the following documents, Mr.S.Biswajit, the learned counsel appearing for some of the private respondents also submitted that the petitioners have admitted that 41 MPS Grade-II posts meant for promotion quota, which are the newly created posts and not temporary post:
(1) Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition No.296-298 of 2020, dated 4.3.2020.
(2) Oder dated 18.3.2021 issued by the Government of Manipur promoting 34 MPS officers to the post of MPS Grade-II.
(3) Letter dated 29.7.2005 of the Special Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur in respect of requisition of direct MPS officers showing 41 direct recruit MPS Grade-II vacancy and Government's decision to fill up 32 vacancies only.
(4) Relevant page of W.A.No.49 of 2017 on the file of Gauhati High Court filed WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 92 by the petitioners pleading/accepting the 41 MPS Grade-II posts for the promotion quota is the newly created post not temporary posts.
(5) Relevant portion of Review Petition bearing Review Petition Filing No.3349 of 2019 filed by the State of Manipur accepting that the said 41 MPS Grade-II posts in respect of promotion quota are vacant posts.
78. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not have any objection with the promotion of the private respondents, but their grievance is only against the seniority position of the private respondents.
79. In reply, the learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the said argument is contradict to the pleadings made in the writ petitions. The learned counsel submitted that the main issue is regarding the 19 posts of MPS Grade-II in respect of deputation, leave and training reserved are 50% of the total 38 posts earmarked for the promotion without WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 93 affecting 50% of the direct recruits. The said posts are under Schedule-I as specified in Rules 4 and 7 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 and, as such, they are not temporary post, but authorized permanent strength of the Department. The learned counsel further submitted that 19 posts which is the main basis of the writ petitions are permanent posts.
80. As could be seen from the records, the Special Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur while communicating to the Secretary, MPSC on 29.7.2005 regarding the Combined Competitive Examination to be conducted by MPSC for the process of requisition of 128 posts for different services, including the MPS Grade-II, it has been clearly mentioned at Para V(c)(iii) that there are 41 total number of vacancies for the direct recruitment to MPS Grade-II, but the State Government has decided to fill up 32 vacancies only. It also reveals that at that point of time there were 41 vacant post of direct recruits as well as 41 vacant post of promotees in the rank of MPS Grade-II i.e., exactly as per 50% clause as provided in the MPS Rules, 1965. Therefore, in the event of 19 posts of promotees are excess, reciprocate number of post would be excess in the direct recruit WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 94 quota also. Thus, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the private respondents that all the 41 posts of the promotion quota are regular and vacant posts were admitted by the petitioners and that the State Government also accepted the said 41 posts of MPS Grade-II are newly created and vacant posts.
81. Litigations amongst the promotees cannot affect the seniority of the direct recruits vis-à-vis with the promotes since if one promotee comes instead of another promotees in the seniority list, all the promotees who were promoted by taking the date of promotion as 1.3.2007 would be en-bloc above the direct recruits and hence, direct recruits have no business to interfere with the promotion as well as seniority list qua promotees/private respondents.
82. The private respondents contended that the direct recruits, including the petitioners by accepting the date of promotion of the promoted officers as on 1.3.2007 pleaded to apply the dove-telling method in the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees by applying the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India v. NR Parmer, (2012) 13 SCC 340. The private respondents further contended that the direct recruits by WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 95 virtue of joining the service in the later recruitment year are en- bloc below the promotees, who were promoted in the previous recruitment year, have no business to interfere or challenge the promotion, including the inter-se seniority of the promotees. Admittedly, the said argument on the side of the private respondents has not been suitably replied and/or controverted by the petitioners' side.
83. Thus, it is clear that the willful act of the petitioners is nothing but to delay the whole process of induction of the eligible MPS promotees to IPS till their retirement from service on superannuation, as they are on the verge of their retirement and many have already retired/died without getting the entitled benefits rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the earlier round of litigations. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petitions at the hands of the petitioners are barred by the principles of res judicata; constructive res judicata and estoppel.
84. On a perusal of the records, this Court finds that when the issue was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the arguments raised by WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 96 the respective counsel, decided the issue of seniority between the direct recruits and promotees. While settling the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to give consequential benefits to the private respondents as per the latest seniority list dated 21.12.2020 produced by the State Government with supporting affidavit before it.
85. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted and passed subsequent orders effectuating the seniority list dated 21.12.2020, the petitioners cannot now challenge the issue already settled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and if the petitioners have any grievance, the only option left to them is to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for appropriate relief.
86. Once the petitioners accepted the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they cannot take a u-turn to stop induction of the some promotees to IPS. The aforesaid act of the petitioners to futile the whole exercise amounts to mala fide intention and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 97
87. It is trite law settled that a settled seniority position should not be unsettled [Ref: Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and others, (2003) 5 SCC 604].
88. The review DPC and the subsequent promotion orders which are being challenged by the petitioners were issued in compliance of the direction of this Court dated 12.3.2010 in W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007 and another order dated 23.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 which have attained finality. In fact, the review DPC order clearly stipulates that it was done as per the directions of this Court.
89. Prior to the induction of the direct recruit MPS, the private respondents were serving as Inspector in Manipur Police Department and they were granted promotion through a duly constituted DPCs. At the cost of repetition, the private respondents have entered MPS Grade-II cadre on 1.3.2007, whereas the direct recruits were appointed later on 14.8.2007 and 24.11.2007 respectively and as such, the private respondents should be regarded as senior to the direct recruits. The aforesaid position has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 98
90. The direct recruits claimed seniority over the promotees by contending that seniority has to be decided in accordance with the year of vacancy and not by the fortuitous date on which the appointment could be finalized for the direct recruits. The said submissions cannot be accepted, as similar argument was made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court negatived the same.
91. The claim of the petitioners that promotions of the private respondents in 41 posts claiming the 19 posts as temporary vacancies, which included deputation/leave/training vacancies as illegal is unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the DGP recommended to the MPSC for convening DPC in respect of 41 posts, which includes the 19 posts. On a perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that in the earlier round of litigations, the respondent State pleaded that the said 19 posts are vacant posts and further submitted that since the said posts are vacant and regular posts, those officers who had been promoted in respect of those 19 posts got their respective MGEL Number and received full salary. Admittedly, the petitioners have failed to challenge the letter dated 25.8.2006 of the DGP, Manipur and, as such, they WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 99 cannot challenge the subsequent actions taken as per the said letter.
92. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that except few officers, who have been promoted as per the impugned orders, all the promotees have already retired from their service on superannuation and that some officers have been promoted as MPS Grade-II by filling up those vacancies including the vacancies arise owing to the promotion of the private respondents to MPS Grade-I from MPS Grade-II as a chain reaction.This Court finds some merits in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the private respondents, as the clock cannot be turned back and further it will amount to opening of Pandora's box, making reverse to the whole administration of the Police Department.
93. It is apposite to mention that the subsequent promotion dated 18.3.2021 promoting the private respondents to the post of MPS Grade-I admittedly was not challenged till date and further the order dated 31.3.2021 of the respondent State ordering placement of 51 MPS Grade-I to MPS Junior Administrative Grade has also not been challenged till date. In WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 100 fact, the petitioners have failed to appreciate the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 issued by the Department of P&AR and the Office Memorandum of DoPT dated 15.5.2007, which speak about determination of regular vacancies and chain of vacancies arising on account of retirement etc.
94. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some other writ petitions are pending and the final outcome of the said writ petitions may include the petitioners in the seniority list of 2020, if succeeded. The argument aforesaid has nothing to do with the present challenges in hand because of the fact that the petitioners in those writ petitions are promotee officers challenging the promotion of other promotees i.e. the issue amongst the promotee officers. Further, the petitioners cannot take the advantage of other matters which are not connected with the present issue, apart from the fact that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions.
95. It is pertinent to mention that in the case of Jagdish Ch. Pathak and others v. State of Orissa and others, (1998) 4 SCC 456, wherein the issue was whether the seniority between WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 101 the direct recruits and the promotees should be fixed by taking into consideration the quota fixed for them and with reference to the vacancies occurred against this quota. Rule 26 which provides the manner as to how the seniority be determined, was relevant and considering the scheme thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"24. Rule 26 with which we are really concerned in the present case is the rule of seniority. It would be appropriate to extract the said Rule 26 in extensor:
"26. Seniority.- (1) When officers are recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment during the same year, the promoted officers shall be considered senior to the officers directly recruited irrespective of their dates of joining the appointment.
(2) Between the two groups of promoted officers, those promoted from the rank of Sub-Assistant Engineers shall en block be senior to those promoted from the rank of Junior Engineers.
(3) Subject to provision of sub-rules (1) and (2) seniority of officers shall be determined in accordance with the order in which their WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 102 names appear in the lists prepared by the Commission. ..."
96. Assuming, though without admitting, that some irregularities were committed by the Department in the process of promotions of some private respondents, since maximum of the promotees were already retired and only few of them are left with very short span of service tenure, apart from the fact that many incumbents have already occupied the vacant seats of MPS Grade-II by virtue of the private respondents being promoted to the higher posts i.e. MPS Grade-I, the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are fit cases to be dismissed by applying the principle of equity in the interest of justice.
97. It is reiterated that earlier, the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an order directing that the batch of MPS promotees appointed on 1.3.2007 must be given seniority above the direct recruit MPS appointed on 14.8.2007 and the learned Single Judge justified that direct recruits can claim seniority only from the date of their regular appointment. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, writ appeal was filed and a Division Bench while upholding the ruling of the learned Single Judge WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 103 observed that seniority for direct recruits cannot be reckoned from a date prior to their appointment. Aggrieved over the same, direct recruits approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that as per Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965, seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service and directed the State Government to prepare a revised inter-se seniority list in respect of MPS Grade-II cadres within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the State Government under its office letter dated 28.5.2021 have furnished the names of the eligible officers and the list of names are prepared considering the seniority positions of the incumbents which have attained finality after adjudication of various rounds of litigations.
98. As the vacancies were determined by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs for the year 2016, 2017 and 2018 as 5, 1, 4, 1 respectively, the Selection Committee meeting was held on 3.12.2021 for preparation of year-wise select list of 2016 to 2019 for promotion to IPS of Manipur cadre and the minutes of the Committee was also forwarded vide letter dated 13.12.2021 to the State Government with a copy to the WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 104 Government of India for furnishing their observations and recommendations of the Committee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have no right to insist the respondent/State to prepare a fresh final seniority list of MPS officers.
99. Any issues which have attained finality having already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court becomes infructuous and moreover the same has been covered by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. While passing the judgment dated 19.11.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that all the consequential actions will follow from the judgment. This Court is obliged to follow the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the promotion to MPS Grade-II and the present writ petitions are futile exercise for re-opening the matters which have adjudicated and effected by the orders of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court.
100. As stated supra, on the basis of the proposal submitted by the State Government dated 28.5.2021, the Selection Committee was held on 3.12.2021 for preparation of WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 105 year-wise selection list of 2016 to 2019 for promotion of State Police Service officers to IPS of Manipur cadre. However, the recommendation of the Selection Committee has not been finalized in view of the interim order dated 20.12.2021 passed by this Court thereby directing to maintain status quo as on 20.12.2021.
101. When these writ petitions were taken up for hearing, on 17.12.2021, this Court directed to list the writ petitions before another Bench on 22.12.2021 for consideration of the interim order. Subsequently, MC(WP) No.317 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners praying for rectification of the order as regards the status quo to be maintained by the parties. The said application was taken up on 20.12.2021 and this Court allowed the application thereby directing that status quo as on that date shall be maintained by all the parties till the next date of hearing. The said order of status quo still continues.
102. Alleging that the interim order passed by this Court is contradictory to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 19.11.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019, MC(WP) Nos.88 of 2022 and 20 of 2022 have been filed by the WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 106 private respondents. Admittedly, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court in these writ petitions is contradictory to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019, dated 19.11.2019.
103. Since the matter of seniority has been well settled and this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases held that the seniority/promotion granted on the strength of DPC selection should not be unsettled after a lapse of time, this Court finds merits in the case of the private respondents. In the absence of any violation in the impugned orders, undertaking a judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted in these cases.
104. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioners and also the present writ petitions at the hands of the petitioners are hit by laches and the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, apart from the principle of estoppel.
105. In the result, (1) The writ petitions are dismissed.
WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022 P a g e | 107 (2) The interim order dated 17.12.2021 passed in the writ petitions read with the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by this Court shall stand vacated and MC (WP(C)) Nos.88 and 20 of 2022 are allowed.
(3) In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, MC (WP(C)) No.280 of 2021 is closed.
(4) The respondent authorities are directed to proceed further as expeditiously as possible.
(5) There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 867 of 2017, WP(C) No. 346 of 2021, WP(C) No. 923 of 2021, MC(WP(C)) No. 20 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 280 of 2022,MC(WP(C)) No. 88 of 2022