Gauhati High Court
Guruari Bam Joychandra Sharma vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 29 December, 1998
Author: P.K. Sarkar
Bench: P.K. Sarkar
JUDGMENT
1. These two writ petitions arise out of common question of law and facts and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Shri Bikramjit Singh is the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 166 of 1991 and Shri Gauruaribam Joychandra Sharma is the petitioner in Civil Rule No.165 of 1991. It is stated in both the petitions that by an order dated 4th of April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) the Government regulairsed the services of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 as Executive Engineers of he Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur with effect from 26.12.1979. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners in both the writ petitions on the ground of arbitrariness, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. The Division Bench of this High Court by judgment and order dated 25.8.1993 quashed the order of the Government dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) on the ground that no reason was assigned nor any explanation was given by the Government as to why the benefits of the regularisation had been given from 26.12.1979. On this ground alone the Division Bench of this High Court quashed the aforesaid order of the Government dated 4th April, 1991.
4. Having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the respondents filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 16th November, 1994 quashed the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.8.1993 and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and decision. The Apex Court further allowed the parties to agitate the points which were originally raised in the writ petitions before the High Court but were not decided. After receipt of the case records from the Apex Court to parties have filed additional affidavits supported by fresh documents. During the time of hearing also the parties have adduced certain Government papers.
5. 1 have heard Mr. N. Kotiswar Singh and Mr. O. Manichandra Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singh, learned senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and Mr. H.S. Paonam & Mr. R. K. Sanajaoba Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents.
6. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 166 of 1991 is a holder of Master Degree in Engineering, M. E.(Civil). He joined the service under the respondent Government as Section Officer in the Public Works Department in the year 1969. He was appointed as Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis by an order dated 1st December, 1972. Thereafter this petitioner in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission applied for appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer under direct recruitment quota. On the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis by an order of the Government dated 18th September. 1973. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis in 1980.
7. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 165 of 1991 is a Degree holder in Engineering. On the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis by an order dated 18th September, 1973 as direct recruit. In the year 1980, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis for a period of 6(six) months or till the post is filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier.
8. The private respondents are promotee Assistant Engineers. They were originally appointed as Section Officer, Grade-I and thereafter they were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis on different dates. The Government by an order dated 7th November, 1980 (Annexure-A/12) regularised the services of the respondents in the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date of their respective ad-hoc appointment. The petitioner of Civil Rule No.166 of 1991 filed a representation to the Government against the arbitrary regularisation of the respondents in the post of Assistant Engineer. However, the Government did not modify the aforesaid order of regularisation of the respondents in the posts of Assistant Engineer which was done by an order dated 7th November, 1980 (Annexure-A/12). The service of respondent No. 3 was regularised with effect from 15.6.1971. The services of respondent No. 4, Shri L. Maimu Singh was regularised from 4.11.1970, the services of Shri H. Manikumar Singh, respondent No, 6 was regularised from 7.9.1972 and the services of Shri N. Tombi Singh, respondent No. 7 was regularised from 7.9.1972. It is submitted by the learned counsel of both the parties that Gopalchandra Nath, respondent No. 5 has already retired from service and therefore, his name does not appear in the said regularisation order. After regularising the services of the private respondents the Government published a final seniority list of Assistant Engineers by an order dated 6th November, 1984 (Annexure-A/20). The seniority position of the Assistant Engineers was indicated as on 31.10.1984. In the aforesaid seniority list the name of petitioner of Civil Rule No; 166 of 1991 was shown at serial No. 5 and the name of petitioner of Civil Rule No. 165 of 1991 was shown at serial No.7. The name of respondent No. 3 was shown at serial No. 4 and that of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were shown at serial Nos. 19 and 20 respectively. While preparing the seniority list the Government has followed quota rule. The appointments in the Grade of Assistant Engineer can be made 'from two sources viz. 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of direct recruitment through Mantpur Public Service Commission. Though the services of the respondents were regularised by an order dated 7.11.1980 (Annexure-A/12) but while fixing the seniority, the Government followed the quota and rota rule and accordingly after every one promotee one direct recruit has been shown in the seniority list. Thus the respondent No. 3 was shown at serial No.4 and at serial No.5 the petitioner of Civil Rule No. 166 of 1991 was shown. Then another promotee Shri Gopalchandra Nath was shown at serial No.6 and the petitioner of Civil Rule No. 165 of 1991 was shown at serial No. 7. Accordingly, after following the quota and rota rule the name of respondent Nos.6 and 7 appear at serial No. 19 and 20 respectively of the seniority list. This seniority list finally published on 6th November, 1984 has not been challenged either by the direct recruit petitioners or by the promottee Assistant Engineers, respondents. It appears that the seniority of respondent No. 6 and 7 appear at serial No. 19 and 20 of the final seniority list on the basis of quota rota rule and their seniority could not be fixed earlier even though their services were regularised between the period 1970 and 1972. The seniority of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has gone done in the seniority list because of non-availability of post in the quota of promotees. Thereafter, a DP.C. was held for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer and the Government and the D.P.C. acted on the final seniority list published on 6.11.1984 (Annexure-A/20). The D.P.C. recommended 15 candidates for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department. The D.P.C. prepared the penal according to merit and on merit the name of the petitioner on Civil Rule No. 166 of 1991 Shri Chingtham Bikramjit Singh appears at serial No. 1 and the name of petitioner of Civil Rule No. 165 of 1991 Shri Guruaribam Joychandra appears at serial No. 4. The names of respondent Nos.3 and 5 appear at serial Nos. 2 and 3 respectively and the names of respondent Nos.4 and 6 appear at serial Nos. 8 and 12 respectively. On the basis of the recommendation of the D.P.C. The Government issued the promotion order of both the petitioners and respondents in the posts of Executive Engineer by an order dated 27th September, 1985 (Annexure-A/8).
9. It is stated by Mr. H.S. Paonam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents that respondent No. 6, Shri H. Manikumar Singh submitted a representation to the Government against the final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers published by the Government by an order dated 6.11.1984 and also against the order of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer dated 27.9.1985 (Annexure-A/8). The respondent No.6 in his representation submitted that the promotee Assistant Engineers whose services were regularised from the date of their respective ad hoc appointment in the year 1970 and 1972 their cases should have been considered by the D.P.C. which met in December, 1979 and these respondents i.e. promotee Assistant Engineers could have been promoted the posts of Executive Engineer from 1979 itself. However, the Government even after regularisation of the services of the respondents to the posts of Assistant Engineer by an order dated 7.11.1980 (Annexure-A/12) did not take any step to regularise the services of the respondents in the posts of Executive Engineer. On the contrary the Government had constituted a D.P.C. in the year 1985 where the cases of the petitioners as welt as all the respondents were considered and according to the recommendation of the D.P.C. Govt. issued the promotion order. While both the petitioners and the respondents were continuing in service, the Govt. by an order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/ 1) regularised the services of the respondents in the post of Executive Engineer from 26.12,1979. On a perusal of the Government order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) it appears that the benefits of regularisation of all the respondents were given on the ground that some Executive Engineers working in other departments were given the same benefits and therefore, the respondents in this case were given retrospective regularisation in the posts of Executive Engineer. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in both the writ petitions.
10. Mr. Kotiswar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that if the order of the Government dated 4th April, 1991 (Anncxure-A/1) is maintained then it will have the effect of upsetting or undoing the settled position continued for a long time. After regularisation of the services of the respondents in the posts of Assistant Engineers in 1980 the Government had published the final seniority list in the year 1984 against which there is no grievance either of the petitioners or of the respondents. Therefore, it can be easily held that the respondents have accepted the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers published by the Government in the year 1984. Secondly, the Government had constituted a D.P.C. in the. year 1985 in which the cases of the petitioners as well as the respondents were considered and on merit the petitioner of Civil Rule No.166 of 1991 superseded the respondents even though the respondent No. 3 was shown senior to him in the seniority list. Similarly the petitioner of Civil Rule No. 165 of 1991 superseded the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on merit.
11. The promotion order made by the Government on the recommendation of the D.P.C. in the year 1985 has not been challenged by the respondents. Thereafter a final seniority list of Executive Engineers was published by the Government on 24th March, 1986. This final seniority list was prepared in accordance with the promotion order made by the Government in the year 1985. Thereafter the Government constituted a D.P.C. for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer. The D.P.C. met on 25th June, 1993 and on the basis of the final seniority list of Executive Engineers (Annexure-A/2) the D.P.C. considered the petitioners and all the respondents for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer. The D.P.C. after going through the ACRs and other service records of the petitioners and respondents recommended in order of merit the name of respondent No. 3, petitioner of Civil Rule No.165 of 1991 and Shri N. Ranjit Singh, intervenorin these Writ petitions for regular appointment to the posts of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner of Civil Rule No. 166 of 1991 and other respondents were appointed on ad hoc basis as they were not recommended by the D.P.C. for regular appointment to the posts of Superintending Engineer. In 1993 the D.P.C. and the Government relied on the final seniority list published by it on 24th March, 1986 (Annexure-A/2) and promotion has been made by the Government in accordance with the recommendation made by the D.P.C.
12. Therefore, it is evident that the respondents have accepted the final seniority list of Assistant Engineer published in the year 1984. They have also accepted the promotion order made by the Government as per recommendation of the D.P.C. met in the year 1985 for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers. Thirdly, the respondents have accepted the final seniority list of Executive Engineers published by the Government on 24th March, 1986 (Annexure-A/2). Fourthly, the respondents have accepted the promotion order for the posts of Superintending Engineer made by the Government as per the recommendation of the D.P.C. in the year 1993. The Government by its order dated 4th April, 1991 regularised the services of the respondents in the posts of Executive Engineer from 1979. Now if this order is allowed to stand this will definitely have the effect of cancelling the two final seniority lists published by the Government, one in the year 1984 regarding Assistant Engineers and another in the year 1986 regarding Executive Engineers. Moreover, this will have the effect of superseding the promotional order made by the Government on the recommendation of the D.P.C. in the year 1985 in the posts of Executive Engineer and this will have also the effect of cancelling the promotional order of the Superintending Engineers made by the Government on the recommendation of the D.P.C. in the year 1993. in such a circumstances it is to be considered whether the Executives should be given such wide power of making regularisation of the services of Government employees which will have the effect of undoing so many settled positions.
13. Mr. Kotiswar further submitted that the services of the respondents were regularised in the post of Executive Engineer on the basis that such benefits were given in P.W.D. (I.F.C.D.) and Electricity Department. It is also submitted by Mr. Kotiswar that the order regularising the services of the Executive Engineers in other departments had been cancelled by the Government and that has been published in Manipur Gazette on 25th January, 1995. However, against the cancellation of the aforesaid regularisation order some Executive Engineers moved the High Court and the High Court passed an interim order staying the cancellation order. The further grievance of the respondents that their cases should have been considered in the year 1979 for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer.
14. Mr. Paonam, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that prior to 1982 P.W.D., I.F.C.D. and P.H.E.D. were one Department and were known as Public Works Department of the Government of Manipur. In 1982 P.W.D. was trifurcated. Learned counsel further submitted that the last D.P.C. meeting was held on 26.12.1979 for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. It is submitted by Mr. Paonam that the services of the private respondents in the post of Assistant Engineer were regularised with effect from the date of ad hoc appointment, i.e. between the period 1970 and 1972 and all these respondents promotee Assistant Engineers became eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1979. Paonam further submitted that when D.P.C. meeting was held on 26.12.1979 there were 53 vacancies in the post of Executive Engineer in the joint cadre of P.W.D., I.F.C.D. and P.H.E.D. The break up of the 53 vacancies are as follows:-
(i) Regular vacancies
-42
(ii) Officiating vacancies in account of promotion of 11 E.Es. to the post of Supdt. Engineers on ad hoc basis
-11
Total
-
53Out of the 53 vacancies, one post was reserved for Scheduled Castes candidate and eighteen were reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates as per reservation policy of the Government in the promotional posts. Mr. Paonam submitted that there were only 26 eligible Assistant Engineers for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and the D.P.C. of 26.12.1979 recommended all the 26 candidates for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Learned counsel further submitted that when 1979 D.P.C. was constituted the services of the respondent Assistant Engineers were not regularised by the Government and since their service have been regularised by the Government only in 1980 by an order dated 7.11.1980 (Annexure-A/12), there was no scope to consider the cases of the respondents for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Learned counsel consequently submitted that had the Government regularised the services of the respondents in the post of Assistant Engineer prior to the D.P.C. meeting of 26.12.1979, the respondents could also be considered by the D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Learned counsel submitted that it is the lapse on the part of the Government that the services of the private respondents were not regularised in time and therefore, they have illegally deprived from getting their due promotion in 1979. Mr. Paonam consequently submitted that since the Government has made an injustice to the private respondents, no illegality have been committed by the Government in regularising the promotion of the private respondents in the post of ExecLitive Engineer by the impugned order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1). Learned counsel also submitted that the 'regularisation of the services of the private respondents in the post of Executive Engineer from the date of their ad hoc appointment has been correctly made by the Government by an order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/l) and the petitioners should not have any grievance against such regularisation of services of the respondents.
15. 1 cannot agree with the submission of Mr. Paonma, learned counsel for the private respondents in the following grounds: -
(A). From the minutes of the D.P.C. proceeding dated 26.12.1979 it appears that 53 vacancies in the post of Executive Engineer were available in the joint cadre of P.W.D., I.F.C.D. and P.H.E.D., Government of Manipur. Out of 53 vacancies, 19 posts were reserved for SC and ST candidates and there were 11 officiating vacancies because of promotion of 11 Executive Engineers to the post of Superintending Engineer on ad hoc basis. Therefore, it is evident that only 23 vacancies were available for General candidates. From the minutes of the D.P.C., it further appears that out of 23 vacancies meant for General candidates 21 posts of Executive Engineer were filled up by General candidates and five candidates belonging to the S.T. category were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. Thus in total 26 candidates were promoted in the post of Executive Engineer. Due to the nonavailability of S.C. and S.T. candidates quota reserved for them could not be filled up and officiating vacancies cannot be filled up on regular basis by promotion. Therefore, it appears that only two substantive vacancies in the post of Executive Engineer were available in the year 1979 for general candidates and these two posts were in the joint cadre of P.W.D., I.F.C.D. and P.H.E.D. There is nothing to show in which wing of the P.W.D. these two posts will fall. It is an admitted fact that from 1979 the Government was working out the procedure for trifurcation of the P.W.D. Ultimately, the notification trifurcating the P.W.D. was issued in 1982. But prior to trifurcation the Government obtained options from the Engineers in which Department they want to be absorbed. Therefore, in absence of any paper it is difficult to hold even tentatively that these two posts for un-reserved general candidates would have gone to the P.H.E.D. where the private respondents are now working. From the minutes of the D.P.C. dated 26.12.1979 it is difficult to conclude that any vacancies were available for general candidate in the P.H.E.D. in the post of Executive Engineer.
(B). I cannot agree with the submission of Mr. Paonam that had there been any D.P.C. in the year 1979 the private respondents would have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. The posts of Executive Engineer are selection posts and therefore, promotion to such posts depends on the merit of a candidate. It appears that when in 1985 D.P.C. was constituted the respondent No.3,4 and 5 were shown at serial Nos.3,4 and 6 in the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers and the petition of Civil Rule No. 165/91 and petitioner of Civil Rule No. 166/91 were shown at serial Nos.7 and 5 respectively in the seniority list. But in the merit list prepared by the D.P.C. the petitioner of Civil Rule No. 165/91 and the petitioner of Civil Rule No. 166/91 were shown above the private respondents. Therefore, on the basis of merit the private respondents were found to be inferior in merit than the petitioners of these two Civil Rules. So, it cannot be said with certainty that had there been any D.P.C. in 1979 and the cases of the private respondents were considered they would have been recommended by the D.P.C. I have already indicated that there were only tow substantive vacancies available in the post of Executive Engineer in 1979 for general category candidates and there is no paper to show that these two posts would have gone to the P.H.E.D. in view of such a situation there is no merit in the argument of Mr. Paonam that the private respondents would have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer had there been any D.P.C. in 1979..
(C). The services of the private respondents were regularised by the Government by an order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/ 1) on the analogy that similar benefits were given to the Engineers of l.F.C.D. and P.W.D. of the Government of Manipur. It is an admitted fact that the Government has cancelled the regularisation of Executive Engineers made in P.W.D. and the said order of cancellation has been stayed by an interim order by this court. However, from the Gazette Notification dated 3rd October, 1994 it appears that no vacancies were available for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1979. It further appears that at the time of regularising the services of the private respondents by an order dated 4th April, 1991 the Manipur Public Service Commission has not been consulted. It is true that in appropriate cases Govt. can regularise the services of temporary or ad-hoc appointees with retrospective effect, but if such regularisation requires consultation with the Public Service Commission then the regularisation can be made only after consulting the Public Service Commission. In the instant case though the promotion and regularisation in the post of Executive Engineer requires consultation with the Manipur Pubic Service Commission, but that has not been done and the order of regularisation of services of the private respondents in the post of Executive Engineers has been made by the Government without consulting the Manipur Public Service Commission. On this ground also the impugned order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) cannot stand.
(D). It further appears from the minutes of the D.P.C. meeting held on 30.4.1970 that the D.P.C. recommended 11 candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The names of the private respondents do not appear in the said list. However, the D.P.C. also prepared a panel for promotion to the further vacancies during the year and the name of respondent No. 5 Shri Gopalchandra Nath appears at serial No. 4 of the reserved panel. The name of other private respondents do not appear even in the reserved panel. From the order dated 21st August, 1975 it appears that the Government in consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission promoted 39 ad-hoc Assistant Engineers and section Officers Grade-I to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis. The name of respondent No. 5. Shri Gopalchandra Nath appears at serial No. 7, but the name of other private respondents do not appear in the said order of the Government dated 21st August, 1975 (Annexure-A/13). From the aforesaid order it appears that the D.P.C. did not recommend the names of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In such a situation, I am of the view that the Government's order dated 7th November, 1980 (Annexure-A/12) regularising the services of these respondents in the post of Assistant Engineer is inappropriate. However, since the order of 1980 (Annexure-A/12} has not been challenged, I do not like to make any observation about legality of the order of the Govt. dated 7th November, 1980 (Annexurc-12). But is apparent that in 1975, respondent No. 5 Shri Gopalchandra Nath was appointed as Assistant Engineer on regular basis on the basis of recommendation of the D.P.C. But the 1975 D.P.C. did not recommend respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Therefore, it is evident that on merit either these respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been superseded or they have not been found suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1975. It is true that by an order of the Government dated 7th November, 1980 (Annexure-A/12) alt these respondents were regularised in the post of Assistant Engineer and since that regularisation order has not been challenged, I do not like to interfere with the aforesaid order of 1980 (Annexurc-A/12). But I have no hesitation to say that it was not proper on the part of the Government to regularise the services of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 who were excluded from the promotion order of the Government dated 21st August, 1975 (Annexure-A/13). The minutes of the D.P.C. proceeding dated 30.6.1970 is marked as Annexure-P by this court. It further appears from Annexure-A/3 of the re-joinder of the petitioner of Civil Rule No. 166/91 to affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No. 6 that a D.P.C. meeting was held on 20.5.1974 to consider selection of Section Officers (Civil) for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The said Annexure-X/3 contains five Annexures. namely Annexure-A, Annexure-B, Annexure-C, Annexure-D and Annexure-E. Annexure-X/3 is the minutes of the D.P.C. proceeding held on 20.5.1974 and from Annexure-A of Annexure-X/3 it appears that 35 candidates were recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and the name of respondent No.5, Shri Gopalchandra Nath appears at serial No.8. But the name of other respondent do not appear in the selection list (Annexure-A) for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In Annexure-B the D.P.C. also recommended 9 names for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on officiating basis. In Annexure-B also the names of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 do not appear. The D.P.C. in Annexure-C of Annexure-X/3 recommended six names for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on future vacancies. The names of the respondents do not appear in the said list also. Annexure-D is the list of candidates whose integrity has not been certified by the Government and in that list also the name of the respondents do not appear. Annexure-E is the list of eligible candidates who were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 100 candidates were considered by the D.P.C. and the name of respondent No.4 appears at serial No.75. the name of respondent No. 6 appears at serial No.91 and the one of respondent No. 7 appears at serial No. 95. Therefore, it appears that in 1974 D.P.C. although the respondents were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, they were not recommended except respondent No. 6 whose name was recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and the Government has promoted him to the post of Assistant by an order dated 21st August, 1975 (Annexure-A/13). Therefore, the claim of the respondents for their regularisation in the post of Executive Engineer do not appear to be tenable because even in 1974 D.P.C they were not considered for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and therefore, they cannot become eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1979.
(E). If the impugned order dated 4th April, 1991 is allowed to stand, I am of the view that it will give an unflattered power to the Executive to vary or modify the conditions of service of the Government employees. In the present case after regularisation of services of the private respondents in the Grade of Assistant Engineer by an order dated 7th November, 1980 (Annexure-A/12) the Government has published the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers on 6th November, 1984 and that seniority list has not been challenged by the private respondents. On the basis of the aforesaid seniority list promotions have been made in the post of Executive Engineer and the promotions have also not been challenged by the private respondent. Thereafter, the final senionty list of Executive Engineers was prepared and published by the Government by an order dated 24th March, 1986 (Annexure-A/2). The aforesaid seniority list has also not been challenged by the private respondents.
(F). The petitioner of Civil Rule No. 165 of 1991 filed a writ petition which has been registered as civil Rule No. 3914 of 1991/407/91. In the aforesaid Civil Rule a consensus order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.7.1992. The aforesaid writ petition was filed against respondent Nos. 3. 4 and 6. The respondent Nos.3,4 and 6 who were respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the earlier case agreed that the posts of Superintending Engineer may be filled up by the Government on regular basis as per the final seniority list of Executive Engineers published by the Government on 24th March, 1986 (Annexure-A/2). The Division Bench of this court also directed the Government to fill up the posts of Superintending Engineer on the basis of the final seniority list of the Executive Engineers published on 24.3.1986 (Annexurc-A/2). After the aforesaid order passed by this court a D.P.C. was constituted by the Government and the D.P.C. held its meeting on 25th June, 1993. The D.P.C. considered the cases of the petitioners as well as the respondents including the interven or for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer. The minutes of the D.P.C. proceeding has been produced by the petitioners at the time of hearing argument of the case. The copy of the minutes of the D.P.C. proceeding dated 25th June, 1993 has been marked as Annexure-Q by this court. It appears from the minutes of the D.P.C. proceeding (Annexure-Q) that the D.P.C. recommended respondent No. 3 at serial No. 1 and the petitioner of Civil Rule no.165/91 at serial No.2 in the merit list. These two candidates have been recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer on regular basis. The D.P.C. also kept Shri N. Ranjit Singh, the intervenor in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on regular basis in the event of any vacancy during (he year. Consequently it appears that the petitioner of Civil Rule No. 166/91, Shri Chingtham Bikramjit Singh who superseded the respondent No. 3 and other respondents at the time of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer has now been superseded by respondent No 3 at the time of promotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer. These promotions have been made according to the final seniority list published by the Government on 24th March. 1986 (Annexure-A/2). Further, it appears that all the petitioners as well as the respondents except respondent No.5 who has already retired from service, are now holding the posts of Superintending Engineer or its equivalent posts either on regular basis or on ad hoc basis. If the impugned order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) is allowed to stand then the settled positions, namely the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers prepared in 1984, the promotions made in the posts of Executive Engineer in 1985, the seniority list of Executive Engineers finally published by the Government in 1986 (Annexure-A/2) and the promotions made in the posts of Superintending Engineer on the basis of the final seniority list of Executive Engineers in the year 1993 will have to be cancelled.
The unsettled of so many settled positions will bring unnecessary complication in the service of the parties and therefore, I am of the view that if the aforesaid settled positions are unsettled at this stage, this will do more harm than good to the parties in the case. Consequently, 1 am of the view that the order of regularisation of services of Executive Engineers of P.H.E. Department dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) should not be allowed to stand and it is required to be quashed. Further, on a perusal of the order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) it appears that the Government has regularised the services of the private respondents without consulting the Manipur Public Service Commission which is a legal requirement under the Recruitment Rules. Since the impugned order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) has been issued by the Government without consulting the Manipur Public Service Commission, 1 am of the view that such order of regularisation has been issued without following the Recruitment Rules and accordingly is liable to be quashed.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, 1 am of the view that the impugned order of regularisation of services of the private respondents dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) is required to be quashed and accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 4th April, 1991 (Annexure-A/1) is quashed.
17. The writ petitions arc accordingly allowed. But under the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.