Manipur High Court
Khoisnam Kuber Singh vs State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 6 May, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
Page |1
ABUJA Digitally
signed by
M ABUJAM
SURJIT SINGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
SURJIT Date:
2022.05.06
16:22:20
SINGH +05'30'
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
1. Khoisnam Kuber Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o (L)
Khoisnam Tomal Singh, R/o Langol Ningthou Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. - Lamphelpat, Imphal West District,
Manipur- 795004.
2. Naushram Sarat Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L)
Naushram Tompok Singh, R/o Khurai Chaithabi
Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, District -
Imphal East, Manipur- 795010.
3. Pritam Kshetri, aged about 56 years, S/o Ksh.
Ibotombi Singh, R/o Leirak Macha, Elangbam Leikai,
Keishamthong, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District- Imphal
West, Manipur- 795001.
...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief
Secretary, (Forest & Environment), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.- Imphal, District-
Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Secretary/Commissioner, Department of
Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.-
Imphal, District- Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |2
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong, P.O. & P.S.-
Imphal, District- Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented
by the Secretary, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal,
District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
.... Official Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. Elangbam Premjit, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, Addl. AG,
Mr. K. Rabei, Advocate
for the MPSC,
Ms. L. Brizet Devi, Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment &
Order :: 05.04.2022
Date of Judgment &
Order :: 06.05.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 5.8.2021 of the Department of P&AR conveying the decision of the Government to hold a Review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of the Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and consequent order dated 7.8.2021 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 Page |3 holding the review DPC considering the eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the Manipur Forest Service (1st Amendment Rules), 2019 and to direct the respondents to hold a fresh Review DPC in connection with 10 vacancies of MFS-II arose during the case of the petitioners as certificate holders in accordance with the provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and appoint them to the post of MFS-II with retrospective effect from 2.12.2013 with consequential benefits including monetary benefits in case if the petitioners are selected and recommended by the review DPC and also to consider the representation dated 21.8.2021 submitted by the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr.Elangbam Premjit, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.L.Brizet Devi, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the petitioners 1 to 3 joined the service as Range Forest Officers on 2.5.1987, 3.5.1988 and 3.5.1989 respectively and while in service, they were awarded certificate holders in Wildlife Management from Wildlife Institute of India on 31.1.2006, 31.1.2011 and 31.1.2008 WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 Page |4 respectively. By virtue of being certificate holders in Wildlife Management from Wildlife Institute of India read with the provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 [for short, "the Rules of 2010"] and the final seniority list of Range Forest Officers dated 10.2.2009, the petitioners are within the five eligible Range Forest Officers to be considered first for promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in the Forests and Environment Department, Manipur against 10 vacancies of MFS- II occurred during the period from 2010 to 2013.
4. Time and again, the case of the petitioners was not considered while holding the DPC in connection with filling up the 10 vacancies of MFS-II occurred during the period from 2010 to 2013. It is averred that while setting aside the review DPC held on 7.7.2018 of the earlier DPC, filling up of 10 vacancies of MFS- II vide order dated 20.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018, inter alia, was pleased to direct to hold a fresh review DPC in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Rules of 2010 considering all the eligible persons. However, the case of the petitioners was never considered in the review DPC held thereafter. WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |5
5. Earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 challenging the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and appointment orders dated 31.8.2020. This Court, vide order dated 19.2.2021 in W.P.(C) Nos.606, 607, 630 and 685 of 2020 and 31 of 2021, set aside the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and appointment orders dated 31.8.2020. However, the Department of P&AR issued an order dated 5.8.2021 of conveying the decision of the Government to hold review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and consequently, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued the order dated 7.8.2021 for holding review DPC considering eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the MFS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019. It is averred that unless the respondents are restrained from holding the review DPC as per Rule 5(C) of the MFS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss. Hence, the writ petition.
6. The respondent 1 and 3 filed counter stating that the petitioners 1 to 3 were not considered for promotion to MFS-II against the ten vacancies of MFS-II arose in the Department during the year 2010 to 2013 and by communication dated 1.10.2011, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests informed WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 Page |6 the Under Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of Manipur to take further necessary action for review of the earlier DPCs held since 2013. Since the petitioners have not submitted the certificates to the Department, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was not considered the petitioners for promotion to MFS-II in the earlier DPCs. The petitioners were promoted to the post of MFS-II on 1.2.2019, 21.12.2019 and 6.2.2020 respectively.
7. It is stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide letter dated 26.2.2020, submitted a self-contained note in compliance with the order of this Court dated 20.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018, wherein it is clearly mentioned that all the recommended Range Forest Officers are with certificate course in Forestry from Government recognised Forestry College. Due to the ambiguity in the Manipur Forest Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010, all other Range Forest Officers with the certificate course in Forestry from Government recognised Forestry College being senior to the petitioners and the present petitioners being not within the zone of consideration, they might not have been considered for promotion to the post of MFS-II in the DPC held earlier on 31.10.2013 and review DPC held on 7.7.2018 and 28.4.2020.
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |7
8. It is stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests served show cause notice dated 4.7.2020 to the petitioners and the fourth respondent also requested the Government to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioners for their misconduct of providing false information to the fourth respondent and the Department of Personnel and Forest Department. The petitioners have also submitted their replies on 10.7.2020 to the show cause notice dated 4.7.2020. Based on the replies, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide letter dated 24.7.2020 suggested enquiry. The petitioners were not considered for promotion to MFS-II due to the ambiguity in the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and the impugned review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and its subsequent order dated 31.9.2020 was quashed vide order dated 21.2.2021 in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020 etc. and the respondents were directed to hold a fresh review DPC. The impugned review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and its subsequent order dated 31.9.2020 were quashed by directing the respondents to hold a fresh review DPC.
9. The second respondent filed counter stating that the review DPC is to be held on the basis of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986 with reference to Manipur Forest Services WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 Page |8 (Amendment) Rules, 2010 issued vide order dated 1.4.2010 and all eligible officers will be considered. All the three criteria of Rule 5(i)(C) as laid down under the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 shall be valid for the period when the provisions were existing i.e. until they were amended by the Manipur Forest Services (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2013. Therefore, vacancies that arose during validity of the said provisions will be filled up accordingly after due consideration of the qualifications held by eligible officers.
10. It is stated that the case of the petitioners shall be laid before the DPC along with other eligible officials for consideration under the provisions of Rule 5(i)(C) and subject to the outcome of pending cases in High Court of Manipur. The representation dated 21.8.2021 is under consideration and will be disposed as soon as possible by the Department of Personnel in consultation with the Department of Forests and Environment.
11. Assailing the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 and the consequential order dated 7.8.2021 with regard to holding a review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 in connection with promotion of Range Forest Officers to Manipur Forest Service Grade-II, Mr. Elangbam Premjit, the learned counsel for the WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 Page |9 petitioners submitted that the ten vacancies of MFS-II which occurred during the subsistence of Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 has to be filled up as per the provisions contained in Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010. He would submit that with regard to applicability of Rule 5(i)(C) with respect to the vacancies of the year 2010 to 2013 is concerned, the same has been settled by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018 dated 20.12.2019 in directing to hold a fresh review DPC in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) considering all the eligible persons.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that the 2019 Rules has no relevancy in holding the review DPC with respect to the vacancies of the year 2010 to 2013 and holding a review DPC with respect to the vacancies of the year 2010 to 2013 along with the other subsequent DPCs is nothing but inviting multiplicity of proceedings. According to the petitioners, they are eligible under 2nd category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and cannot be denied their right to be considered as per the said Rules.
13. Arguing so and contending that the impugned orders are illegal, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 10 for quashing of the aforesaid two orders and to direct the respondents to hold a fresh review DPC in connection with ten vacancies of MFS-II arose during the year 2010 to 2013 by considering the case of the petitioners as certificate holders in accordance with the provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) and to appoint them to the post of MFS-II with retrospective effect from 2.12.2013 with consequential benefits including monetary benefits in case if the petitioners are selected and recommended by the review DPC.
14. Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and its subsequent order dated 31.9.2020 were quashed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020 dated 22.2.2021 and while quashing the order, the respondents were directed to hold a fresh review DPC. He would submit that due to ambiguity in the Manipur Forest Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010, all other Range Forest Officers with the certificate course in Forestry from Government recognised Forestry College being senior to the petitioners and the present petitioners being not within the zone of consideration, they have not been considered for promotion to the post of MFS-II in the DPC held on WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 11 31.10.2013 and review DPC held on 7.7.2018 and 28.4.2020 respectively.
15. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests served show cause notice to the petitioners for their misconduct of providing false information to the fourth respondent, Department of Personnel and Forest Department and the fourth respondent also requested the State Government to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioners. In fact, on 22.6.2020, again the fourth respondent reminded the Forest Department for taking up necessary action against the individuals for submitting false information. Accordingly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued a show cause notice dated 4.7.2020 and the petitioners have also submitted replies dated 10.7.2020 and upon considering the replies, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued the letter dated 24.7.2020 to the Joint Secretary (DP) requiring them to take action against the petitioners for tarnishing the image of the Government and the fourth respondent-MPSC.
16. The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated that due to the ambiguity in the Manipur Forest Services WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 12 (Amendment) Rules, 2010, the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and its subsequent order dated 31.9.2020 were quashed on 21.2.2021 by this Court in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 and the consequential order dated 7.8.2021 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
17. This Court considered the rival submissions and also gone through the materials available on record.
18. The grievance of the petitioners is that earlier this Court by the order dated 20.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018, inter alia, while setting aside the review DPC held on 7.7.2018 for filling up of ten vacancies of MFS-II arose during the period from 2010 to 2013, directed to hold a fresh review DPC in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 considering all the eligible persons. However, the case of the petitioners was not considered in the review DPC held thereafter. When the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 challenging the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and the appointment orders dated 31.8.2020, this Court by the order dated 19.2.2021 in W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 and other connected writ petitions, set aside the WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 13 proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and the appointment orders dated 31.8.2020. Despite the same, the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 came to be issued conveying the decision of the Government to hold review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for holding the review DPC considering the eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019.
19. Since the petitioners seek to quash conveying the decision of the Government to hold review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion to the Range Forest Officers and the consequential order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for holding the review DPC considering the eligible officers as per Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019, it is necessary to state the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioners and others before this Court.
20. Earlier the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 to quash the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 reviewing the earlier proceedings of the fresh review DPC held on 28.4.2020 which had reviewed the earlier DPC held WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 14 on 31.10.2013 and the consequential order dated 31.8.2020 issued by the Department of P&AR and also direct the respondents to hold a review DPC reviewing the proceedings of the DPC held on 3.8.2020 considering the case of the petitioners being the senior most in the cadre of MFS Grade-II. The said writ petition W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 was taken up along with the other writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.606, 607, 630 and 685 of 2020. By a common order dated 19.2.2021, this Court passed the following order in the aforesaid batch:
"[14] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the following orders are passed by this Court:
(a) WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of 2020 are allowed and consequently, the final seniority list for the post of the MFS Grade-II published vide order dated 12-
11-2020 issued by the Joint Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur is quashed and set aside;
(b) List WP(C) No.630 of 2020 along with WA No.11 of 2020 and it is open to the parties herein to approach the Division Bench of this Court praying for taking up the writ appeal, at an early date, along with WP(C) No.116 of 2020 WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 15 and praying for passing appropriate orders, thereafter, keeping in mind the fact that some of the private respondents had retied on attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of these cases;
(c) WP(C) No.685 of 2020 is allowed and consequently, the proceedings of the review DPC adopted in its meeting held on 03-08-2020 and the consequent order dated 31- 08-2020 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur are quashed and set aside;
(d) In view of the order (c) above, passed by this Court, WP(C) No.31 of 2021 stands disposed of;
(e) The official respondents shall prepare a fresh final seniority list for the post of the MFS Grade-II and publish the same only after WA No.11 of 2020 along with WP(C) No.630 of 2020 being disposed of by this Court;
(f) After a fresh final seniority list for the post of the MFS Grade-II being published as per order (e) above, the official respondents shall constitute a review DPC which shall consider all eligible officers and recommend the WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 16 names for appointment on promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I;
(g) In view of the orders passed by this Court hereinabove, the proceedings of the DPC probably held on 24-12-2020 as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in WP(C) No.607 of 2020 in terms of the interim order dated 23-11-2020 passed by this Court, stand quashed and set aside with the direction that no further action pursuant thereto shall be taken by the official respondents for the purpose of promotion from the post of the MFS Grade-II to the post of MFS Grade-I."
21. Thus, from the above order, it is clear that while setting aside the review DPC dated 3.8.2020 and the consequential order dated 31.8.2020, the official respondents were directed to prepare a fresh final seniority list for the post of MFS Grade-II and publish the same only after the Appeal in W.A.No.11 of 2020 along with W.P.(C) No.630 of 2020 disposed of. It was also directed that after a fresh final seniority list for the post of MFS Grade-II being published, the official respondents shall constitute a review DPC which shall consider all eligible WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 17 officers and recommend the names for appointment on promotion to the post of MFS Grade-I.
22. Pursuant to the order dated 19.2.2021 passed by this Court, an order dated 27.7.2021 came to be issued by the Department of P&AR cancelling the final seniority list of MFS Grade-II issued vide order dated 12.11.2020 and the appointment of 10 Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II vide order dated 31.8.2020. On 28.7.2021, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests and Environment) requesting to move the Department of P&AR to take further necessary action for holding a fresh DPC to review the earlier DPC which has now been cancelled by the order dated 27.7.2021 and also for promotion of eligible Range Forest Officers namely Kh. Hitler Singh,N.Munal Meitei and K.Samte to fill up the vacant posts of MFS Grade-II and may also issue a fresh seniority list of MFS Grade-II at an early date. In the said letter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests also requested to allow L.Biranmangol to continue in his present place of posting and Kh. Hitler Singh may be transferred and posted as Range Forest Officer, Headquarter in the office of DFO, Tamenglong Forest Division. The Principal Chief Conservator also requested to move the Department of WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 18 P&AR for posting an Indian Forest Service Officer to the post of DFO, Tamenglong Forest Division.
23. Accordingly, the Department of P&AR (Personnel Division) issued the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 and the said order reads thus:
"In inviting reference to this Department's Order No.18/3/2020-MFoS/DP dated 27.07.2021 (copy enclosed) regarding cancellation of the appointment of 10 (ten) Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II issued vide order No.18/5/2018-MFoS/DP dated 31.08.2021, I am directed to state that this Government has decided to hold a review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II.
2. In view of above, you are therefore requested to kindly furnish the duly filled-in Requisition Forms, Note for DPCs, Vigilance Clearance, ACRs, Seniority List(s), etc at an early date for further necessary action."
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 19
24. The said order dated 5.8.2021 was addressed to the Under Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of Manipur and copies were also marked to the Staff Officer to the Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Upon receipt of the said order dated 5.8.2021, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest passed a consequential order dated 7.8.2021 and the order dated 7.8.2021 reads thus:
"With reference to letter No.APPT-7/2/2021-DP-DP dated 5th August, 2021 of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Govt. of Manipur, on the above subject, I am to submit herewith the following required documents for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II for favour of further necessary action:
1. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2011-13 along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s).
2. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2014-16 along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s).
3. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2017-18 along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s). WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 20
4. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2019-20 along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s).
5. Note for DPC."
25. As could be seen from the common order passed in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020 and the connected writ petitions, it transpires that the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and its subsequent order dated 31.8.2020 were quashed and the respondents were directed to hold a fresh review DPC. Thus, pursuant to the direction of this Court only, the Department of P&AR issued the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 directing the Under Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of Manipur to furnish the duly filled-in requisition forms and note for DPCs and similarly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests by the impugned order dated 7.8.2021, submitted the documents for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. There is no reason to believe that the aforesaid impugned orders have been issued contrary to the direction of this Court dated 19.2.2021. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere.
26. It appears that on 1.10.2021, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest informed the Under Secretary (Forest and WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 21 Environment) to take up further necessary action for review of the earlier DPCs held since 2013.
27. Before filing the writ petition, the petitioners have submitted a representation on 21.8.2021 to the respondents praying to consider their case in the fresh review DPC of the earlier DPC meeting held on 31.10.2013 in connection with appointment by promotion to 10 vacancies of Manipur Forest Service, Grade-II/Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Forest Department. Admittedly, the said representation has not been considered and in the counter filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration and will be disposed of as soon as possible by the Department of Personnel in consultation with the Department of Forest and Environment. The non-consideration of the representation of the petitioners by the respondent authorities will entitle the petitioners in seeking the relief.
28. Since the petitioners are not within the zone of consideration, they have not been considered for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II in the DPC held earlier on 31.10.2013 and the review DPC held on 7.7.2018 and 28.4.2020 respectively.
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 22
29. In the instant case, the petitioners reported that they have completed the certificate course in Wildlife from Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. According to the respondents, all the other Range Forest Officers considered eligible in earlier DPC have also possessed the certificate in Forestry from Government recognised Rangers Training Colleges run and recognised by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, but not from the State Forest Service Colleges. As stated supra, the petitioners were not considered for promotion to MFS Grade-II in the earlier DPCs as they have not submitted the certificates to the Department in time. The reason for non-consideration of the petitioners is also on the ground of they being not informed the certificates for Wildlife Management to the Department in time.
30. Further, as could be seen from the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 24.7.2020 it is clear that departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioners for their misconduct of providing false information/allegation to the MPSC, Department of Personnel and Forest Department. In the said order, it has been stated as under:
"Thus, at this stage it becomes important to verify "Though the Department/Government has nominated WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 23 them for training at Wildlife Institute of India (WII), it was their responsibility to furnish the Course Completion Report along with Certificate to the PCCF & HoFF or State Government after returning from the training. Whether the three above-mentioned officers have informed the office of the PCCF & HoFF or the Government about completion of their training by 2013 in writing and submitted the Certificate, it is not forthcoming from the records". The Statement made by the AD during the DPC meeting as mentioned in para 3(a) above must have been based on available records submitted by the Department/Government at that point of time.
...
In view of the above, an enquiry may be essential on the points mentioned in Para 3, 4 & 5 above before the action against the 3 (three) officers for tarnishing the image of the Government and the MPSC."
31. Thus, the petitioners were not considered for promotion to MFS Grade-II against the 10 vacancies of MFS Grade-II, as they have not submitted the certificates to the Department in time and also an enquiry is ordered against them for tarnishing the departments. When the petitioners failed to submit the certificates in time and the conduct of the petitioners are not upto the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, the WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 24 respondents are right in not considering the petitioners for promotion in the review DPC held earlier.
32. It is pertinent to note that earlier the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.273 of 2020 seeking to consider them in the fresh review DPC of the DPC held on 31.10.2013 in connection with the appointment by promotion to 10 vacancies of MFS Grade-II and appoint the petitioners to the said post with effect from 2.12.2013 with consequential benefits in case if they are selected and recommended by the review DPC. After highlighting the appointment order dated 12.6.2020, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners on 16.6.2020.
33. It also appears that challenging the show cause notice dated 4.7.2020, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.509 of 2020. Further, challenging the result of the review DPC held on 28.4.2020 and the consequent appointment dated 12.6.2020, the petitioners have also filed W.P.(C) No.466 of 2020 and the same was dismissed as infructuous later on. Thereafter, challenging the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and the consequential order dated 31.8.2020, the petitioners have field W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021. As stated supra, W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 came to be disposed of along with the connected WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 25 writ petitions on 19.2.2021 and only pursuant to the direction issued in the said batch of writ petitions, the impugned orders came to be issued by the respondents. Since the impugned orders are issued pursuant to the direction of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the interference of the impugned orders is not called for. However, there is no merit in the writ petition.
34. There is no quarrel over the proposition settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 6 SCC 725, wherein, in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26, it has been held as under:
"24. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment in Y.V.Rangaiah case [(1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382] would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The aforesaid judgment was rendered on the interpretation of Rule 4(a)(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules, 1976. The aforesaid Rule provided for preparation of a panel for the eligible candidates every year in the month of September. This was a statutory duty cast upon the State. The exercise was required to WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 26 be conducted each year. Thereafter, only promotion orders were to be issued. However, no panel had been prepared for the year 1976. Subsequently, the Rule was amended, which rendered the petitioners therein ineligible to be considered for promotion. In these circumstances, it was observed by this Court that the amendment would not be applicable to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the amendment. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not the amended Rules.
25. In the present case, there is no statutory duty cast upon the respondents to either prepare a yearwise panel of the eligible candidates or of the selected candidates for promotion. In fact, the proviso to Rule 2 enables the State to keep any post unfilled. Therefore, clearly there is no statutory duty which the State could be mandated to perform under the applicable Rules. The requirement to identify the vacancies in a year or to take a decision as to how many posts are to be filled under Rule 7 cannot be equated with not issuing promotion orders to the candidates duly selected for WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 27 promotion. In our opinion, the appellants had not acquired any right to be considered for promotion. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the submissions of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan that the vacancies, which had arisen before 17-5-1999 had to be filled under the unamended Rules.
26. It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for promotion. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V.Rangaiah case [(1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382] lays down any particular time-frame, within which the selection process is to be completed. In the present case, consideration for promotion took place WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 28 after the amendment came into operation. Thus, it cannot be accepted that any accrued or vested right of the appellants has been taken away by the amendment."
35. The learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) Y.V.Rangaiah and others v. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others, (1983) 3 SCC 284
(ii) State of Tripura and others v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and others, (2017) 3 SCC 646
(iii) D.Raghu and others v. R.Basaveswarudu and others, Civil Appeal Nos.1970-1975 and 1976 of 2009, decided on 5.2.2020, MANU/SC/0125/2020
36. Since the law is well-settled that it is the rules which are prevalent at the time when the consideration took place for promotion, which would be applicable and a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the rule in force on the date the consideration took place and there is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the WP(C) No. 587 of 2021 P a g e | 29 date when the vacancy arises, the aforesaid decisions are not elaborated further. Since the petitioners have not shown valid ground for interference in the orders impugned, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 of the Department of P&AR conveying the decision of the Government to hold a Review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of the Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and the consequential order dated 7.8.2021 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for holding the review DPC considering the eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the Manipur Forest Service (1st Amendment Rules), 2019 are perfectly correct and no interference is warranted. That apart, the petitioners have also failed to make out a valid ground for interference. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed.
37. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 587 of 2021