Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.

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:

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