Manipur High Court
Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 19 February, 2021
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020
1. Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu, aged about 38 years, D/O S.
Shyamkishor Singh of Khurai Chingangban Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamlong and Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. Mahamuda Begum, aged about 34 years, D/O Abdul Karim of
K.R. Lane Hatta Golapati, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by its Commissioner/
Secretary (DP & AR), Govt. of Manipur.
2. The Commissioner/Secretary (Forest & Environment), Govt.
of Manipur.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Manipur.
... Official Respondents
4. Shri L. Biramangol Singh.
5. Shri Kh. Hitler Singh.
6. Shri T. Thangchinlian.
7. Shri T. Sheilam Haokip.
8. Dr. Leishangthem Jeeceelee.
9. Shri Nepolean Rongmei.
10. Km. Waikhom Romabai.
11. Smt. Laishram Gitla.
12. Km. S.L. Niangthianhoi.
13. Km. Elangbam Nirmala Chanu.
... Private Respondents
WP(C) No. 607 of 2020
1. Mr. Nepolean Rongmei, aged about 28 years, S/O Owen, a
resident of Nungnang Village, Khoupum Sub-Division, Noney
District, Manipur, Pin - 705147.
2. Ms. Elangbam Nirmala Chanu, aged about 29 years, S/o (L)
Elangbam Nilakanta Singh, a resident of Uripok Achom Leikai,
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[2]
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin -
795001.
3. Mr. D. John Sha, aged about 36 years, S/o Ngaoni David Sha, a
resident of Lakhamai Village, Manipur, P.O. Maram & P.S.
Tadubi, Senapati District. Pin - 795015.
4. Ms. Vaneichong Singson, aged about 30 years, D/o Lamkholen
Singson, a resident of Zomi Villa, North AOC Imphal East
District, Manipur. Pin - 795005.
5. Ms. Chinpilhing Kipgen, aged about 36 years, D/o Goupu
Kipgen, a resident of New Lambulane, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur. Pin - 795001.
... Writ Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Additional Chief
Secretary, Forest & Environment, Secretariat Southern
Block, Government of Manipur, Imphal. Pin - 795001.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & HOFF, Forest &
Department, Sanjenthong Forest Head Quarter, Government
of Manipur, Imphal, Pin - 795001.
3. The Under Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government
of Manipur, Secretariat Northern Block, Government of
Manipur, Imphal. Pin -795001.
4. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Department of
Personnel, Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
Imphal, Manipur, Pin - 795001.
5. Shri Laishram Biramangol Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o
L. Chaoba Singh, a resident of Laitonjam Makha Leikai, P.O.
Nambol, Manipur. Pin - 795134.
6. Shri Kharibam Hitler Singh, aged about 53 years, S/o Kh.
Ibotombi Singh, a resident of Lamshang Makha Leikai, SDC
Lamshang Bazar, Imphal, Manipur, 795147.
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 630 of 2020
1. Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu, aged about 38 years, D/O S.
Shyamkishor Singh of Khurai Chingangban Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamlong and Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[3]
2. Mahamuda Begum, aged about 34 years, D/O Abdul Karim of
K.R. Lane Hatta Golapati, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by its
Commissioner/Secretary (Forest & Environment), Govt. of
Manipur.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Manipur.
3. The Wildlife Institute of India (an autonomous institute of the
Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India through its
Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun,
Post Box No. 18 Uttarakhand - 2480001.
... Official Respondents
4. Shri Kh. Hitler Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Kh. Ibotombi
Singh, a resident of Lamdeng Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamdeng, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Shri L. Birmagol Hitler Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Kh.
Ibotombi Singh, a resident of Lamdeng Makha Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Lamdeng, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Private Respondents
WP(C) No. 685 of 2020
1. Mahamuda Begum, aged about 34 years, D/O Abdul Karim of
K.R. Lane Hatta Golapati, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
2. Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu, aged about 38 years, D/O S.
Shyamkishor Singh of Khurai Chingangban Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamlong and Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by its Commissioner/
Secretary (Forest & Environment), Govt. of Manipur.
2. The Commissioner/Secretary (Forest & Environment), Govt.
of Manipur, Forest Headquarters, Sanjenthong, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal West, Manipur.
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[4]
3. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, North AOC, DM Road, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Manipur.
... Official Respondents
4. Shri Kh. Hitler Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Kh. Ibotombi
Singh, a resident of Lamdeng Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamdeng, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Shri L. Biramangol Singh, aged about 53 years, S/o
Laishram Chaoba Singh, a resident of Laitonjam Makha
Leikai, P.O. Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
... Private Respondents
WP(C) No. 31 of 2021
1. Khoisnam Kuber Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o (L)
Khoisnam Tomal Singh, a resident of 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, a resident of 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, a
resident of 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.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of
Manipur, Sanjenthong, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal
West, Manipur - 795001.
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[5]
4. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented by the
Secretary, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal
West, Manipur - 795001.
... Official Respondents
5. Shri L. Biramangol Singh, aged about 53 years, S/o (L) L.
Chaoba Singh, a resident of Nambol Laitonjam, Nambol, P.O.
& P.S. - Nambol, District - Bishnupur, Manipur 795134.
6. Shri Kh. Hitler Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o Kh. Ibotombi
Singh, a resident of Lamdeng Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamdeng, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795146.
7. Y. Gojendro Singh, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Y.
Gouramani Singh, a resident of Khurai Ahongei, Ayangpalli
Road, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur - 795010.
8. K. Shital Meitei, aged about 61 years, S/o Late K. Mani Singh,
a resident of Soibam Leikai Khanglabung Leirak, P.O. -
Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795001.
9. L. Manglem Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o Late L. Ganga
Singh, a resident of Sawombung Mamang Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795010.
10. Ch. Brajamani Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Ch.
Chaoba Singh, a resident of Soibam Leikai Khanglabung
Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur- 795001.
11. Ch. Ibomcha Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Ch. Parijat
Singh, a resident of Moirangkampu Khewa Bazar, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795005.
12. L. Ranjit Singh, aged about 63 years, S/o Late L. Birahari
Singh, a resident of Wangkhei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal, P.O. &
P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795005.
13. T. Thangchinlian, aged about 60 years, S/o T. Ginzathang, a
resident of Nehrumarg Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S.
Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur, 795128.
14. T. Sheilam Haokip, aged about 59 years, Divisional Forest
Officer (DFO), Soil & Water Conservation, Division-II, Forest
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[6]
Officer Complex, Mantripukhri, P.O-Mantripukhri, P.S.
Heingang, Manipur - 795002.
... Private Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
For the petitioners ∷ Shri H. Tarunkumar, Advocate;
Smt. G. Pushpa, Advocate &
Shri E. Premjit, Advocate
For the respondents ∷ Shri M. Hemchandra; Sr. Advocate;
Shri N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate;
Shri Kh. Samarjit, Advocate and
Shri Lenin Hijam, Addl. AG
Date of Hearing ∷ 29-01-2021
Date of Judgment & Order ∷ 19-02-2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Shri H. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate; Smt. G. Pushpa,
learned Advocate and Shri E. Premjit, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners while Shri M. Hemchandra, learned Sr. Advocate; Shri N.
Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate; Shri Kh. Samarjit, learned Advocate
appearing for the private respondents and Shri Lenin Hijam, learned Addl.
AG appearing for the State respondents.
[2] Since the above writ petitions have arisen out of a common set
of facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and
order.
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020
[3.1] The validity and correctness of the final seniority list for the post
of MFS Grade-II is under challenge in this writ petition and in addition
thereto, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[7]
other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to issue a fresh final
seniority list and to convene a Class-I DPC for the post of MFS Grade-I.
[3.2] According the petitioners, they were appointed as the Assistant
Conservator of Forest, MFS Grade-II on regular basis in the year, 2014
on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "the MPSC") and they have been serving in
that capacity till date. On 06-10-2020, the State Government issued a
tentative seniority list for the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forest,
MFS Grade-II inviting claims and objections to be submitted on or before
26-10-2020 and pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted their written
objections to the respondent No.1 on 24-10-2020. It may be noted that on
04-05-2018, a tentative seniority list was published by the Under
Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur to which also the petitioners had
submitted their written objection for the modification/ rectification of the
tentative seniority list.
[3.3] As per Rule 7(1) PART-IV of the Manipur Forest Service Rules,
1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1986") as amended from time
to time, the post of MFS Grade-I is to be filled up by appointment on
promotion from amongst the officers who had put in five years of service
in the MFS Grade-II. However, in the tentative seniority list, the
respondent No. 4 & 5 who were not eligible for consideration of promotion
to the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, MFS Grade-II, have
been included therein at Serial No. 1 & 2 which is illegal and not in
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[8]
consonance with the established rule. The respondent No.4 & 5 were not
eligible for promotion even to the post of the MFS Grade-II in the
vacancies for the year, 2013 as per their positions in the seniority list of
the post of the Range Forest Officers who had undergone certificate
course in forestry. They were not considered in the earlier DPC on the
ground of non-fulfillment of the essential qualification of diploma certificate
for the reason that the diploma certificate obtained by them fraudulently
were not considered by the DPC. Their cases were considered by the
recent review DPC purported to have been convened as per the direction
of the Single Judge of this Court wherein the Single Judge had observed
that in case they were selected and recommended by the review DPC, the
official respondents were directed to appoint them. In other words, the
respondent No.4 & 5 were appointed on promotion to the post of the MFS
Grade-II vide order dated 31-08-2020 in a purported compliance with the
Single Judge's order dated 20-12-2019 passed by him in WP(C) No.898
of 2018. The idea was that there should be a proper examination and
consideration of the eligibility criteria before making any selection and
recommendation by the DPC for appointment to the post of MFS Grade-II.
[3.4] On 07-09-2020, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Manipur wrote a letter to the Under Secretary (Forests & Envn.,),
Government of Manipur requesting him to expedite the notification of the
inter-se seniority list of the MFS Grade-II at the earliest and to constitute
a Screening Committee for promotion from the post of the MFS Grade-II
to the post of the MFS Grade-I. To the utter shock and dismay, a final
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[9]
seniority list was published by the Joint Secretary to the Governor of
Manipur vide his order dated 12-11-2020 which was issued without
considering the objections filed by the petitioners on 23-10-2020. The
said order was issued by the State Government in violation of the
principle of natural justice. On 19-11-2020, the petitioners submitted a
written objection to the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner (DP),
Government of Manipur for modification/ rectification of the said final
seniority list and in spite of that, the official respondents took appropriate
steps to hold the proposed Class-I DPC for promotion to the post of the
MFS Grade-I on the basis of final seniority list.
[3.5] Being aggrieved by the said final seniority list, the instant writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners on the inter-alia grounds that the
diploma certificates on the basis of which the respondent No.4 & 5 had
been considered, were obtained by them fraudulently for the reason that
they were not eligible to undergo the said diploma course, as is evident
from the letter dated 02-11-2006 issued by the Academic Officer that the
Range Forest Officers are not eligible for undergoing the post-graduate
diploma course. At the time of joining the course, the respondent No.4 &
5 were holding the post of the Range Forest Officer as reflected in the
final seniority list published for the post of the Range Forest Officer on 18-
12-2008. It is further evident from the letter dated 07-08-2010 issued by
the Deputy Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur
that the Range Forest Officers are not eligible for 10 months advanced
P.G. diploma programme/ Course and in addition thereto, the Director,
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[10]
Wildlife Institute of India vide its letter dated 21-07-2010 has clarified that
the Range Forest Officers are not eligible for 10 months advanced
diploma course. Since the respondent No.4 & 5 had undergone the said
post-graduate diploma course in Wildlife Management in a fraudulent
manner, any consequential order/ letter issued pursuant thereto is illegal,
non-est and void ab initio. The respondent No.4 & 5 have been
considered by the review DPC mechanically without proper application of
mind and were given promotion to the post of the Assistant Conservator
of Forest, MFS Grade-II without any reason. The final seniority list will
have a great impact and consequences upon the petitioners while
considering them for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I. The
validity and correctness of the diploma certificate obtained by the
respondent No. 5 has been challenged by some of the Range Forest
Officers by way of WP(C) No.116 of 2020 wherein this Court had passed
an interim order to the effect that the validity of the said certificate should
be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It is well settled law that if
the initial action is not taken in consonance with law, all consequential
proceedings would fall for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root
of the order.
[4.1] The stand of the State Government as indicated in its affidavit,
is that the objections of the petitioners in respect of the tentative seniority
list were considered and disposed of on the ground that respondent No.4
& 5 were promoted to the post of MFS Grade-II with effect from
02-12-2013 vide order dated 31-08-2020 on the recommendation of the
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[11]
DPC held on 03-08-2020 which has not been challenged nor has any
order been passed by any Court against it and that their names have
been included in the final seniority list as per the provisions of the Rules,
1986. The stand of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 is similar to that of the
respondent No.1 and therefore, the same is not repeated here for the
sake of brevity. However, it has been stated in their affidavit that the
respondent No.4 & 5 had undergone the diploma course in wildlife as per
the order dated 14-07-2017 issued by the Secretariat: Forest and
Environment, Government of Manipur, although only the officers at the
rank of the Assistant Conservator of Forest and above, are eligible. The
validity and correctness of the diploma certificates held by them is being
challenged in WP(C) No. 116 of 2020 which is still pending before this
Court.
[4.2] An affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.4 & 5 was filed
stating that they were appointed as the Range Forest Officers sometime
in between the years, 1986 and 1989. As per the Rules, 1986, the posts
of MFS Grade-II are to be filled up by promotion and direct recruits in the
ration of 50:50 and therefore, the petitioners who are direct recruits, have
no right to interfere with the promotion of the promotes to the post of the
MFS Grade-II. The names of the respondent No.4 & 5 were included in
the final seniority list as per the order dated 31-08-2020 issued by the DP,
granting retrospective promotion with effect from 02-12-2013, on the
basis of the recommendation of the review DPC held on 03-08-2020 in
compliance with the order dated 20-12-2019 passed by this Court. The
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[12]
respondent No.4 & 5 are the Range Forest Officers possessing diploma
in Wildlife Management from the Wildlife Institute of India, as they
underwent diploma course in the years, 2005-06 through proper official
procedure. The MFS Grade-II officers who have put in more than six
years, are not willing to undergo the diploma course thereby losing the
State quota of seats. A DPC was held in the year, 2013 whereby the
respondent No.4 & 5 were not recommended on the ground that there
was no Range Forest Officers possessing certificate / diploma in forestry/
wildlife. This proceeding of the DPC dated 02-12-2013 came to be
challenged in WP(C) No.83 of 2015 wherein this Court quashed and set
aside it. A review DPC was held but the respondent No.5 was not
recommended on the ground that he was not within the zone of
consideration. He challenged it by way of WP(C) No.898 of 2018 which
was allowed vide order dated 20-12-2019 passed by the Single Judge
with the direction to hold a review DPC. The order dated 31-08-2020 had
not been challenged by anyone nor had anybody questioned the validity
and genuineness of the diploma certificates by the respondents in WP(C)
No.898 of 2018. The respondent No.6 & 7 in their affidavit have stated
that after they being promoted in the year, 2013 to the post of the MFS
Grade-II, they became eligible for the post of the MFS Grade-I. The final
seniority list was published on 12-11-2020 after considering the
objections submitted by all concerned. Due to the issues arising in
respect of the respondent No.4 & 5, their right to be considered for
promotion was curtailed and they would retire on attaining the age of
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[13]
superannuation. There is no dispute at all so far as their seniority
positions are concerned. The order dated 31-08-2020 has not been
challenged by anyone. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.8
stating that he was directly appointed as the MFS Grade-II on
14-10-2014. The final seniority list was published by setting right the
minor aberrations crept therein by doing justice to him. The grievances
raised in the writ petition qua the respondent No.4 & 5 would have no
relevance as the same are not directed against him. Similar is the case
with the affidavit filed by the respondent No.11 and therefore, the same
are not repeated here for the sake of gravity.
WP(C) No. 607 of 2020
[5.1] The validity and correctness of the final seniority list published
vide order dated 12-10-2020 issued by the Joint Secretary (DP),
Government of Manipur and the order dated 12-06-2020 issued by the
Under Secretary, Government of Manipur by which the private
respondents were appointed by way of promotion to the post of the MFS
Grade II are under challenge in this writ petition.
[5.2] According to the petitioners, they were appointed as the
Assistant Conservator of Forest, MFS Grade-II vide order dated 14-10-
2014 issued by the State Government on the recommendation of the MP
SC. As per the Rules, 1986, the method of recruitment for the post of the
MFS Grade-II, in short, is that 40% of the substantive vacancies which
occur from time to time shall be filled up by promotion while the remaining
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[14]
shall be filled up by the direct recruitment.
[5.3] The Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 15-03-
1992 whereby Rule 3 was amended stating that the service shall have 3
grades, namely (a) the MFS Selection Grade; (b) the MFS Grade-I and
(c) the MFS Grade-II. Rule 6 of the said Rules provides that the member
of the service with a minimum of 6 years regular shall be eligible for being
considered for promotion to the MFS Grade-I and since the petitioners
being put in 6 years on regular service in the MFS Grade-II, they were
eligible for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I.
[5.4] The private respondents entered into their services as the
Range Forest Officers being appointed on 03-05-1988 and 03-05-1989 as
seen from the seniority list of the Range Forest Officers issued by the
Forest & Environmental Department, Government of Manipur vide
Notification dated 18-12-2008. The Government of Manipur issued an
order dated 14-07-2005 according sanction to the deputation of the
private respondents for undergoing post graduate diploma course in
Wildlife Management at Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Since the
private respondents were in the rank of the Range Forest Officers, they
were not eligible for undergoing the said diploma course as per the
recruitment rules of the Range Forest Officers. It is a CGS Class-II to be
filled up by way of Class-II DPC. The essential qualification for the post of
the Range Forest Officer is Graduate in Science or its equivalent. The
private respondents who were not eligible, were wrongly nominated for
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[15]
undergoing the post graduate diploma course in Wildlife Management
vide Government letter dated 21-07-2005 addressed to the Director,
Wildlife Institute of India. As the Forest Range Officers are not eligible for
such undergoing the diploma course, the Wildlife Institute of India vide its
letter dated 21-07-2010 clarified that the Range Forest Officers are not
eligible for such course.
[5.5] The private respondents submitted their joining reports by way
of impersonation of their respective posts which is evident from the
joining reports dated 02-09-2005 submitted to the Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehradun by filling up the admission form, although they were not
holding the posts of the Assistant Conservator of Forest which is
equivalent to the MFS Grade-II. They fraudulently mentioned themselves
in their forms as the Assistant Conservator of Forest and in the final
seniority list dated 12-11-2020 their names were shown. The final
seniority list was published without considering the objection raised by the
petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said final seniority list, the instant writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners on the inter-alia grounds that the
tentative seniority list dated 06-10-2020 was finalized without assigning
any reason in order to favour the private respondents who are not eligible
to be considered for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I. The
private respondents were appointed by way of promotion to the post of
the MFS Grade-II vide order dated 12-06-2020 purportedly in compliance
with the order dated 20-12-2019 passed by the Single Judge but the
private respondents have been given promotions retrospectively w.e.f.
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[16]
02-12-2013. While disposing of the WP(C) No.898 of 2018, the Single
Judge never directed the petitioners therein to be appointed to the post of
the MFS Grade-II but it was left to the Government to hold a fresh DPC
for consideration as per the rules. The Government of Manipur was going
ahead with the process of holding a DPC on 24-11-2020 as is evident
from the notice dated 18-11-2020 to consider eligible MFS officers
Grade-II to the post of MFS Grade I.
[6] The stand of the respondent No.1 is similar to that of its stand
indicated in the affidavit filed in WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and therefore, the
same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity and in addition thereto,
it has been stated that the meeting of the Screening Committee was held
on 24-12-2020 as per the interim order dated 23-11-2020 passed by this
Court. The private respondents have filed an affidavit and the averments
made therein are almost the same as that of their affidavit filed in WP(C)
No.606 of 2020 and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the
sake of brevity.
WP(C) No. 630 of 2020
[7.1] By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the
respondents to cancel the post graduate diploma certificate in Wildlife
Management obtained by the private respondents and also for issuing a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside any
subsequent proceeding/ order/ notification issued pursuant to the said
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[17]
impugned diploma certificate for the end of justice.
[7.2} The petitioners are the Assistant Conservator of Forest, MFS
Grade-II appointed in the year, 2014 on the recommendation of the
MPSC. As per the Rule 5 of the Rules, 1986 as amended from time to
time, the Range Forest Officer having diploma certificate in Forestry and
Wildlife with four years regular service; the Range Forest Officer with
Certificate in Forestry/ Wildlife having five years on regular service and
the Range Forest Officer without diploma/ certificate having seven years
of regular service are eligible for promotion to the post of the MFS
Grade-II, the Assistant Conservator of Forest. The petitioners came to
know from the reliable sources that some Range Forest Officers who are
not eligible, had been promoted to the post of the MFS Grade-II. These
officers who are not eligible, had undergone the post graduate diploma in
Forestry and Wildlife obtaining the certificate thereof in a fraudulent
manner in collusion with the officials of the Forest Department.
[7.3] The State Government issued an order granting promotions to
ten Forest Range Officers including the private respondents for the post of
the MFS Grade-II vide order dated 31-08-2020 in a purported compliance
with the order dated 20-12-2019 passed by the Single Judge in WP(C)
No.898 of 2018 directing the respondents to hold a review DPC for the
post of the MFS Grade-II of all the eligible persons including the
petitioners therein and that in case the petitioners therein were selected
and recommended by the review DPC, they would be appointed to the
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[18]
post of the MFS Grade-II but the review DPC failed to consider the true
spirit of the direction given by this Court. The requisite qualification as
required in the Rules, 1986, was not considered and examined by the
DPC while making their recommendation.
[7.4] The said diploma certificate course is meant for the in-services
Indian Forest Service and State Forest Officers of the rank of the Deputy
Conservator of Forests/ Assistant Conservator of Forest with possession
of forestry training and a minimum of Bachelor's Degree in any of the
natural sciences. The private respondents were ineligible to undergo the
said post graduate diploma course in Wildlife for the reason that they
were neither the Assistant Conservator of Forest nor the equivalent and
above rank officers and that the private respondent No.4 was an Arts
Graduate. In other words, the officers who are in the rank of the Range
Forest Officer, cannot be admitted to undergo the PG diploma course in
the Wildlife Management Institute as is evident from the letter dated
02-11-2006 issued by the Academic Officer. At the time of joining the said
training, the private respondents were holding the post of the Range
Forest Officer as is evident from the seniority list for the post of the Range
Forest Officer published on 18-12-2010. The Government of Manipur vide
its letter dated 07-08-2010 informed that the Range Forest Officers were
not eligible for the post graduate diploma programme course.
[7.5] The private respondents who knew fully well that they were not
eligible to undergo the said diploma course, requested the authority for
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[19]
deputing them to undergo the said course. The private respondents went
for the training course by concealing their real positions in collusion with
the then officers and therefore, the diploma certificates obtained by the
respondent No.4 & 5 are non est and are not sustainable in law. The
letter dated 21-07-2010 issued by the Director, Wildlife Institute of India
clarified that the Range Forest Officers are not eligible for such training.
[7.6] Such illegal administrative action of the State Government
granting permission to the private respondents for promotion to the post
of the MFS Grade-II, shall have a great impact and consequence upon
the petitioners while considering their cases for promotion to the post of
the MFS Grade-I. As per Rule 7(1) PART-IV of the Rules, 1986, the post
of MFS Grade-I is to be filled up from amongst the officers who had put in
five years of service in the grade of the MFS Grade-II.
[7.7] Being aggrieved by the action of the State Government, All
Manipur Forest Rangers' Association submitted an application dated 28-
04-2010 for cancellation of the diploma certificates obtained by the
respondent No.4 & 5 but no action was taken by it. The existence of the
certificates came to be known to the petitioners only after the issuance of
the order dated 31-08-2020 because of which the petitioners could not
challenge it in time. It is well settled law that if the initial action is not
taken in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential action
would fail for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order.
Therefore, the diploma certificates which have been obtained by the
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[20]
private respondents, are not sustainable in law and deserve to be set
aside. It may be noted that the private respondents who knew fully well
that they are not eligible to undergo the diploma course, submitted their
applications to the Wildlife Institute of India by stating in column 7 therein
as the Assistant Conservator of Forest which is clearly an impersonation
as they were holding the post of the Range Forest Officer at the relevant
point of time and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court may restrain
the officers from taking up any subsequent action on the said certificates.
WP(C) No. 685 of 2020
[8.1] By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to cancel the
impugned order of promotion dated 31-08-2020 and to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the
proceedings of the review DPC dated 28-04-2020.
[8.2] According to the petitioners, they were appointed as the
Assistant Conservator of Forest on regular basis in the year, 2014 and
are still working as such.
[8.3] The petitioners came to know that a review DPC was held by
the MPSC on 28-04-2020 to review the proceedings of the DPC held on
31-10-2013 and the said DPC had recommended 10 Range Forest
Officers for promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II including two Range
Forest Officers who are not within the zone of consideration and without
fulfilling the eligibility criteria. The said DPC was held purportedly in
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[21]
compliance with this Court's order dated 20-12-2019. It may be
mentioned that the private respondents were considered by the earlier
DPCs held on 19-09-2013 and 07-07-2018 but were not recommended
by the DPCs. Ten Range Forest Officers including the private
respondents were recommended for promotion, for which an order dated
31-08-2020 was issued. This Court's order dated 20-12-2020 was
challenged by some Range Forest Officers by way of a writ appeal being
WA No.11 of 2020 which is now pending before this Court.
[8.4] While passing the judgment and order dated 20-12-2020, the
Single Judge directed that a review DPC be held and all eligible officers
including the petitioners be considered and if the private respondents
were recommended, they should be appointed as the MFS Grade-II. The
review DPC failed to examine the eligibility and fulfillment of essential
qualifications as per the Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time, but
recommended ten Range Forest Officers who were appointed vide order
dated 31-08-2020 issued by the State Government. On the basis of this
order, the final seniority list was published, showing the private
respondents at serial No.1 and 2 therein, which came to be challenged in
WP(C) No.606 of 2020.
[8.5] In the DPC held on 28-04-2020, the private respondents could
not have been considered as they were not within the zone of
consideration. But taking undue advantage of the diploma certificates
obtained by them fraudulently, they were considered by the DPC
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[22]
recommending their names for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II.
The legality and validity of the said diploma certificates came to be
challenged in WP(C) No.630 of 2020 wherein notice had been issued to
the respondents.
[8.6] Being aggrieved by the DPC proceedings dated 28-04-2020
and the Government order dated 31-08-2020, the instant writ petition has
been filed on the inter-alia grounds that the promotions granted to the
private respondents will have a great impact and consequence while
considering them for getting promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I.
The failure on the part of the DPC to consider and apply the provisions of
the Rules, 1986 including the law of zone of consideration as mentioned
in MFS (Amendment) Rules, 2010, is illegal and unsustainable in law.
The All Manipur Forest Ranger's association had submitted an
application on 20-04-2010 for cancelation of the diploma certificates
obtained by the private respondents fraudulently which is still pending for
consideration by the State Government. It is a well settled law that if a
particular act is fraudulent, any consequential order issued pursuant to
the such act is non-est and void ab initio and no person shall be allowed
to take advantage of it.
WP(C) No. 31 of 2021
[9.1] By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set
aside the proceedings of the review DPC held on 03-08-2020 reviewing
the earlier proceedings of the fresh review DPC held on 28-04-2020
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[23]
which had reviewed the earlier DPC held on 31-10-2013 and the
consequent order dated 31-08-2020 issued by the Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur and also
for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the
respondents to hold a review DPC reviewing the proceedings of the DPC
held on 03-08-2020 considering the case of the petitioners being the
senior most in the cadre of the MFS Grade-II.
[9.2] The petitioners No. 1, 2 & 3 joined their services as the Range
Forest Officers on regular basis in the Forest & Environment Department
on 02-05-1987, 03-05-1988 and 03-05-1989 respectively. On 10-02-2009,
the Forest & Environment Department, Government of Manipur issued a
notification notifying the final seniority list of the Range Forest Officers in
the Department. As is evident from the letters dated 02-11-2006 and
21-07-2010, the Forest Range Officers are eligible to pursue only the
course of certificate in Wildlife from the Wildlife Institute of India and not
the post graduate diploma in Wildlife Management which can only be
pursued by the officers at the level of the Assistant Conservator of Forest
and above.
[9.3] The petitioners pursued the course of certificates in Wildlife
during the years 2006 to 2010 and were awarded certificates on
31-01-2006, 01-11-2011 and 31-01-2008 respectively. Apart from the
petitioners, the respondent Nos.5 & 6 also pursued the said certificate
course and thus, except the above petitioners and the respondent Nos. 5
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[24]
& 6, other officers do not possess the certificate in Wildlife from the
Wildlife Institute of India.
[9.4] The Government of Manipur issued a notification dated
01-04-2010 amending the Rules, 1986 by which 50% of the authorized
permanent strength of the service shall be filled up by promotion as
under:-
"Range Forest Officers with diploma in Forestry/Wild Life
from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute
of Indie recognized by the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Environment & Forests who have put in 4 (four) years
regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer
including those periods spent on training on the Diploma
course.
Failing which
Range Forest Officers with Certificate in Forestry/Wild Life
from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute
of Indie recognized by the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Environment & Forests who have put in 5 (five) years
regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer
including those periods spent on training on the Certificate
course.
Failing which
Range Forest Officers without Diploma/ Certificate in
Forestry/ Wild Life who have put in 7 (seven) years
regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer."
[9.5] In view of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Rules, 2010 read with the final
seniority list, the petitioners being the holders of certificates in Wildlife
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[25]
from the Wildlife Institute of India, are to be considered as the senior most
Range Forest Officers for promotion to the MFS Grade-II against the ten
vacancies arose during the year 2010-2013, although the said ten
vacancies of the MFS Grade-II were to be filled up in accordance with the
provisions contained in Rule 5(i)(C) of 2010 but the same were filled up
without considering the petitioners which is in violation of the rules and
consequently, the appointment letter dated 02-12-2013 was issued.
[9.6] On 13-07-2017, the Registrar, MPSC wrote a letter to the
Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur seeking ACRs of all the
eligible officers within the zone of consideration but in reply thereto, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Manipur wrote a letter dated
25-07-1017 furnishing information with regard to the ACRs and diploma
certificates of the respondent Nos.5 & 6. Being aggrieved by it, the
petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.596 of 2017 which was
disposed of on granting a liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed
representation which the petitioners did. Without considering the
representation, a DPC was held on 03-01-2018 for promotion to the post
of the MFS Grade-II against the said ten vacancies. Being aggrieved by
it, the petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.581 of 2018 and a
review DPC was held on 07-07-2018 but the proceedings thereof were
challenged by one of the Range Forest Officers by way of WP(C) No.898
of 2018 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated
20-12-2019 setting aside the review DPC held on 07-07-2018 with the
direction that a fresh review DPC be held considering all the eligible
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[26]
persons including the petitioners therein. In the meanwhile, the
Government of Manipur issued orders dated 01-02-2019, 21-12-2019 and
06-02-2020 appointing the petitioners to the post of the MFS Grade-II
against the later vacancies of the MFS Grade-II. In respect of the review
DPC to be held pursuant to the judgment and order dated 20-12-2019,
the names of the petitioners were not reflected for consideration by the
review DPC which denied the petitioners their rights to be considered
because of which the representation dated 05-05-2020 was submitted by
them. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the State
respondents, WP(C) No.273 of 2020 was filed by the petitioners and
during the course of hearing, the counsel appearing for the respondents
mentioned about the existence of the order dated 12-06-2020 because of
which the writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh
writ petition. On 22-06-2020, an application under RTI was submitted
to the MPSC seeking information as regards the review DPC held on
28-04-2020 and in reply thereto, the MPSC wrote a letter dated
04-07-2020 furnishing the proceedings of the DPC on the basis of which
the petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.466 of 2020
challenging the review DPC held on 28-04-2020 and the appointment
order dated 12-06-2020. To their utter shock and surprise, the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest issued a show cause notice dated
04-07-2020 as to why the disciplinary action could not be initiated against
them. The petitioners submitted their replies on 10-07-2020. Later on,
the said show cause notice was challenged in WP(C) No.509 of 2020 and
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[27]
in the meantime, the petitioners came to know that the order dated
31-08-2020 had been issued appointing ten persons to the post of the
MFS Grade-II. The petitioners immediately moved an application seeking
information pertaining to the review DPC held on 03-08-2020 to review
the proceedings of the fresh review DPC held on 28-04-2020 in
connection with the filling up of ten vacancies of the MFS Grade-II by
promotion. Being aggrieved by the proceedings dated 03-08-2020, the
instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners contending that the
DPC held on 03-08-2020 had failed to consider the case of the
petitioners, even though they were the senior most persons within the
zone of consideration. Had the consideration of this Court contained in
the judgment and order dated 20-12-2019 been applied with letter and
spirit, the cases of the petitioners would have been considered in a
review DPC for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II against the ten
vacancies of the MFS Grade-II occurred during the year between the
years, 2010 and 2013. In order to support their contentions, various
decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been relied upon.
The denial for consideration of the petitioners for promotion to the post of
the MFS Grade-II is arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. The petitioners have been promoted to the post of the MFS
Grade-II against the later vacancies, cannot be denied their rights to be
considered against the earlier vacancies occurred during the financial
years between the year, 2010 and 2013. Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 do not
possess certificates in Forestry/ Wildlife and therefore, they are not
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[28]
eligible for consideration under the rules.
[10] From the aforesaid pleadings three issues have arisen for
consideration by this Court-one, relating to the validity and correctness of
the final seniority list published vide order dated 12-11-2020 issued by
the Joint Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur; two, relating to the
validity and correctness of the diploma certificates obtained by Shri L.
Biramangol Singh and Shri Kh. Hitler Singh (hereinafter referred to as
"the contesting private respondents") fraudulently as alleged by the
petitioners and three, relating to the validity and correctness of the
proceedings of the review DPC held on 03-08-2020 and the consequent
order dated 31-08-2020 issued by the DP, Government of Manipur.
[11.1] As regards the first issue, it has been submitted by the counsels
appearing for the petitioners, Shri H. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate and
Smt. G. Pushpa, learned Advocate that the contesting respondents were
appointed as the Range Forest Officers sometime in the years between
1986 and1989, while the petitioners in WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C)
No.607 of 2020 were appointed directly as the Assistant Conservator of
Forest, MFS Grade-II in the year, 2014 on the recommendation of the
MPSC. As per the Rules, 1986, as amended from time to time, a Range
Forest Officer with certificate in Forestry/ Wild Life who have put in 5
(five) years regular service in the grade including those periods spent on
training on the certificate course, is eligible for consideration for
promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II. A Range Forest Officer is not
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[29]
eligible to undergo a diploma course in wildlife. But the contesting private
respondents had obtained diploma certificate fraudulently as alleged by
the petitioners, on the strength of which the review DPC in its meeting
held on 03-08-2020 considered their cases and recommended their
names for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. The State
Government, based on the said recommendation of the review DPC,
issued an order dated 31-08-2020 promoting ten Range Forest Officers
including the contesting private respondents to the post of the MFS
Grade-II. Since the contesting private respondents having been promoted
to the post of MFS Grade-II with effect from 02-12-2013, their names
have been shown in the final seniority list of the MFS Grade-II at serial
No.1 & 2. The objection raised by the petitioners before the finalization of
the seniority list, was not considered by the State Government nor was
any reason given thereof, if considered and disposed. Relying upon the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Siemens
Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India &
anr., (1976) 2 SCC 981, it has been contended by them that where an
authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must
record its reasons in support of the order it makes and every quasi-
judicial order must be supported by reasons. It has further been
submitted by them that the review DPC had failed to consider the fact that
the diploma certificates were obtained fraudulently by the contesting
private respondents with the result that they had become senior to the
petitioners and as and when a DPC is held for promotion to the post of
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[30]
the MFS Grade-I, an injustice would be done to them. The stand of the
State Government is that since the contesting private respondents have
been recommended on 03-08-2020 by the review DPC, they have been
appointed vide Government order dated 31-08-2020 which remains
unchallenged by anyone and therefore, they have been shown above the
petitioners in the final seniority list. In addition to the stand of the State
Government, it has been stated by the office of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest that the contesting private respondents had
undergone the diploma course vide Government order dated 14-07-2005
issued by the Secretariat: the Department of Forest & Environment,
Government of Manipur. Shri N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate appearing for
the contesting private respondents submitted that the review DPC was
held in compliance with this Court's order dated 20-12-2019 and on the
recommendation of the review DPC, the contesting private respondents
were appointed to the post of the MFS Grade-II with retrospective effect
from 02-12-2013 and that they were entitled to be shown in the final
seniority list keeping in mind the services rendered by them. There is
nothing wrong in showing the names of the contesting private
respondents above the petitioners in the final seniority list. The petitioners
have no case at all and accordingly, their writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed by this Court.
[11.2] It is not in dispute that the contesting private respondents were
appointed as the Range Forest Officers in the years between 1986 and
1989, while the petitioners were appointed directly as the Assistant
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[31]
Conservator of Forest, MFS Grade-II in the year, 2014 on the
recommendation of the MPSC. The post of the MFS Grade-II is a
promotional post from the post of the Range Forest Officer and the
promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II is to be made in terms of the
Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time. A meeting of a DPC was held
on 31-10-2013 for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II, before the
petitioners were appointed as the MFS Grade-II but the contesting private
respondents were not recommended for appointment on promotion on
the ground that there was no Range Forest Officer with diploma/
certificate in forestry/ wildlife. The matter was carried to this Court by way
of WP(C) No.83 of 2015 and with the interference by this Court, a review
DPC was held on 07-07-2018 and this time too, the contesting private
respondents were not recommended on the ground that they were not
within the zone of consideration. One of the contesting private
respondents approached this Court again by way of WP(C) No.898 of
2018 which was allowed on 20-12-2019 with the direction that a review
DPC be held and if the contesting private respondents were
recommended by the review DPC, they should be appointed on
promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. On the basis of the
recommendation of the review DPC, they were appointed on promotion to
the post of the MFS Grade-II with retrospective effect from 02-12-2013
vide Government order dated 31-08-2020, because of which they were
shown in the final seniority list above the petitioners. This final seniority
list is being challenged by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[32]
review DPC failed to consider the fact that the contesting private
respondents had obtained the diploma certificates fraudulently and they
could not be permitted to take advantage of the same. In view of the
contentions made by the petitioners, the answer to this issue will depend
upon and will lie in the validity and correctness of the diploma certificates
obtained by the contesting private respondents. It is not disputed by the
parties that the validity and correctness of the diploma certificates
obtained by the contesting private respondents is a subject matter in
issue in WP(C) No.116 of 2020 which is not listed before this bench. On
top of that, the validity and correctness of the diploma certificates
obtained by the contesting private respondents is being questioned in
WP(C) No.630 of 2020 which is listed before this bench. At this juncture,
one aspect which needs to be considered by this Court is the
submissions made by Shri Lenin Hijam, the learned Addl. Advocate
General and Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate that the issue
relating to the validity and correctness of the diploma certificates obtained
by the contesting private respondents, had been looked into and
considered by the Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment and order
dated 20-12-2019 passed in WP(C) No.898 of 2018, the relevant
paragraph 16 reads as under:
"16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Diploma
Course in Wildlife management is meant for the Forest
Officers of the rank of ACF/DCF and equivalent officers. The
petitioner and another person, who are Ranger Forest
Officers were recommended to undergo the Diploma Course
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[33]
in Wild Life Management even though they are Range
Forest Officers, as they had secured Honours in certificate
Course. The concerned officer had recommended them to
equip with latest development in Wildlife Management in the
country for managing many National Park and Wildlife
Sanctuary in the State. The Dean of Wildlife Institute of India
also communicated the eligibility of the two officers to
undergo the Diploma Course and the State Government also
agreed to the deputation of the petitioner and another officer
and they had also duly passed the said Course. In view of
the above, the respondent cannot contend that the petitioner
has obtained the certificate by playing fraud at the distant
point of time. In fact, the petitioner has undergone the said
Diploma Course as per the directions of his higher officials."
It is correct that the above observations have been made by the
Single Judge of this Court but the same appear to have been made on
the basis of the fact that the concerned officer of the Forest Department
had recommended the contesting private respondents to equip with the
latest development in Wildlife Management; that the Dean, Wildlife
Institute of India communicated their eligibility; that that the State
Government agreed to their deputation and that they had completed the
course and obtained the diploma certificates. Although the State
Government contended that the diploma course is to be undergone by
the Assistant Conservator of Forest and above that rank and the Range
Forest Officers are not eligible to undergo it, it appears to have failed to
produce all the relevant materials before the Single Judge for
consideration while considering the WP(C) No.898 of 2018. The Single
Judge appears to have made the above observations based on the
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[34]
materials placed before it. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners
have produced copies of the applications submitted by the contesting
private respondents for undergoing the diploma course wherein they are
alleged to have given false information and to have impersonated
themselves to be the Assistant Conservator of Forest, when they were in
fact at the rank of the Range Forest Officer. Despite the false information
being furnished by them, the State Government vide its letter dated
14-07-2005 permitted them to undergo the diploma course deliberately,
even though it was well aware of the fact that they were at the rank of the
Range Forest Officers which had prima facie shown that the contesting
private respondents were in collusion with the officials of the Forest
Department. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the
contesting private respondents had obtained the diploma certificates
fraudulently, appears to be prima facie correct. While making the above
observations, the Single Judge appears to have no idea about the alleged
false information furnished in their applications.
[11.3] While passing the said judgment and order dated 20-12-2019,
the Single Judge simply directed that a fresh review DPC be held in terms
of the Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest services (Amendment) Rules,
2010 to consider all eligible persons including the contesting private
respondents and if they were selected and recommended by the review
DPC, they should be appointed on promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II.
There is no specific direction in the said judgment and order dated
20-12-2019 that the contesting private respondents should automatically
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[35]
be appointed on promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. All that has
been directed by him, is that they should be considered in accordance
with law for grant of promotion. The grievance of the petitioners is that the
review DPC failed to consider the cases of all the eligible officers in
accordance with the provisions of the Manipur Forest services
(Amendment) Rules, 2010 and in other words, the review DPC had not
taken into account the allegation based on the documents that the
contesting private respondents had obtained the diploma certificates
fraudulently and on the contrary, the review DPC had proceeded on the
assumption that they were in possession of the diploma certificates in
forestry with the result that they had been promoted to the post of the
MFS Grade-II and had, thereafter, been shown in the final seniority list
above the petitioners. Their grievance is genuine for the reason that the
contesting private respondents were considered for promotion to the post
of the MFS Grade-II on the basis of their having undergone the diploma
course and not on the basis of their having undergone certificate course.
Therefore, the final seniority list for the post of the MFS Grade-II cannot
be said to be a legally valid final seniority list and hence, is unsustainable
in law.
[12] The second issue relates to the validity and correctness of the
diploma certificates which is alleged to have been obtained by the
contesting private respondents fraudulently. The allegation is based on
the false information furnished by them in their applications which are
placed on record and their impersonation of being the Assistant
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[36]
Conservator of Forest. Since the contesting private respondents were in
the rank of the Range Forest officers at that point of time, they could not
have been allowed to undergo the diploma course but for their false
information furnished in their applications, they had been allowed to
undergo the diploma course. As has been observed in the preceding
paragraphs, the officials of the Forest Department appear to have been
involved in furnishing the said false information and in other words, the
officials of the Forest Department appear to be in collusion with them,
otherwise it would not have been possible for the Forest Department to
grant permission to the contesting private respondents for undergoing the
diploma course. There is no specific averment made in the affidavit of the
contesting private respondents denying categorically the allegations
made by the petitioners that the diploma certificates were obtained by
them fraudulently except stating that they were deputed for undergoing
the diploma course in Wildlife Management by the State Government
considering the urgency and the need of wildlife trained manpower in the
Forest Department and that at that time, as there was no Assistant
Conservator of Forest to undergo the diploma course, the Central
Government insisted to provide wildlife trained officers in Zoo, national
park, Wildlife Sanctuary etc., otherwise its funding would be withdrawn. It
has further been stated in their affidavit admitting that the Range Forest
Officers cannot be directly considered for undergoing the diploma course
but in exceptional cases, the Range Forest officers with honors certificate
in Wildlife Management are also considered for deputation. In the past
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[37]
also, the Range Forest Officers had been deputed to undergo the
diploma course as a policy decision of the State Government adopted
from time to time to encourage the meritorious Range Forest Officers to
be equipped and to promote their professional skill for the benefit of the
Forest Department. There can be no issue on their averments mentioned
above that in exceptional cases, the Range Forest Officers can be
allowed by the Wildlife Institute of India to undergo the diploma course for
the reason that there is always an exception in the rules. Their averments
made in the affidavit appear to be correct to that extent. But it may be
noted that the ground on which the validity and correctness of their
diploma certificates is being questioned by the petitioners, is that the
diploma certificates had been obtained by fraudulent means. In other
words, to undergo the diploma course, they had claimed themselves to
be the Assistant Conservator of Forests which appears to be absolutely
incorrect. What was the need of claiming themselves to be the Assistant
Conservation of Forest for deputation, when they could undergo the
diploma course as the Range Forest Officers in exceptional
circumstances as contended by them. The Forest Department, Manipur,
knowing well that the contesting private respondents were only in the
rank of the Range Forest Officers, endorsed their claim and allowed them
to undergo the diploma course on deputation. This conduct of the Forest
Department had shown that their officials were hand in glove with them to
ensure that they could somehow undergo the diploma course so that they
could take advantage of it, while they were being considered for
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[38]
promotion to the next higher post. This is what appears to have exactly
happened in the present cases. Thus, it is seen that the allegation of the
petitioners has a prima facie case which needs to be gone into and
considered by this Court. Once the fraud committed by the contesting
private respondents in obtaining the diploma certificate is proved, they
cannot be permitted to enjoy the fruits of the diploma certificates in view
of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of
decisions. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath
(Dead) by Lts, (1994) 1 SCC 1 relied upon by the counsels appearing for
the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a judgment or
decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in
the eyes of law. Facts of the said case are slightly different from that of
the present case for the reason that in the said case, the order was
obtained by playing fraud on the Court. It is not so in the present cases.
However, in Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. UP Board of High School and
Intermediate Education & ors., (2003) 8 SCC 311, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed a general order holding that fraud is a conduct
either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to
take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the
former either by words or letter. This has been referred to in District
Primary School Council, West Bengal Vs. Mritunjoy Das & ors.,
(2011) 15 SCC 111 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that no person should be allowed to keep an advantage
which he has obtained by fraud. Similar is the case with Devendra
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[39]
Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ors., (2013) SCC 363 wherein it has
been held that it is settled position of law that where an applicant gets an
office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the
competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law. Therefore, the law is very clear on the issue relating to any
advantage being obtained by playing fraud but in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that it
may not be appropriate for this Bench to decide the second issue. As has
been observed hereinabove, since the validity and correctness of the
diploma certificates obtained by the contesting private respondents is
under challenge in WP(C) No.116 of 2020 and moreover, WA No.11 of
2020 arising out of the judgment and order dated 20-12-2019 passed by
the Single Judge in WP(C) No.898 of 2018 is already pending for
consideration by the Division Bench of this Court, it may not be
appropriate for this Bench to decide the same issue involved in WP(C)
No.630 of 2020 at this stage because any observation made by this
Bench in this regard may have a bearing on the said writ appeal.
[13] As regards the third issue, Rule 5(i)(C) of the Rules, 1986 as
amended vide Notification dated 01-04-2010, lays down the eligibility
criteria for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II from amongst the
Range Forest Officers in order of priority-one, a Range Forest Officer with
diploma in Forestry/ Wildlife who has put in four years regular service in
the grade including those periods spent on training on the diploma
course; two, a Range Forest Officer with certificate in Forestry/ Wildlife
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[40]
who has put in five years regular service in the grade including those
periods spent on training on the diploma course and three, a Range
Forest Officer without diploma/ certificate in Forestry/ Wildlife who has put
in seven years regular service in the grade. In other words, there are
three categories of the Range Forest Officers who are eligible for
consideration of promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II on priority
basis. This rule will have to be followed by the DPC while considering the
cases of the Range Forest Officers for promotion to the post of the MFS
Grade-II. The grievance of the petitioners in WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and
WP(C) No.31 of 2021 and in particular, the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of
2021 who were in the rank of the Range Forest Officers and had
undergone certificate course in Forestry/ Wildlife like the contesting
private respondents, is that the review DPC in its meeting held on 03-08-
2020, had failed to consider the above rule in its true spirit and
perspective. The review DPC has proceeded on the assumption that
since the contesting private respondents had obtained diploma
certificates, they had to be considered under the first category. In fact,
they had been considered under the first category. According to the
petitioners, the contesting private respondents ought to have been
considered under the second category for the reason that they had
obtained the certificates of the certificate course and that they could not
have been considered, as if they were in possession of the certificates of
diploma course because the manner in which the diploma certificates
were obtained by them was fraudulent and illegal. The consideration of
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[41]
the contesting private respondent by the review DPC under the first
category is illegal and without taking into account the illegality committed
by the review DPC, the State Government had issued the order dated
31-08-2020 promoting them to the post of the MFS Grade-II with effect
from 02-12-2013, as a result of which they had been placed above the
petitioners in the final seniority list. The specific case of the petitioners in
WP(C) No.31 of 2021 is that they were similarly situated with the
contesting private respondents, in the sense that they were also in the
rank of the Range Forest Officers along with the contesting private
respondents having undergone the certificate course but they were senior
to the contesting private respondents. Although the said petitioners have
been promoted to the post of the MFS Grade-II in the year, 2019 against
the subsequent vacancies, they ought to have been considered for the
vacancies which arose in the year, 2010-2013, when the contesting
private respondents were considered by the review DPC. The failure on
the part of the review DPC as well as the State Government to do that,
the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021 who were senior to the contesting
private respondents, have become junior to them in the final seniority list
with the result that as and when the MFS Grade-II officers are considered
for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-I, the contesting private
respondents would get the advantage over them. Seniority is one of the
conditions of service and therefore, when the eligible officers are
considered for promotion to the next higher post, the seniority list will
have to be considered by the DPC.
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[42]
[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 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
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
[43]
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 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.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Victoria MAYANG Digitally signed
by
LAMBAM MAYANGLAMBA
M CHANU
CHANU NANDINI
Date: 2021.02.19
NANDINI 14:45:54 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 606 of 2020 & Ors. Contd.../-
