Manipur High Court
Irengbam Bijenkumar Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 17 June, 2021
ABUJAM
Digitally signed by ABUJAM SURJIT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=High court of manipur, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MANIPUR,
pseudonym=0e1b0ee3b6ffbed0d836a65b3c7514b4d7f927b1
5a538b5057a961df2de21ab9, postalCode=795002,
SURJIT SINGH
st=MANIPUR,
serialNumber=1e700e5572d1584e2ef9ded940fdfcda461fb9f5
fb09afe579b80bd60dcc588f, cn=ABUJAM SURJIT SINGH (through video conferencing)
Date: 2021.06.18 14:42:27 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.418 of 2021
Irengbam Bijenkumar Singh, aged about 34 years, S/O L.
Biren Singh of Haobam MarakKeisham Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Addl. Chief Secretary,(Forest
and Environment.), Government of Manipur, Secretariat Block,
P.O/P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of the
Forest Force, Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong P.O&P.S,
Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur.
... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 938 of 2019
1. Md. Dilawar Khan, aged about 34 years, S/o Md. Abdul Latif
Shah of Yairipok Bazar P.O&P.S Yairipok, Thoubal, District,
Manipur-795149.
2. Lourembam Shamananda Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o L.
Nabakumar Singh of Thongju Part-II, Chanchipur Super Market,
P.O. Chanchipur and P.S Singjamei, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795003.
3. Waikhom Premananda Meitei, aged about 37 years, S/o
WaikhomYaiskul Singh of KyamgeiMayai Leikai, P.O.
Chanchipur & P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795003.
4. Longjam Ramananda Singh, aged about 28 years, S/o. L.
Ibohal Singh of WangoiLongjam Leikai, P.O&P.S Wangoi,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795009.
5. Mr. Seixamang, aged about 24 years, S/o.(L) Ngulzahao of
Tuibuong Laizonveng. P.O& P.S Tuibuong, Churachandpur
District, Manpur-795125.
WP(C) No.418 Page 1
6. Mr. Themsing Ahum,aged about 27 years, S/o VajuiAhum of
Tongou Village, P.O&P.S Laitan, Ukhrul District, Manipur-
795142.
7. Khumbongmayum Herojit Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o.
Khumbongmayum Shatra Singh,
ofChingamathakNgalerabaLeirak P.O&P.S Singjamei, Imphal
East District, Manipur-795001.
8.Mr. Ningchangmi Vashum, aged about 25 years, S/o Yibhao
Vashum of Tusom Christian Village, P.O. Ukhrul& P.S Jessami,
Ukhrul District, Manipur-795142.
9.Kamei Thomkilak, aged about 29 years, S/o.K. Akhom of New
Keithelmanbi, P.O Langjing& P.S Patsoi, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795113.
10. Semthilanu ThangliansowAimol, aged about 32 years, S/o
Semthilanu Darengthoi Aimol of Aimol Khulen Village, P.O
Pallel& P.S Tengnoupal, Tengnoupal District, Manipur-795135.
11. Khwairakpam Rajeshwor Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o.
Kh. Nilakanta Singh of Nambol Sabal Leikai, P.O. &P.S Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur-795134.
12. Yumnam Roshan Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o Y.
Nilamani Singh ofPhaknungMayai Leikai, P.O Lamlong& P.S
Lamlai, Imphal East, Manipur-795010.
13. Bhudajit Maibam, aged about 28 years, S/o. (L) M.
Syamkeshor Singh of Maibam Chingning Makha Leikai. P.O&
P.S Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795134.
14.Masongam Horam, aged abougt 38 years, S/o. Sanot Horam
of House No.63, Type-III Langol Housing Complex, P.O&P.S
Lamphel, Imphal, West District, Manipur-795004.
15. Shekherjit Maibam, aged about 29 years, S/o. (L) M.
Syamkeshor Singh of Maibam Chingning Makha Leikai, P.O&P.S
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795134.
16. Sanasam Amrita Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o S.
Meghachandra Singh of Singjamei Sansasam Leikei, P.O& P.S
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.
17. Anju Luwangthem, aged about 25 years, D/o.(L) L.Bira Singh
of Nongmeibung Purana Rasbari-I, P.O& P.S Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur-795005.
WP(C) No.418 Page 2
18. Leimapokpam Kishan Pedro Singh, aged about 33 years,
S/o. L. Shyamjai of Singjamei Chingamakha Liwa Road.
P.O&P.S Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.
19. Newton Thongam, aged about 26 years, S/o. Th. Ibopishak of
Singjamei Chingamakha Ningthoujam Leikai, P.O&P.S
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.
20. Salam Ojit Singh, aged abot 32 years, S/o. S. Budha of
Yairipok Yambem Mathak Leikai, P.O Yairipok& P.S Andro,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
21. Binata Kongbrailatpam, aged about 27 years, D/o.
IbochaKongbrailatpam of Singjamei Chingamakha Kshetri
Leikai, P.O & P.S Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795008.
22. Landson Kshetrimayum, aged about 27 years, S/o. Ksh.
Manihar of Singjamei Chingamakha, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795008.
-Vs.-
1.The State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief Secretary
(Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur, Office at Old
Secretariate , Babupara, P.O&P.S.Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HoFF,
Government of Manipur, Office at Sanjenthong, P.O. Imphal &
P.S Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
With
MC(W.P. (C)) No.9 of 2020
Reference:- WP(C) No.938 of 2019
Shri Khumukcham Gunilal Singh, Aged about 35 years, S/o Kh.
Kalachand Singh, resident of KakchingKhunou, P.O&P.S
Waikhong, District, Kakching, Manipur, Pin 795103 and 2 Ors.
-Vs-
Md. Dilawar Khan, aged about 34 years, S/o Md. Abdul Latif
Shah of Yairipok Bazar P.O&P.S Yairipok, Thoubal, District,
Manipur-795149 and 23 Ors.
WP(C) No.418 Page 3
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioners : Mr.HS.Paonam, Sr. Advocate
Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Lenin Hijam, Addl. AG
Date of Judgment & Order : 17.06.2021.
ORDER
17.06.2021
Heard Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel and Mr. M.
Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, Mr. Lenin
Hijam, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents and
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in
MC(WP(C)) No.9 of 2020. As agreed by all the counsel appearing for the
parties, the present two writ petitions and the miscellaneous application are
heard jointly and being disposed of by this common order.
[1]. The case of the writ petitioners is that the Government of Manipur
issued an advertisement No.MFFR/2016 dated 16.08.2016 notifying 59(fifty-
nine) vacant posts of Forester falling in direct recruitment quota for filling up
by direct recruitment. Pursuant to the said advertisement, a number of eligible
candidates including the present petitioners applied for the said advertised
posts.
[2]. The written test and viva voce test was conducted on 27.11.2016 and
10.12.2016 respectively and proceeding of the said DPC was submitted to the
Administrative Department on 30.12.2016. Thereafter the Government convey
WP(C) No.418 Page 4
is approval to the proceeding of the DPC on the same day, i.e., on
30.12.2016. The result of the said DPC could not be declared due to the
election model code of conduct which was imposed in the state of Manipur
w.e.f 04.01.2017 in connection with the 11th General Assembly Elections.
[3]. Before the Forest Department could announced the result of the said
DPC, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel
Division) directed the administrative department to cancel the proceeding of
the said DPC by a letter dated 05.12.2017. Pursuant to the said letter of the
DP dated 05.12.2017, the Deputy Secretary ( Forest and environment),
Government of Manipur, issued an order dated 16.12.2017 declaring the
proceeding of DPC for recruitment of Foresters as null and void and
thereafter directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of
Manipur, to hold fresh appointment/recruitment of the said vacant posts
within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of issue of the said order.
[4]. The said letter dated 16.12.2017 declaring the proceeding of the DPC
for recruitment of Foresters as null and void was challenged by certain
candidates including some of the present writ petitioners by filing WP(C)
No.70 of 2019 and other connected cases before this Court. In WP(C) No.70
of 2019, this Court passed an order on 11.03.2019 directing the State
Government to reconsider the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2017cancelling
the recruitment process in respect of the 71(seventy-one) posts of forester
and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law for
appointment of the petitioners as Forester within a period of 3(three) months.
[5]. In purported compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, the
Under Secretary of Forest and Environment Department issued an order
WP(C) No.418 Page 5
dated 28.05.2019 reaffirming its earlier decision for going ahead with fresh
recruitment in respect of the 93(ninety-three) vacant posts of forester
including the earlier 59( fifty-nine) advertised posts of forester. Subsequently
the Under Secretary (Forest and Environment),Government of Manipur,
issued a letter dated 04.11.2019 addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forest directing the latter to take necessary action for fresh recruitment in
respect of the 93(ninety three) posts of forester in the forest department.
[6]. Having been aggrieved, the present petitioners approached this Court
again by filing WP(C) No. 930 of 2019 assailing the aforesaid order dated
16.12.2017 cancelling the recruitment process of 71(seventy one) posts of
Foresters and letter dated 04.11.2019 of the Government for initiating fresh
recruitment process to fill up the 93 vacant posts of forester including the
earlier 59 advertised posts.
In W.P. (C) No. 938 of 2019, this Court passed an interim order
dated 20.11.2019 suspending the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 and
impugned letter dated 04.11.2019 and the said interim order is still in
operation.
[7]. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as by the learned Addl. AG that the only reason for
cancelling the earlier DPC proceeding for recruitment of 71(seventy one )
foresters was because of the excess recommendation made by DPC
recommending 71 candidates as against only 59(fifty nine) advertised posts.
[8]. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, Government of Manipur, wrote a letter dated
05.02.2021 to the Administrative Department highlighting the recruitment
WP(C) No.418 Page 6
process in respect of 71( seventy one) post of foresters and filling of the
several writ petitions in connection with the said recruitment process. In the
said letter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest specifically pointed out
that the total sanction post of Foresters in the Manipur Forest Department is
186(one eighty-six). Out of the said 186 posts, 93 posts are to be filled up by
direct recruitment and the remaining 93 posts are to be filled up by promotion.
It was also pointed out that except for two incumbents in the promotion quota,
all the remaining 184 posts of forester in Manipur Forest Department are
presently lying vacant due to which the department is facing a lot of
inconvenience and difficulties in carrying out important duties like patrolling of
forest, prevention of fire, eviction of forest encroachment, etc. In view of the
above, the principal Chief Conservator of forest submitted a proposal to the
Government to approach this Court by filling an affidavit seeking leave from
the Court to allow the Government to fill up only 59 posts of forester which
was earlier advertised by the Department. Subsequently the State
Government by a letter dated 22.02.2021 conveyed the approval of the
Government to approach this Court seeking leave to allow the Government to
declare result of the DPC for recruitment of only 59(fifty-nine) advertised posts
of forester at the earliest.
[9]. On having knowledge about the subsequent development of the
Government taking a decision to declare the result of the DPC for recruitment
of only 59 advertised posts of forester, WP(C) No.418 of 2021 was filed
before this Court with a prayer for directing the State Government to declare
the result of the recruitment process for appointment of 59(fifty-nine)
Foresters in the Forest Department pursuant to the advertisement dated
WP(C) No.418 Page 7
16.08.2016 and to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as
Foresters in the Forest Department on the basis of the result of the said
recruitment process.
[10]. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently
submitted that the State Government simultaneously advertised a number of
vacant posts in Forest Department including Deputy Rangers, Forest Guard
and Foresters and the recruitment process were also carried out
simultaneously. In respect of the Deputy Rangers and Forest Guards, the
Sate Government has already declared the result and issued appointment
orders. However, in respect of the foresters, the State Government arbitrary
takes a decision to cancel the recruitment process only on the ground that
DPC recommended excess number of candidates as against the advertised
post. It has also further been submitted that in view of deficiency of the staff
in the grade of forester, the State Government has taken a decision to declare
the result of the recruitment process in respect of only 59 advertised posts of
foresters and to make appointment thereafter on the basis of the result of the
said DPC. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the present writ petitions
can be disposed of by directing the State Government to declare the result of
the DPC for recruitment of only 59(fifty-nine) advertised posts of forester and
to make necessary appointment thereafter within a stipulated period.
[11]. Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. AG fairly submitted that the
Government has taken the decision for cancellation of the recruitment
process of the foresters on the basis of the report submitted by the Special
Investigation Team wherein it is clearly indicated that the DPC recommended
excess number of candidates as against the advertised posts. It has also
WP(C) No.418 Page 8
further been submitted by the learned Addl. AG that because of the
deficiency of the staff in the grade of forester and the difficulties faced by the
department because of the deficiency of the such staff, the State Government
has taken a policy decision to declare the result of the DPC proceeding in
respect of only 59( fifty nine) advertised post of the foresters. It has further
been submitted that there will not impediment in law in allowing the
Government to declare the result of the DPC in respect of only the 59(fifty-
nine) posts of forester in the peculiar situation of the present cases and to
mitigate the difficulties and hardship faced by the department and that such
decision is only aone time measure and shall not be made as a precedent in
future.
[12]. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in
MC(W.P. (C)) No. 9 of 2020 submitted that out of the 3(three) applicant
2(two) of them have already failed in recruitment process before facing the
viva voce test and the other remaining applicant appeared and faced the viva
voce test. It has also been submitted that there are lots of irregularities and
illegalities in process of selection of the foresters and accordingly, the
Government has taken a decision to declare the recruitment process as null
and void and to cancel the same. As the W.P. (C) No.938 of 2019 has been
filed assailing the aforesaid decision of the Government, the applicants are
desirous of being impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition and to
contest the same.
[13]. At this juncture, this Court is of the considered view that since the
Government has taken a subsequent decision to declare the result of the
DPC in respect of the advertised posts of forester, this Court is not required
WP(C) No.418 Page 9
to consider and decide the correctness and legality of the Government order
dated 16.12.2017 cancelling the recruitment process of Foresters and letter
dated 04.11.2019 for initiating fresh recruitment process. Moreover, the
present applicants will have ample opportunity to challenge any step taken by
the Government by filing appropriate proceedings if they feel aggrieved by
any of the decisions taken by the Government. In this view of the matter, the
prayer made by the applicants for impleading them as respondents in the
writ petition is rejected as this Court is of the view that they are neither proper
nor necessary parties in present writ proceedings. However it is made clear
that if the present applicants feel aggrieved by the result of the said DPC or
by any subsequent decision of the Government, they are at liberty to assail
the same by filling appropriate proceedings.
[14]. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the
considered view that State Government has taken the decision to cancel the
proceeding of the DPC for recruitment of the 71 foresters in the Manipur
Forest Department only on the basis of report made by the Special
Investigation Team wherein it is specifically mentioned that the DPC
recommended excess number of candidates as against the advertised posts.
In the additional affidavit filed by the State Government in connection with
WP(C) No.418 of 2021,State Government has specifically stated that there
was no irregularity and illegality in the recruitment process of foresters
whatsoever except for the report of the Special Investigation Team that the
DPC recommendate71 candidates which is in excess of the 59(fifty-nine)
advertised posts. Subsequently, the Government has taken a decision to
declare the result of the DPC proceeding in respect of only 59 (fifty nine)
WP(C) No.418 Page 10
advertised post of foresters and to appoint the recommended candidates on
the basis of the result of the said DPC in order to mitigate the difficulties and
hardship faced by the Department because of the shortage of foresters in the
forest department.
[15]. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the
following directions:-
(I). The State Government can declare the result of the DPC
held pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 for recruitment of
only 59 (fifty-nine) posts of forester in Manipur Forest Department
within a period of 2(two) weeks from today; and
(II). the State Government is further directed to consider for
giving appointment to the successful candidates in respect of the 59
(fifty-nine)advertised posts of forester within a period of one month
from date of the announcement of the result.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of
without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be furnished to all the counsel appearing for the
parties through their respective e-mail or whatsaAp.
JUDGE
Ab.Surjit
WP(C) No.418 Page 11
