Manipur High Court
Shri Laishram Biramangol Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 6 September, 2021
Digitally signed
SHOUGRA by
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA [1]
DEVANAN SINGH
DA SINGH Date: 2021.09.06
10:02:34 +01'00'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review Petn. No. 4 of 2021
Arising out of WP(C ) No.685 of 2020 & 31 of 2021
[Ref: WP(C) No.685 of 2020]
1. Shri Laishram Biramangol Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o L.
Chaoba Singh, a resident of Laitonjam Makha Leikai, P.O.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin - 795134.
2. Shri Kharibam Hitler Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Kh.
Ibotombi Singh, a resident of Lamshang Makha Leikai, SDC
Lamshang Bazar, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin - 795147.
...Review Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by its Commissioner/
Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur,
Imphal, PIN - 795001.
2. The Commissioner/ Secretary (Forest & Environment),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur, PIN -
795001.
3. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, North AOC, DM Road, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-
795001.
4. 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.
5. Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu, aged about 38 years, D/o S.
Shyamkishor Singh of Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamlong and Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
...Respondents
-AND-
[Ref: WP(C) No. 31 of 2021]
1. Shri Laishram Biramangol Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o L.
Chaoba Singh, a resident of Laitonjam Makha Leikai, P.O.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin - 795134.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[2]
2. Shri Kharibam Hitler Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Kh.
Ibotombi Singh, a resident of Lamshang Makha Leikai, SDC
Lamshang Bazar, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin - 795147.
...Review Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief Secretary,
(Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur, Secretariat,
PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal-West, Manipur- 795001.
2. The Secretary/ Commissioner, Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms (DP), Government of Manipur,
Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal-West, Imphal,
Manipur- 795001.
3. The Under Secretary, (Forest & Environment), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal-West,
Manipur- 795001.
4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of
Manipur, Sanjenthong, PO & PS Imphal, District-Imphal West,
Forest & Department, Manipur - 795001.
5. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented by the
Secretary, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District- Imphal
West, Manipur-795001.
6. Dr. Rebika Soibam Chanu, aged about 38 years, D/o S.
Shyamkishor Singh of Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamlong and Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
7. 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.
8. Mr. Nepolean Rongmei, aged about 28 years, S/o Owen, a
resident of Nungnang Village, Khoupum Sub-Division, Noney
District, Manipu, Pin - 705147.
9. Ms. Elangbam Nirmala Chanu, aged about 29 years, S/o (L)
Elangbam Nilakanta Singh, a resident of Uripok Achom Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin -
795001.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[3]
10. 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.
11. Ms. Vaneichong Singson, aged about 30 years, D/o Lamkholen
Singson, a resident of Zomi Village, North AOC Imphal East
District, Manipur, Pin - 795005.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
For the petitioners :: Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Shri R.S. Reisang, Sr. Advocate;
Shri H. Tarunkumar, Advocate;
Shri Ng. Jotindra, Advocate &
Shri Bimal Kumar, Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 24-08-2021
Date of Judgment & Order :: 06-09-2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned Advocate appearing
for the review petitioners; Shri H. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7; Shri Ng. Jotindra Luwang,
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[4]
learned Advocate appearing for two of the respondents; Shri R.S.
Reisang, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5
and Shri Bimal Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the State
respondents. So far as the other respondents are concerned, no one
has entered appearance on their behalf nor are they present in the
Court.
[2.1] The above review petition has been preferred by the review
petitioners questioning a portion of the common judgment and order
dated 19-02-2021 passed by this Court disposing of five writ petitions
being WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020; WP (C) No. 630 of
2020; WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021. In other words,
the review petition has been filed against a portion of the said judgment
and order concerning the writ petitions being WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and
WP(C) No.31 of 2021 only. Since only a portion of the said judgment
and order in respect of two writ petitions being WP(C) No.685 of 2020
and WP(C) No.31 of 2021 has been questioned, the rest of the judgment
and order in respect of the remaining three writ petitions may have
attained finality, if no appeal has been preferred against it. The grounds
on which the review petition has been filed, are twofold-one, WP(C)
No.685 of 2020 had been allowed by this Court without an opportunity
being given to the review petitioners who were the respondents therein,
to file an affidavit-in-opposition with the result that the writ petition had
been allowed without any contest and in view thereof, WP(C) No.31 of
2021 was disposed of and two, some new and crucial documents were
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[5]
discovered by them after the common judgment and order being
pronounced by this Court which do have bearing on the issues involved
in the said two writ petitions. These documents were not in their
possession, at the time of hearing and disposal of the said writ
petitions, with due diligence.
[2.2] An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent
No.6 & 7 raising an objection as regards the maintainability of the
review petition on the ground that the grounds taken therein are not
within the scope of filing review petition and in addition thereto, it has
been stated that on 27-01-2021 when all the writ petitions were
directed to be listed on the next day for final disposal, the review
petitioners did not raise any objection nor did they challenge the order
dated 27-01-2021 before the appellate forum. A review petition in the
guise of an appeal cannot be entertained and moreover, re-
appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the review petition for the
reason that out of seven documents relied upon by the review
petitioners, four had already been placed on record by them.
[3.1] Before considering the said two grounds, this Court deems it
appropriate to narrate, in short, the facts and circumstances of the case.
The review petitioners and the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021 were
appointed as the Range Forest Officers in the years between 1986 and
1989, while the petitioners in WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of
2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020 were appointed directly as the
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[6]
Assistant 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
Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules, 1986" as amended from time to time. 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 in the following manner:-
"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."
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[7]
From the aforesaid rules, it is seen that a Range Forest Officer
with a diploma in Forestry/ wildlife, is given the first priority for
promotion to the post of MFS Grade-II/ Assistant Conservator of Forest,
if he or she has put in four years regular service in the grade of Range
Forest Officer. It may be noted at this juncture that a Range Forest
Officer is not eligible for undergoing a Diploma Course in Forestry/
Wildlife, in the sense that such a Diploma Course is meant for the
Assistant Conservator of Forest and above its rank.
[3.2] A meeting of a DPC was held on 31-10-2013 for promotion to
the post of the MFS Grade-II but the review petitioners 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 review petitioners were not
recommended on the ground that they were not within the zone of
consideration. One of the review petitioners approached this Court 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 review petitioners
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
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[8]
were shown in the final seniority list above the petitioners in WP(C)
No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020.
[3.3] The aforesaid five writ petitions can be categorised into two
groups in terms of prayers made therein-one, writ petitions where the
validity and correctness of the seniority list was challenged and two,
writ petitions where the validity and correctness of the promotion being
granted to the review petitioners, was challenged. The final seniority list
came to be challenged in WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of
2020 by the petitioners therein mainly on the ground that the review
DPC failed to consider the fact that the review petitioners had obtained
the diploma certificates fraudulently and they could not be permitted to
take advantage of it. To substantiate their contentions, the petitioners
therein produced copies of the application forms submitted on 01-09-
2005 by the review petitioners to the Wildlife Institute of India.
In WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and WP(C) No.31 of 2021, the
Government order dated 31-08-2020 by which the review petitioners
were promoted to the post of MFS Grade-II, came to be challenged on
the grounds that the review petitioners could not have been considered
by the review DPC 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 recommending
their names for promotion to the post of the MFS Grade-II. The
promotions granted to the review petitioners would have a great impact
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[9]
and consequence while considering them for getting further promotion
to the post of the MFS Grade-I. It is a well settled law that if a particular
act is fraudulent, any consequential order issued pursuant to such act
is non-est and void ab initio and no person shall be allowed to take
advantage of it. The DPC held on 03-08-2020 had failed to consider the
case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.31 of 2021, even though they were
the senior most persons within the zone of consideration. 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 of
India.
[3.4] The allegations made in the writ petitions that the diploma
course was undergone fraudulently by the review petitioners in
collusion with the officials of the State Government, when they were not
eligible for undergoing it, were not denied by the State respondents nor
were they denied by the review petitioners. The stand of the State
respondents was that the review petitioners were 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
put in more than six years, were not willing to undergo the diploma
course thereby losing the State quota of seats. The stand of the review
petitioners as indicated in their affidavit, was almost similar to that of
the State respondents.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[10]
[4] After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties and after having considered the materials on record, this Court
passed the judgment and order dated 19-02-2021, the relevant
paragraphs of which read as under:
[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 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
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[11]
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 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
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[12]
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 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
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[13]
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
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.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[14]
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 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
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[15]
the grade including those periods spent on training on the
diploma course; two, a Range Forest Officer with certificate
in Forestry/ Wildlife 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 the contesting private respondent by the
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[16]
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.
[5] As regards the first ground advanced by the review
petitioners, this Court perused the proceedings of this Court in the said
writ petitions including WP(C) No.685 of 2020 and on perusal thereof, it
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[17]
is seen that in WP(C) No.685 of 2020, notice was issued by this Court
on 22-12-2020 to the respondents including the review petitioners who
received it allegedly on 20-01-2021 and 22-01-2021. While issuing the
notice, it was directed by this Court that WP(C) No.685 of 2020 be
listed along with WP(C) No.606 of 2020 which was already ready for
hearing. On 27-01-2021 when all the writ petitions including WP(C)
No.685 of 2020, were listed for consideration, there was no any prayer
made from the side of the review petitioners for grant of time to file
counter affidavits and the only prayer made by their counsel was that
the application filed by the review petitioners for vacation of interim
order be considered. However, keeping in mind the rival contentions
made by the counsels appearing for the parties, this Court expressed
the view that instead of considering the application, it would be better if
the writ petitions were disposed of finally. Accordingly, the writ petitions
were directed to be listed the next day.,28-01-2021 for final disposal
and the counsels appearing for the parties permitted to their written
submissions. No objection was raised by any of the counsels, when the
writ petitions were directed to be listed on 28-01-2021 for final disposal.
The reason as to why no such prayer was made by the counsel
appearing for the review petitioners that they should be given some
time for filing counter in WP(C) No.685 of 2020 appears to be that the
facts and circumstances and the allegations made against the review
petitioners, were common in all the writ petitions and that the review
petitioners had already filed counter affidavits in the connected matters.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[18]
Therefore, the submission of the counsel appearing for the review
petitioners that no opportunity was given to them for filing counter
affidavit, is incorrect. It appears to be an after-thought on the part of the
review petitioners to make such a submission and moreover, even if
they were given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit, they could
have not filed an affidavit taking a stand contrary to the one taken by
them in the connected matters because, according to them, the
documents were discovered only after the delivery of the judgment and
order. In other words, the copies of their applications, produced by the
petitioners therein, wherein the review petitioners had specifically
mentioned that the post held by them before the submission of
applications, was the Assistant Conservator of Forest, were not denied
by them. Therefore, the review petition is misconceived and requires no
indulgence of this Court. So far as the writ petition being WP(C) No.31
of 2021 is concerned, it may be noted that after the notice being issued
therein, the appropriate steps were not taken by the petitioners therein
for service of notice upon the respondents and accordingly, it was not
allowed by this Court in terms of or pursuant to the portion of the
judgment and order allowing WP(C) No.685 of 2020 but it was simply
disposed of without making any observation in view of WP(C) No.685
of 2020, for which no review petition is maintainable. There is no
ground at all, on the basis of which the review petitioners can be said to
be aggrieved by the disposal of the writ petition without any observation
of this Court made therein.
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[19]
[6] So far as the second ground is concerned, it has been
submitted by Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the
review petitioners that some documents, copies of which have been
filed along with the review petition, were discovered after the disposal
of the writ petitions. According to him, these documents would have a
bearing on the issues involved in the said writ petitions. It has further
been submitted by him that the review petition be allowed reviewing a
portion of the judgment and order so that the review petitioners could
get an opportunity to bring the said documents on record and make
their submissions thereon. These documents are copies of the letters
dated 01-07-2005 addressed to the PCCF, Manipur by the review
petitioners; a copy of the letter dated 02-07-2005 addressed to the
Deputy Secretary (Forest & Environment), Manipur by the PCCF,
Manipur; a copy of the order dated 14-07-2005 issued by the Deputy
Secretary (Forest & Environment), Manipur and a copy of the letter
dated 21-07-2005 of the PCCF, Manipur along with their applications
dated 21-07-2005 and from the perusal thereof, it is clearly seen that
although the review petitioners requested the State Government for
their up-gradation as i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest, no material
has been placed on record by the review petitioners to show that their
request had been accepted by the State Government. It is nowhere
stated in the order dated 14-07-2005 issued by the State Government
that the request of the review petitioners had been accepted by it and it
was only an order according sanction for deputation. But in their
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[20]
applications dated 21-07-2005 to be forwarded to the Wildlife Institute
of India, the review petitioners had written themselves to be i/c
Assistant Conservator of Forest which were forwarded by the PCCF,
Manipur to the Director, Wildlife Institute of India without disclosing the
truth. On receipt of the said letter dated 21-07-2005, the Dean, Faculty
of Wildlife Science, Wildlife Institute of India, without knowing the truth,
informed the PCCF, Manipur that the review petitioners were found
eligible for the said Diploma Course with a request to direct them to
report at the Institute vide letter dated 23-08-2005. The Director,
Wildlife Institute of India appears to have proceeded on the footing that
the review petitioners were i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest, though
in fact they were the Range Forest Officers. After the receipt of the said
letter dated 23-08-2005, the PCCF, Manipur issued an order dated 30-
08-2005 thereby releasing them to report for undergoing the said
Diploma Course. The averments made by the review petitioners
hereinabove, if true, are not new facts, the relevant documents of which
appear to be already in the records of the State Government and since
the review petitioners knew about them, they could have incorporated
about the same in their counter affidavits but they failed to do so. The
State respondents did not say anything about them in their Counter
affidavit. On the contrary, while making the allegations against the
review petitioners that they did undergo the Diploma Course
fraudulently, the petitioners in the writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of
2020, did produce copies of the application forms wherein the post held
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[21]
by the review petitioners, had been written as the Assistant
Conservator of Forest. It is really interesting to note that initially the
review petitioners wrote in the applications as i/c Assistant Conservator
of Forest but within a span of few months, they wrote in their other
applications as the Assistant Conservator of Forest, as if they had been
promoted in the meantime. In the absence of any order issued by the
State Government that they had been upgraded to the post of the
Assistant Conservator of Forest on in charge basis or they had been
promoted to the post of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, their
writing as i/c Assistant Conservator of Forest or the Assistant
Conservator of Forest in the official records as the case may be, would
amount to fraudulent act which is illegal. On the basis of the said
documents produced by the petitioners therein, this Court had
countenanced their allegations against the review petitioners and
accordingly allowed the said writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of
2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C) No.685 of 2020.
[7] As seen from the preceding paragraphs, three writ petitions
namely WP(C) No.606 of 2020; WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and WP(C)
No.685 of 2020, were allowed by this Court vide its common judgment
and order dated 19-02-2021. But the review petition has been filed only
in respect of the portion thereof allowing the writ petition being WP(C)
No.685 of 2020. The portion of the judgment and order relating to
WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of 2020 appears to have
attained finality, as it has not been brought to the notice of this Court by
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
[22]
any of the parties that an appeal has been preferred against it. To allow
the review petition and pass an order after re-hearing the WP(C)
No.685 of 2020 by rejecting it, will render the judgment and order dated
19-02-2021 a conflicting one, in the sense that one portion thereof will
be in favour of the petitioners who filed the writ petition being WP(C)
No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of 2020 and the other portion in
favour of the review petitioners, which is not permissible in law. In other
words, two conflicting orders cannot be passed by the Court on the
basis of the same facts and the same allegations. In view of the above,
this Court is of the opinion that the only remedy available with the
review petitioners is to prefer an appeal before the appellate forum
against the common judgment and order so that the appellate forum
can consider it as a whole and interfere with it.
[8] For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered view that the review petition is devoid of any merit and is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
Rev. Petn. No. 4 of 2021
