Manipur High Court
Shri Moirangthem Ravikumar Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 18 April, 2022
Digitally
KABORA signed by
KABORAMBAM
MBAM SAPANA
CHANU
SAPANA Date:
2022.04.18
CHANU 13:59:39
+05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 991 of 2021 With
Shri Moirangthem Ravikumar Singh, aged about 31 years, S/O (L)
Moirangthem Achouba Singh, resident of Lalambung Makhong Takhellambam
Leikai, P.O. Imphal P.S. Lamphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary (in-charge of
Home), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, South Block, Babupara, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur, Manipur Police Headquarter,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented by the Secretary,
MPSC, Office at North AOC, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,,
Manipur - 795001.
4. Shri Lamabam Rajesh Khuman, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
5. Shri Khuraijam Boney Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
6. Shri Moirangthem Kajao Meeitei, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
7. Shri Nongmeikapam Inaocha Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of
Police, Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
8. Shri S. Santosh Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, Manipur
Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police Headquarter,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
9. Shri Chongtham Bimol Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
1
10 OF 2022
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
10. Shri Nongthombam David Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
11. Shri Sanasam Suraj Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
12. Shri Moirangthem Romen Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
13. Shri Thokchom Bomcha Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
14. Shri Thokchom Brajakishor Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
15. Shri Ksh. Tomba Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, Manipur
Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police Headquarter,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
16. Shri Phijam Sunil Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, Manipur
Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police Headquarter,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
17. Shri Laiphrakpam James Suresh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
18. Shri Yengkokpam Kayalkumar Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of
Police, Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
19. Shri Heman Haridas Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
2
10 OF 2022
20. Shri Mutum Peterson, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, Manipur
Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police Headquarter,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
21. Shri Moirangthem Ranjit Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
22. Md. Imdadullah Shah, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, Manipur
Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police Headquarter,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
23. Shri Potshangbam Siddhartha Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of
Police, Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
24. Shri Kshetrimayum Dhiren Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
25. Shri Waikhom Surankumar Singh, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
26. Shri Thokchom Jotin Meitei, now serving as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Manipur Police Department, C/O DGP, Manipur, Manipur Police
Headquarter, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
Manipur-795001.
......Respondents.
W.P. (C) No. 10 of 2022
1. Thokchom Manishana Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o. Th. Maimu Singh,
a resident of Brahmapur Thangapat Mapal, Lakpam Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur -- 795005.
2. S. Romesh Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o. S. Nilamani Singh, a resident
of Brahmapur, Bheigyabati Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal
East, Manipur -- 795002.
3. Md. Sanayaima Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o. (L) Md. Abdul Latif, a
resident of Thoubal Khekman Amakcham, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, District
imphal East, Manipur- 795138. ............Petitioners
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
3
10 OF 2022
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary / Special
Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, office at Old Secretariat Babupara,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director General of Police (DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
........Official Respondents
3. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) through
Chairman/Sécretary, North AOC, Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur -- 795001.
........Proforma Respondent
4. Lamabam Rajesh Khuman (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
5. Khuraijam Boney Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
6. Moirangthem Kajao Meitei (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001..
7. Nongmeikapam Imocha Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
8. S. Santosh Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
9. Chongtham Bimol Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
10. Nongthombam David Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
11. Sanasam Suraj Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
12. Moirangthem Romen Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
4
10 OF 2022
13. Thokchom Bomcha Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur- 795001.
14. Thokchom Brajakishor Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
15. Ksh. Tomba Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
16. Phijam Sunil Singh (OT), C/O The. Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
17. Laiphrakpam James Suresh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & PS. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-79S5001.
18. Yengkokpam Kayelkumar Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
19. Heman Haridas Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001. .
20. Mutum Peterson (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
21. Moirangthem Ranjit Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
22. Md. Imdadullah Shah (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S, Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
23. Potshangbam Siddhartha Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal,. P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
24. Kshetrimayum Dhiren Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001.
25. Waikhom Surankumar Singh (OT), C/O The Director General of Police
(DGP), Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001
26. Thokchom Jotin Meitei (OT), C/O The Director General of Police (DGP),
Manipur, office at PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
.........Private Respondents
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
5
10 OF 2022
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner : Mr. N. Zequeson, Advocate
Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. H. Samarjit, GA
Mr. RS Reisang, Sr. Advocate
Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. Biswajit, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 28.03.2022
Date of Order : 18.04.2022
O R D E R
[1] The above noted two writ petitions had been filed challenging the
proceedings of the DPC held on 23.12.2021 for promotion to the post of Sub-
Inspector (Male/Civil) and the order dated 24.12.2021 appointing 134
Assistant Sub-Inspectors on promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector
(Male/Civil) in the Manipur Police Department and with a prayer for quashing
and setting aside the impugned DPC proceedings dated 23.12.2021 and the
impugned order dated 24.12.2021 only in respect of the private respondents
No. 4-26, who have been promoted under the 15 % Out-Of-Turn promotion
quota.
On the prayer made by the counsel appearing for the parties, the
present two writ petitions have been taken up and heard jointly to consider
the prayer for passing interim order made by the petitioners.
[2] As the core issue involved in the present two writ petitions is about
the eligibility of the Private Respondents No. 4-26 for such promotion and the
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
legality or otherwise of the proceedings of the DPC meeting held on
23.12.2021 and subsequent order dated 24.12.2021 issued by the
Government appointing on promotion the private respondents No. 4-26 to the
post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Male/Civil) under the 15 % Out-Of-Turn
promotion quota as provided under the relevant recruitment rules, this Court
is of the considered view that it will be appropriate to examine the relevant
provisions of the Rules before considering the merit of the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
[3] Under the recruitment rules for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police,
the post is a selection post and the composition of DPC is a Class-III DPC.
The method of recruitment as provided under the said recruitment rules is
50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. In case of recruitment by
promotion, the following provisions are provided under column No. 11 of the
said recruitments rules:-
In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer, grades from which
promotion/deputation/transfer to be made.
PROMOTION
(1) 85% of the promotion quota shall be filled up from ASIs (Civil) having passed the
pre-promotion selection test prescribed by State Government and having
satisfactory completed the probation with 3 (three) years regular service in the
grade.
(2) 15 % of the promotion quota shall be filled up from ASIs having satisfactory
completed the probation and who have been recommended by the DGP for
promotion by reason of their conspicuous acts of gallantry in discharge of official
duties or who are outstanding sportsmen recognized by the All India Police Sports
Control Board with 2 (two) years regular service in the grade. Provided that-
(i) Officers recommended beyond the normal zone of consideration under category
(2) above shall be placed below officers recommended under normal zone of
consideration in the merit list.
(ii) If the promotion quota under Category (2) above cannot be filled up due to various
reasons, the same may be filled up from the category (1) above during a particular
recruitment year.
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
On careful examination of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of
Sub-Inspector of Police (herein after referred to as the recruitment rules for
short), it is clearly evident that the post of SI of Police (Male/Civil) is a
selection post and the recruitment/appointment is to be made on the basis of
a recommendation made by a Class-III DPC. It is also clearly evident that the
method of recruitment is 50 % by promotion and 50 % by direct recruitment
and that 85 % of the promotion quota is to be filled up from ASIs (Civil)
having been passed the pre-promotion selection test prescribed by the State
Government and having satisfactorily completed the probation with three
years regular service in the grade and the remaining 15 % of the promotion
quota is to be filled up from ASIs having satisfactorily completed the
probation and who have been recommended by the DGP for promotion by
reason of their conspicuous acts of gallantry in discharge of official duties or
who are outstanding sportsmen recognized by the All India Police Force
Control Board with two years regular service in the grade.
[4] It may be pertinent to mentioned here that as the DPC followed the
revised consolidated guidelines for promotion to selection post issued by the
Government of Manipur, vide OM dated 15.05.2014, this Court also carefully
examined the relevant guidelines which are reproduced herein below for
ready reference:-
"5. Procedure to be observed by DPC:
"C. Confidential reports:
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
"5.4. Confidential Rolls are the basic inputs on the basis of which
assessment is to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of CRs
should be fair, just and non-discriminatory.
Hence -
(a) The DPC' should consider CRs for equal number of years in
respect of all Officers considered for promotion subject to (c)
below -
(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the Officers for
promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular
reference to the CRs for 5 preceding years (except in cases where
R/Rs prescribes lesser qualifying service for promotion). However,
in cases where the required qualifying services is more than 5
years, the DPC should see the record with particular reference to
the CRs for the years equal to be required qualifying service (If
more than one CR has been written for a particular year, all the
CRs for the relevant year shall be considered together as the CR
for one year).
"D. Grading of Officers:
"5.5 In the case of each officer an overall grading should be
given. The grading shall be one among (i) Outstanding, (ii) Very
Good, (iii) Good, (iv) Average/Fair and (v) Unfit/Below Average
"5.6 Before making the overall grading after considering the CR
for the relevant years, the DPC should take into account whether
the Officer has been awarded any major or minor penalty or
whether any displeasure of any superior Officer or authority has
been conveyed to him as reflected in the ACRs. The DPC should
also give regard to the remarks against the column on integrity.
"E. Principles to be observed and preparation of panel:
"5.7 The list candidates considered by the DPC and the overall
grading assigned to each candidate, would form the basis for
preparation of the panel for promotion by the DPC. The following
principles should be observed in the preparation of the panel.
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
"(a) Having regard to the levels of the posts to which promotion are
to be made, the nature and importance of the duties attached to
the posts, a bench-mark grade would be determined for each
category of posts for which promotion are to be made by selection
method.
"(b) For promotion to all posts/services below the pay band Rs.
15600 - 39100 plus grade pay of Rs. 7600, the bench-mark
would be "Good" All Officers whose overall grading is equal to or
better than the bench-mark should be included in the panel for
promotion to the extent of the number of vacancies. They will be
arranged in order of their inter se seniority in the lower category
without reference to the overall grading obtained by each of them
provided that each one of them has an overall grading equal to or
better than the bench-mark of "Good".
"(c) In respect of all posts which are in the level of pay band Rs.
15600 - 39100 plus grade pay of Rs. 7600 and above, the bench-
mark grade should be "Very Good",
"(d) In case of 'selection' (merit) promotion, the hitherto existing
distinction in the nomenclature ('selection by merit', 'selection on
basis of merit with due regard to seniority, 'selection-cum-
seniority', etc.) is dispensed with and the mode of promotion in all
such cases is rechristened as 'selection' only. The element of
selectivity (higher or lower) shall be determined with reference to
the relevant bench-mark ("Very Good" or "Good") prescribed for
promotion.
"(e) The DPC shall determine the merit of those being assessed
for promotion with reference to the prescribed bench-mark and
accordingly grade the officers as 'fit' or 'unfit' only. Only those who
are graded 'fit' (i.e. who meet the prescribed bench-mark) by the
DPC shall be included and arranged in the select panel in order of
their inter-se seniority in the feeder grade. Those officers who are
graded 'unfit' (in terms of the prescribed bench-mark by the DPC
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
shall not be included in the select panel. Thus, there shall be no
supersession in promotion among those who are graded 'fit'
(in terms of the prescribed bench-mark) by the DPC.
"(f) Although among those who meet the prescribed bench-mark,
inter-se-seniority of the feeder grade shall remain intact, eligibility
for promotion will no doubt be subject to fulfillment of all the
conditions laid down in the relevant Recruitment/Service Rules,
including the conditions that one should be the holder of the
relevant feeder post on regular basis and that he should have
rendered the prescribed eligibility service in the feeder post.
"(g) Appointments from the panel shall be made in the order of
names appearing in the panel for promotion."
[5] The case of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 991 of 2021 is that he was
appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 04.02.2015 and he is
eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police
under the 15% Out-Of-Turn promotion quota as provided under the
Recruitment Rules as he had satisfactorily completed the probation period by
rendering more than five years regular service and as he is an outstanding
sportsmen recognized by the All India Police Sports Control Board for having
won a Gold Medal representing the State of Manipur in the National
Taekwondo Championship. The case of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 10 of
2022 is that they were all appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on
regular basis on 06.11.2014 and they have also successfully completed the
probation period by rendering more than seven years regular service. All the
three petitioners have been awarded Police Medal for gallantry for their
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
conspicuous acts of gallantry in discharge of official duties and in fact the
petitioner No. 3 have been awarded double Police Medal for gallantry, vide
order dated 14.08.2009 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs. Over and above receiving gallantry medals, the petitioner No. 1 also
received two Good Service Marks and the petitioner No. 2 also received one
Good Service Mark and accordingly, the petitioners are all qualified and
eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Male/Civil) under
the `15% Out-Of-Turn promotion quota as provided under the relevant rules.
The grievance of all the petitioners is that even though they are all
eligible for promotion, the authorities have not considered their cases for
promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the 15 % Out-Of-Turn
promotion quota and have given promotion to the private respondents No. 4-
26 even though they are not at all qualified and eligible for such promotion.
[6] It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that all the petitioners are neither gallantry awardees nor are they
outstanding sportsmen as contemplated under the relevant Recruitment
Rules and as such they are not eligible or qualified for promotion to the post
of Sub-Inspector of Police under the 15 % Out-Of-Turn promotion quota and
accordingly, their promotions under the impugned order dated 24.12.2021
are illegal and ultra vires the Recruitment Rules and such promotion are
liable to be stayed or suspended during the pendency of the present writ
petitions.
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
[7] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents No. 4-26 in W.P. (C) No. 10 of 2022 submitted that under
column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules of SI of Police, it is provided that 15
% of the promotion quota can be filled up from ASI having satisfactorily
completed the probation and who have been recommended by the DGP for
promotion by reason of their conspicuous acts of gallantry in discharge of
official duties or who are outstanding sportsmen recognized by All India
Police Force Control Board with two years regular service in the grade. It has
also been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the words
"Conspicuous Acts of Gallantry" used in the aforesaid Recruitment Rules
cannot be construed to confine only to gallantry awards, but it also includes
the award of Good Service Mark, if such Good Service Mark have been
awarded to personnel for their conspicuous acts of gallantry. The learned
senior counsel accordingly submitted that as the DGP has recommended the
cases of the respondents No. 4-26 for promotion in terms of the relevant
Recruitment Rules under the 15% Out-Of-Turn promotion quota, no illegality
had been committed by the authorities in promoting the respondents No. 4-
26 on the basis of the recommendation made by the DGP, who is the
competent authority under the relevant Recruitment Rules and accordingly,
no interference is called for from this Court.
[8] The learned senior counsel further submitted that all the petitioners
are not at all eligible or qualified for promotion to the post of SI of Police
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
inasmuch as the gallantry medals awarded to the petitioners were for
discharging conspicuous acts of gallantry while they were serving as
constables and that such gallantry medals cannot be taken into consideration
for their promotion to the post of SI from the rank of ASI as the same is not
permitted of bared under the standing order No. 189 dated 15.04.2021 and
the amendments made thereto. The learned senior counsel accordingly
submitted that as the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for such
promotion, they have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions or to
pray for granting any interim reliefs. In support of his contentions, the learned
senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of "K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerela and others" reported in (2006) SCC
395 (para 70-71).
Mr. H. Samarjit, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2
in both the writ petitions and Mr. S. Biswajit, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents No. 4-26 in W.P. (C) No. 991 of 2021 endorsed the
submission made by Mr. HS Paonam and also prayed for granting some time
for filing appropriate counter affidavits.
[9] In reply to the contentions made by Mr. HS Paonam regarding the
eligibility of the petitioners, it has been submitted by Mr. Kh. Khagemba that
the consideration for awarding Police Medal for gallantry to the petitioners
were processed when the petitioners were in the rank of police constable and
the gallantry meals were awarded to the petitioners after they were promoted
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
to the rank of Head Constable and that the petitioners were thereafter
promoted again to the rank of ASI from Head Constable under the normal
zone of consideration by virtue of their seniority position and that the gallantry
awards given to the petitioners were never used or considered in any
promotion given to the petitioners till date and accordingly, the petitioners are
entitled to get the benefit of the said gallantry awards for their promotion to
the post of SI of Police under the 15 % Out-Of-Turn promotion quota. The
learned counsel further submitted that in any case, since the petitioners No. 1
& 2 have been awarded Good Service Mark and since they are similarly
situated like the private respondents No. 4-26, there is no merit in the
submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are
not eligible or qualified for promotion to the post of SI of Police under the
15% Out-Of-Turn promotion quota.
[10] As directed earlier by this Court, Mr. RS Reisang, learned senior
counsel appearing for the Manipur Public Service Commission (respondent
No. 3) placed the proceedings of the Class-II Departmental Promotion
Committee Meeting held on 23.12.2021 in connection with the appointment
by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Male/Civil) in the Manipur Police
Department. On careful examination of the said proceedings of the DPC
meeting, it is clearly evident that while considering the cases of the officers
for promotion under the 85 % quota, the DPC followed the guidelines laid
down by the Government in the office memorandum dated 15.05.2014,
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
referred to herein above, as can be seen clearly at paragraph No. 6 & 9 of
the said DPC proceedings and made the recommendation for promotion on
the basis of the gradings of the respective ACRs of the candidates. However,
quite surprisingly, while considering the cases of the candidates for
promotion against the 15 % Out-Of-Turn promotion quota, the DPC did not at
all followed the guidelines of the Government under the above referred OM
dated 15.05.2014 and recommended the cases of the respondents No. 4-26
for their promotion on the basis of the achievements furnished by the
Administrative Departments and without at all considering the gradings of
their ACRs or of other eligible officers as mandated under the aforesaid OM
dated 15.05.2014. The relevant portions of the DPC proceedings which is at
paragraph 17 are as under:-
"17. For 23 (twenty-three) out-of-turn vacancies, the Committee
after carefully examining the achievements furnished by the
Administrative Department along with Integrity Certificate,
recommended the following for appointment by promotion to the
post of Sub-Inspector (Male/Civil) in the Home Department,
Manipur under 15 % Out-of-turn vacancies."
[11] On examination of the achievements of the respondents No. 4-26
furnished by the Administrative Department and on the basis of which the
DPC recommended them for their promotion, this Court found that except for
the respondents No. 4, 5 & 6, all the other remaining respondents No. 7-26
did not receive any gallantry awards and their promotion have been
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
recommended by the DGP only on the basis of the Good Service Marks
awarded to them.
[12] "Good Service Marks" are awarded to a Police Personnel under rule
43 Part-III of the Assam Police Mannual and the same is reproduced here
under for ready reference:-
"43. Good Service Marks.--(1) A good service mark is the
highest award which is ordinarily granted to a police officer, and
recommendations for this grant will be made sparingly, and must
be fully supported. All enrolled officers of and below the rank of
Inspector (including Sergent-Majors) and all un-enrolled officers
are eligible but Inspectors and surgent-Majors will be granted good
service marks only in very rare cases. -
(2) Good service marks are awarded normally for outstanding acts
of good service in specific cases, showing special ability, and not
merely for general good service, which is every officers duty. This
however, does not preclude the grant of a good service mark in
such cases, as for instance, where a Sub-Inspector, is given
charge of Police Station which has been allowed to get entirely out
of hand, and by persistant hard work and intelligence brings it to a
state of peace and freedom from crime' even though there is no
single specific act deserving the award. On the other hand, an
officer whose usual record is one of slackness or carelessness,
but who by a stroke of fortune detects an important case should
not be recommended for the award of a good service mark unless
it is clear that his success is the result of his own special efforts.
The essential point in this consideration is that the good service
mark system is the method of discriminating with a view to
eventual rapid promotion, between thé exceptionally capable
officer and the average.
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
(3) When a Superintendent of Police considers the conduct of an
officer deserving of the award of a good service mark, he will draw
up a proceeding giving full particulars of the case or cases
involved (with references where records are available, e.g., in
special report cases) and stating in what way the officer's work has
been exceptional, his recommendation, and any further remarks
bearing on the matter. In very exceptional cases an award of two
good service mark may be recommended.
(4) These proceedings will be forwarded in triplicate to the
Inspector General of Police for his orders. If the Inspector General
approves, one copy will be returned to the Superintendent of
Police with his orders. The award will be published in the police
gazette, and necessary entries (quoting references) will be made
by the Superintendent of Police in the District order Book, and in
the service sheet in red ink, of the officer concerned. If the
Inspector General of Police considers that the Service is not
sufficient for the award of a good service mark the proceedings will
be returned with an intimation to that effect and the Superintendent
of Police may grant any lesser award in the case which he may
think proper".
[13] On careful examination of the provisions of the above quoted rule 43
of the Assam Police Mannual, this Court is of the considered view that good
service marks are awarded normally for outstanding acts of good service in
specific cases, showing special ability, and not for any conspicuous act of
gallantry in discharge of official duty. In view of the above, this Court did not
agree or find substance in the submission made by Mr. HS Paonam that the
awards of good service marks given to the private respondents No. 4-26 are
also included within the ambit of the word "Conspicuous Acts of Gallantry" as
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
mentioned under column No. 11 (2) of the Recruitment Rules of the Sub-
Inspector of Police and that the respondents No. 4-26 are qualified and
eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the 15%
Out-Of-Turn promotion quota.
Even though the respondents No. 4, 5 & 6 are gallantry awardees,
their recommendation and subsequent promotion to the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police (Male/Civil) under the impugned order cannot be upheld
by this Court for the simple reason that while considering their cases, the
DPC neither took into consideration the guidelines laid down by the
Government under the OM dated 15.05.2014 and recommended them for
promotion only on the basis of their achievements furnished by the
Administrative Department and not on the basis of their ACRs, nor did the
DPC considered the cases of other eligible candidates within the zone of
consideration along with the cases of the respondents No. 4, 5 & 6 in
accordance with the provision of the relevant Recruitment Rules and the
guidelines laid down by the Government under the OM dated 15.05.2014.
[14] In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the
findings and reasons given herein above, this Court is of the view that the
petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case for passing an
interim order. In the result, it is hereby ordered that the impugned order dated
24.03.2021 so far as it concerns the respondents No. 4-25 (at serial No. 112-
134) shall remain suspended till the next date and the Respondents No. 1 &
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
2 are directed to issue necessary orders in compliance with this order as
early as possible.
As the present interim order had been passed before filing of any
counter affidavit by the respondents, liberty is given to the respondents to
approach this Court for vacation or modification of this interim order, if so
advised.
List these cases again on 09.05.2022.
Registrar Judicial Is directed to keep the proceedings of the DPC
dated 23.12.2021 in his custody and under sealed cover.
JUDGE
FR/NRF
Sapana
W.P. (C) NO. 991 OF 2021 WITH W.P. (C) NO.
10 OF 2022
