5:35:20 +05'30' vs The State Of Manipur Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 245 Mani

                                                                                            Page |1

SHAMUR Digitally signed
AILATPA by
        SHAMURAILATP
                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                     AT IMPHAL
M       AM SUSHIL
        SHARMA
SUSHIL Date: 2022.06.08                           WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018
        15:35:20 +05'30'
SHARMA                     Salam Gopen Singh, aged about 41 years old, S/o (L)

                           Salam Ranjit Singh of Thanga Salam Leikai, P.O. and

                           P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Bishnupur-795133,

                           Manipur.

                                                                          ....Petitioner


                                                         -V E R S U S-

                           1.    The State of Manipur through the Principal

                                 Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary                 (Home),

                                 Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.

                                 Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Imphal-

                                 795001.

                           2.    The Director General of Police, Government of

                                 Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, P.O. &

                                 P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur,

                                 Imphal-795001.

                           3.    The Manipur Public Service Commission through

                                 the    Secretary,       Manipur      Public      Service

                                 Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,

                                 Imphal-795001, Manipur.




                           WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019
                                                                  Page |2



4.    Shri Naorem Pritam Kumar Singh, aged about 36

      years old, S/O (L) Naorem Poulendra Singh, a

      permanent resident of Moirangkhom Sougaijam

      Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal-795008,

      Imphal West District, Manipur.

                                                       .... Respondents

MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Ref:- WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018

Shri Naorem Pritamkumar Singh, aged about 36 years

old, S/O (L) Naorem Poulendra Singh, a permanent

resident of Moirangkhom Sougaijam Leirak, P.O. &

P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.

-V E R S U S-

1. Salam Gopen Singh, aged about 41 years old,

S/o (L) Salam Ranjit Singh of Thanga Salam

Leikai, P.O. and P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur

District, Bishnupur-795133, Manipur.

.......Principal Respondent/Petitioner

2. The State of Manipur through the Principal

Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Home),

Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Page |3

Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Imphal-

795001.

3. The Director General of Police, Government of

Manipur, Manipur Police Head Quarter, P.O. &

P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur,

Imphal-795001.

4. The Manipur Public Service Commission through

the Secretary, Manipur Public Service

Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,

Imphal-795001, Manipur.

.... Proforma Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner :: Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, GA, Mr. A.Mohendro, Advocate for R-4, Mr. RS Reisang, Sr. Advocate for the MPSC

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 10.05.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 06.06.2022

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Page |4

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

This writ petition has been filed to quash the

impugned seniority list of Jemadars of Manipur Police

Department so far as declaring the fourth respondent as

Scheduled Caste [SC] category, as the same is against the

record. The petitioner also sought direction on the respondents

to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post

of Subedar in Manipur Police Department under SC category.

2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is that on the

recommendation of Class-III DPC held on 7.11.2006, the

petitioner and the fourth respondent were initially appointed as

Jemadars in Manipur Police Department and the name of the

petitioner is found in the order dated 18.12.2006 under the

category of SC and the name of the fourth respondent is found

in the said order under the category General. In the draft

seniority of Jemadars of Manipur Police Department as on

1.6.2012, the name of the petitioner is found at Serial No.149 with

indication that he belonged to SC category and the name of the

fourth respondent is found at Serial No.111 with no indication of

belonging to any category of ST/SC and, thus, he is a General

category candidate.

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Page |5

3. Further case of the petitioner is that at the time of

consideration for promotion to the higher post of Subedars, both

the petitioner and the fourth respondent have become eligible for

consideration. However, to the shock and surprise of the

petitioner, another list of Jemadar was found to have been

circulated reflecting that the fourth respondent with JCO No.621

to have been belonged to SC category which is against the

record, as could be seen from the initial appointment order dated

18.12.2006 and the draft seniority list dated 1.6.2012. Hence,

the petitioner prayed for protecting his right and interest and such

impugned seniority list sofar as declaring the fourth respondent

as SC category candidate is not sustainable in the eye of law and

therefore the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Denying the averments set out in the affidavit filed

in support of the writ petition, the second respondent - Director

General of Police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on

checking of the service book of the fourth respondent, an entry

has been made that he belongs to SC category.

5. The fourth respondent field affidavit-in-opposition

stating that at the time of submission of application for filling up

the post of Jemadars, due to some unavoidable circumstances,

the fourth respondent was not able to submit the caste certificate,

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Page |6

but with the permission of higher authorities, he has submitted

his caste certificate and in column No.7(b), the fourth respondent

entered as SC and may be due to late submission of the caste

certificate, the authority might have reflected the fourth

respondent's as General category in the order dated 18.12.2006.

However, in the impugned seniority list, it has been rightly

corrected and reflected the name of the fourth respondent as

belonging to the category of SC and, as such, the authority in

consideration of the fact that the fourth respondent is a SC

candidate, initiated steps for promotion and there would not be

any violation of rules or law.

6. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this

Court passed an interim order on 19.12.2018 that in the event of

the private respondent being considered as SC category, result

shall not be declared till the next date and in case, being

considered as General candidate, this order shall not have

application. The fourth respondent filed M.C.(WP) No.37 of 2019

to vacate the said interim order dated 19.12.2018.

7. Assailing the impugned seniority list in respect of

the fourth respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the fourth respondent has applied as a General

candidate and was also appointed against the General category

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Page |7

post at his initial entry in service. Thus, the fourth respondent

has deemed to have waived his benefit of SC status.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that at no

point of time, the fourth respondent has enclosed his SC

certificate and he has also failed to submit his SC certificate at

the time of submission of the Form and at the time of

appointment. It was only at the time of police verification, the

fourth respondent has disclosed that he belonged to SC

category.

9. The learned counsel then submitted that the

circulation of draft seniority list before the publication of the final

seniority list was never made public nor chance for submission

of objection was made available, inasmuch as the fourth

respondent was reflected as SC illegally only to secure promotion

thereby depriving the right of the petitioner for consideration for

promotion.

10. According to the learned counsel, the fourth

respondent himself admitted that he has not submitted his SC

certificate at the time of his initial entry in service and hence, he

has to be considered as General category candidate only.

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Page |8

11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate

appearing for the official respondents submitted that the entry

found in his service records show that the fourth respondent

belongs to SC category and relevant entry was also made only

after verifying the SC certificate produced by the fourth

respondent. Therefore, there is no question that the fourth

respondent belongs to General category.

12. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent

submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the fourth

respondent was not able to submit his caste certificate at the

relevant point of time and at later point of time, with the

permission of the authorities, he has submitted his caste

certificate. He would submit that because of late submission of

the caste certificate, the authority might have reflected the fourth

respondent as General category in the appointment order dated

18.12.2006. However, after verifying the records, the authority

has correctly reflected the fourth respondent as SC category.

13. The learned counsel further submitted that in the

seniority list as on 1.1.2016, the fourth respondent's name

appeared at Serial No.48 and the petitioner's name appeared at

Serial No.85 by mentioning and reflecting the name of the fourth

respondent as belonging to the category of SC and the

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 Page |9

respondent authority, in consideration of the fact that the fourth

respondent belongs to SC category, has rightly initiated steps for

promotion and, therefore, there is no violation in the impugned

seniority list qua the caste of the fourth respondent as SC

category.

14. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

15. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

declaration of the fourth respondent as SC category in the

impugned seniority list of Jemadars of Manipur Police

Department has the effect of virtually denying the petitioner his

entitled promotion as he is the first eligible SC category in terms

of seniority list as on 1.6.2012 wherein the fourth respondent has

been listed as General category candidate and that the act of

concoction of the authority for favouring the fourth respondent in

taking advantage for promotion would call for immediate

interference from the end of this Court.

16. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned

seniority list which has the effect of declaring the fourth

respondent as SC category is against the record as indicated in

the initial appointment order dated 18.12.2006 as well as draft

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 P a g e | 10

seniority list dated 1.6.2012 and also ascertained by the RTI

letter dated 27.11.2018 and that such illegal declaration would

cause an irreparable loss to the petitioner, as the fourth

respondent would be considered prior to the petitioner on the

basis of the SC status.

17. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to produce any

materials to support his claim. On the other hand, the Head of

the Police Department, namely, the Director General of Police

filed affidavit stating that on checking the service book of the

private respondent namely Naorem Pritamkumar Singh (JC 621),

an entry is fouund that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC)

along with related documents. When the second respondent

himself stated that only after verifying the caste certificate

produced by the fourth respondent, it has been mentioned as he

belongs to SC category, the burden is heavily on the petitioner to

show that the fourth respondent belongs to General category and

not SC category. As stated supra, to prove the claim of the

petitioner that the fourth respondent belongs to General

category, nothing has been produced.

18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that in the service book of the fourth

respondent against the name of the candidate, the name of the

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 P a g e | 11

fourth respondent is entered and in the bracket SC is indicated.

The ink of the pen entering the name and marking as SC are

different and there is no place for indicating social status in the

service entry, however, entry was made by some officials for

reason best known to them.

19. Countering the said argument, the learned

Government Advocate contended that the red marking SC in the

service book in short form have been entered after producing SC

certificate by the candidate and that marking with red ink is not

manipulation by the officials to cover up the wrongful entry as red

marking entry were also found in other pages of the service book.

It is also the submission of the learned Government Advocate

that the SC status of the fourth respondent has also been

reflected in the same service book vide verification dated

28.12.2006.

20. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the

fourth respondent's appointment under the SC quota. But he has

challenged only the seniority list of Jemadars [Annexure-3]

insofar as the fourth respondent. Thus, the very filing of the writ

petition itself is not maintainable.

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 P a g e | 12

21. On a perusal of the application of the fourth

respondent submitted for filling up the post of Jemadars in

Manipur Police Department filed along with the affidavit of the

fourth respondent, this Court finds that in Colum 7(b), it has been

written as "Yes I am an SC". The further perusal of the caste

certificate enclosed along with the affidavit of the fourth

respondent, it is seen that the fourth respondent belongs to

Scheduled Caste. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged

the caste certificate of the fourth respondent dated 17.6.2006 that

the fourth respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is to be

pointed out that no one other than the petitioner has challenged

the community of the fourth respondent.

22. When the draft seniority list before publishing the

impugned seniority list dated 1.1.2016 was circulated, objections

were called for from among the persons mentioned therein. But

no complaint regarding the fourth respondent belonging to SC

category had been received and as such, the impugned final

seniority list dated 1.1.2016 was published.

23. According to the learned counsel for the fourth

respondent, no objection to the draft seniority list has been filed

by the petitioner against the fourth respondent being reflected as

SC and only at a belated stage when the authority initiated

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 P a g e | 13

process for promotion, the petitioner, in order to secure

promotion by any means has resorted to file the present writ

petition, thereby harming the legitimate right of the fourth

respondent being promoted. This Court finds some force in the

submission of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. No

material has been produced by the petitioner to show that he has

filed objection to the draft seniority list. As rightly argued by

learned counsel for the fourth respondent, in order to secure

promotion by any means, the petitioner has resorted to file the

instant writ petition that too at a belated stage. Such a method

adopted by the petitioner is unsustainable in the eye of law.

24. The petitioner has also filed additional affidavit

stating that two Xerox SC certificates of the private respondent

were found to be stapled in the service book. One certificate was

issued in 2006 and another was issued in 2018 and nowhere

indicated about the entry of the SC certificates in the service

book, inasmuch as no other documents are found in the service

book thereby clearly indicating that the insertion of the SC

certificate is nothing but illegal and hence, seniority list prepared

by considering the private respondent as SC is wholly illegal.

Since the SC status of the fourth respondent has also been

reflected in the same service book of the fourth respondent vide

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019 P a g e | 14

verification dated 28.12.2006, there is no question of any

manipulation in the SC certificate as alleged by the petitioner. In

fact, the petitioner has no right to question the promotion of the

fourth respondent without challenging the original/initial

appointment of the petitioner under the SC category.

25. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the

view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the respondent

authorities have rightly published the impugned seniority list by

mentioning the name of the fourth respondent as SC category.

This Court also finds no infirmity in the seniority list insofar as the

fourth respondent is concerned.

26. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is

dismissed accordingly. M.C.(WP) No.37 of 2019 filed by the

fourth respondent is allowed and the interim order dated

19.12.2018 passed in the writ petition stands vacated. There

shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

WP(C) No. 1177 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 37 of 2019