Manipur High Court
Khoisnam Kuber Singh vs State Of Manipur Represented By ... on 6 May, 2022
Page |1
ABUJA Digitally
signed by
M ABUJAM
SURJIT SINGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
SURJIT Date:
2022.05.06
16:22:20
SINGH +05'30'
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
1. Khoisnam Kuber Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o (L)
Khoisnam Tomal Singh, R/o Langol Ningthou Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. - Lamphelpat, Imphal West District,
Manipur- 795004.
2. Naushram Sarat Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L)
Naushram Tompok Singh, R/o Khurai Chaithabi
Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, District -
Imphal East, Manipur- 795010.
3. Pritam Kshetri, aged about 56 years, S/o Ksh.
Ibotombi Singh, R/o Leirak Macha, Elangbam Leikai,
Keishamthong, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District- Imphal
West, Manipur- 795001.
...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Addl. Chief
Secretary, (Forest & Environment), Government of
Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.- Imphal, District-
Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Secretary/Commissioner, Department of
Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.-
Imphal, District- Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |2
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong, P.O. & P.S.-
Imphal, District- Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented
by the Secretary, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal,
District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
.... Official Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. Elangbam Premjit, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, Addl. AG,
Mr. K. Rabei, Advocate
for the MPSC,
Ms. L. Brizet Devi, Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment &
Order :: 05.04.2022
Date of Judgment &
Order :: 06.05.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order
dated 5.8.2021 of the Department of P&AR conveying the
decision of the Government to hold a Review DPC for all the
DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of the Range Forest Officers
to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and consequent order
dated 7.8.2021 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |3
holding the review DPC considering the eligible officers as per
Rule 5(C) of the Manipur Forest Service (1st Amendment Rules),
2019 and to direct the respondents to hold a fresh Review DPC
in connection with 10 vacancies of MFS-II arose during the case
of the petitioners as certificate holders in accordance with the
provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the
Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and appoint
them to the post of MFS-II with retrospective effect from
2.12.2013 with consequential benefits including monetary
benefits in case if the petitioners are selected and recommended
by the review DPC and also to consider the representation dated
21.8.2021 submitted by the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr.Elangbam Premjit, learned counsel for
the petitioners; Mr.Lenin Hijam, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.L.Brizet Devi, learned
counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the petitioners 1 to
3 joined the service as Range Forest Officers on 2.5.1987,
3.5.1988 and 3.5.1989 respectively and while in service, they
were awarded certificate holders in Wildlife Management from
Wildlife Institute of India on 31.1.2006, 31.1.2011 and 31.1.2008
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |4
respectively. By virtue of being certificate holders in Wildlife
Management from Wildlife Institute of India read with the
provisions contained in the second category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the
Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 [for short,
"the Rules of 2010"] and the final seniority list of Range Forest
Officers dated 10.2.2009, the petitioners are within the five
eligible Range Forest Officers to be considered first for promotion
to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in the Forests and
Environment Department, Manipur against 10 vacancies of MFS-
II occurred during the period from 2010 to 2013.
4. Time and again, the case of the petitioners was not
considered while holding the DPC in connection with filling up the
10 vacancies of MFS-II occurred during the period from 2010 to
2013. It is averred that while setting aside the review DPC held
on 7.7.2018 of the earlier DPC, filling up of 10 vacancies of MFS-
II vide order dated 20.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018, inter
alia, was pleased to direct to hold a fresh review DPC in terms of
Rule 5(i)(C) of the Rules of 2010 considering all the eligible
persons. However, the case of the petitioners was never
considered in the review DPC held thereafter.
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |5
5. Earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021
challenging the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020
and appointment orders dated 31.8.2020. This Court, vide order
dated 19.2.2021 in W.P.(C) Nos.606, 607, 630 and 685 of 2020
and 31 of 2021, set aside the proceedings of the review DPC
held on 3.8.2020 and appointment orders dated 31.8.2020.
However, the Department of P&AR issued an order dated
5.8.2021 of conveying the decision of the Government to hold
review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of
Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II
and consequently, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
issued the order dated 7.8.2021 for holding review DPC
considering eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the MFS (1st
Amendment) Rules, 2019. It is averred that unless the
respondents are restrained from holding the review DPC as per
Rule 5(C) of the MFS (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019, the
petitioners will be put to irreparable loss. Hence, the writ petition.
6. The respondent 1 and 3 filed counter stating that the
petitioners 1 to 3 were not considered for promotion to MFS-II
against the ten vacancies of MFS-II arose in the Department
during the year 2010 to 2013 and by communication dated
1.10.2011, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests informed
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |6
the Under Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of
Manipur to take further necessary action for review of the earlier
DPCs held since 2013. Since the petitioners have not submitted
the certificates to the Department, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests was not considered the petitioners for
promotion to MFS-II in the earlier DPCs. The petitioners were
promoted to the post of MFS-II on 1.2.2019, 21.12.2019 and
6.2.2020 respectively.
7. It is stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, vide letter dated 26.2.2020, submitted a self-contained
note in compliance with the order of this Court dated 20.12.2019
in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018, wherein it is clearly mentioned that
all the recommended Range Forest Officers are with certificate
course in Forestry from Government recognised Forestry
College. Due to the ambiguity in the Manipur Forest Service
(Amendment) Rules, 2010, all other Range Forest Officers with
the certificate course in Forestry from Government recognised
Forestry College being senior to the petitioners and the present
petitioners being not within the zone of consideration, they might
not have been considered for promotion to the post of MFS-II in
the DPC held earlier on 31.10.2013 and review DPC held on
7.7.2018 and 28.4.2020.
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |7
8. It is stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests served show cause notice dated 4.7.2020 to the
petitioners and the fourth respondent also requested the
Government to initiate departmental enquiry against the
petitioners for their misconduct of providing false information to
the fourth respondent and the Department of Personnel and
Forest Department. The petitioners have also submitted their
replies on 10.7.2020 to the show cause notice dated 4.7.2020.
Based on the replies, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
vide letter dated 24.7.2020 suggested enquiry. The petitioners
were not considered for promotion to MFS-II due to the ambiguity
in the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and
the impugned review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and its subsequent
order dated 31.9.2020 was quashed vide order dated 21.2.2021
in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020 etc. and the respondents were
directed to hold a fresh review DPC. The impugned review DPC
held on 3.8.2020 and its subsequent order dated 31.9.2020 were
quashed by directing the respondents to hold a fresh review
DPC.
9. The second respondent filed counter stating that the
review DPC is to be held on the basis of the Manipur Forest
Service Rules, 1986 with reference to Manipur Forest Services
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |8
(Amendment) Rules, 2010 issued vide order dated 1.4.2010 and
all eligible officers will be considered. All the three criteria of Rule
5(i)(C) as laid down under the Manipur Forest Services
(Amendment) Rules, 2010 shall be valid for the period when the
provisions were existing i.e. until they were amended by the
Manipur Forest Services (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2013.
Therefore, vacancies that arose during validity of the said
provisions will be filled up accordingly after due consideration of
the qualifications held by eligible officers.
10. It is stated that the case of the petitioners shall be
laid before the DPC along with other eligible officials for
consideration under the provisions of Rule 5(i)(C) and subject to
the outcome of pending cases in High Court of Manipur. The
representation dated 21.8.2021 is under consideration and will
be disposed as soon as possible by the Department of Personnel
in consultation with the Department of Forests and Environment.
11. Assailing the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 and
the consequential order dated 7.8.2021 with regard to holding a
review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 in connection with
promotion of Range Forest Officers to Manipur Forest Service
Grade-II, Mr. Elangbam Premjit, the learned counsel for the
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
Page |9
petitioners submitted that the ten vacancies of MFS-II which
occurred during the subsistence of Manipur Forest Services
(Amendment) Rules, 2010 has to be filled up as per the
provisions contained in Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest
Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010. He would submit that with
regard to applicability of Rule 5(i)(C) with respect to the
vacancies of the year 2010 to 2013 is concerned, the same has
been settled by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.898 of
2018 dated 20.12.2019 in directing to hold a fresh review DPC in
terms of Rule 5(i)(C) considering all the eligible persons.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that the 2019
Rules has no relevancy in holding the review DPC with respect
to the vacancies of the year 2010 to 2013 and holding a review
DPC with respect to the vacancies of the year 2010 to 2013 along
with the other subsequent DPCs is nothing but inviting multiplicity
of proceedings. According to the petitioners, they are eligible
under 2nd category of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest
Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and cannot be denied their
right to be considered as per the said Rules.
13. Arguing so and contending that the impugned
orders are illegal, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 10
for quashing of the aforesaid two orders and to direct the
respondents to hold a fresh review DPC in connection with ten
vacancies of MFS-II arose during the year 2010 to 2013 by
considering the case of the petitioners as certificate holders in
accordance with the provisions contained in the second category
of Rule 5(i)(C) and to appoint them to the post of MFS-II with
retrospective effect from 2.12.2013 with consequential benefits
including monetary benefits in case if the petitioners are selected
and recommended by the review DPC.
14. Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned Additional
Advocate General submitted that the review DPC held on
3.8.2020 and its subsequent order dated 31.9.2020 were
quashed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020 dated
22.2.2021 and while quashing the order, the respondents were
directed to hold a fresh review DPC. He would submit that due to
ambiguity in the Manipur Forest Service (Amendment) Rules,
2010, all other Range Forest Officers with the certificate course
in Forestry from Government recognised Forestry College being
senior to the petitioners and the present petitioners being not
within the zone of consideration, they have not been considered
for promotion to the post of MFS-II in the DPC held on
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 11
31.10.2013 and review DPC held on 7.7.2018 and 28.4.2020
respectively.
15. The learned Additional Advocate General further
submitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests served
show cause notice to the petitioners for their misconduct of
providing false information to the fourth respondent, Department
of Personnel and Forest Department and the fourth respondent
also requested the State Government to initiate departmental
enquiry against the petitioners. In fact, on 22.6.2020, again the
fourth respondent reminded the Forest Department for taking up
necessary action against the individuals for submitting false
information. Accordingly, the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests issued a show cause notice dated 4.7.2020 and the
petitioners have also submitted replies dated 10.7.2020 and
upon considering the replies, the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests issued the letter dated 24.7.2020 to the Joint Secretary
(DP) requiring them to take action against the petitioners for
tarnishing the image of the Government and the fourth
respondent-MPSC.
16. The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated
that due to the ambiguity in the Manipur Forest Services
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 12
(Amendment) Rules, 2010, the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and
its subsequent order dated 31.9.2020 were quashed on
21.2.2021 by this Court in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020. Therefore,
there is no ground to quash the impugned order dated 5.8.2021
and the consequential order dated 7.8.2021 issued by the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
17. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also gone through the materials available on record.
18. The grievance of the petitioners is that earlier this
Court by the order dated 20.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.898 of 2018,
inter alia, while setting aside the review DPC held on 7.7.2018
for filling up of ten vacancies of MFS-II arose during the period
from 2010 to 2013, directed to hold a fresh review DPC in terms
of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment)
Rules, 2010 considering all the eligible persons. However, the
case of the petitioners was not considered in the review DPC
held thereafter. When the petitioners approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 challenging the proceedings of the
review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and the appointment orders dated
31.8.2020, this Court by the order dated 19.2.2021 in W.P.(C)
No.31 of 2021 and other connected writ petitions, set aside the
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 13
proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and the
appointment orders dated 31.8.2020. Despite the same, the
impugned order dated 5.8.2021 came to be issued conveying the
decision of the Government to hold review DPC for all the DPCs
held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers and the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for holding the review
DPC considering the eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the
Manipur Forest Services (1st Amendment) Rules, 2019.
19. Since the petitioners seek to quash conveying the
decision of the Government to hold review DPC for all the DPCs
held since 2013 for promotion to the Range Forest Officers and
the consequential order of the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests for holding the review DPC considering the eligible
officers as per Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (1st
Amendment) Rules, 2019, it is necessary to state the earlier
proceedings initiated by the petitioners and others before this
Court.
20. Earlier the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.31 of
2021 to quash the proceedings of the review DPC held on
3.8.2020 reviewing the earlier proceedings of the fresh review
DPC held on 28.4.2020 which had reviewed the earlier DPC held
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 14
on 31.10.2013 and the consequential order dated 31.8.2020
issued by the Department of P&AR and also direct the
respondents to hold a review DPC reviewing the proceedings of
the DPC held on 3.8.2020 considering the case of the petitioners
being the senior most in the cadre of MFS Grade-II. The said writ
petition W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021 was taken up along with the other
writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.606, 607, 630 and 685 of 2020.
By a common order dated 19.2.2021, this Court passed the
following order in the aforesaid batch:
"[14] In view of the above and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, the following orders are passed by this
Court:
(a) WP(C) No.606 of 2020 and WP(C) No.607 of 2020 are
allowed and consequently, the final seniority list for the
post of the MFS Grade-II published vide order dated 12-
11-2020 issued by the Joint Secretary (DP), Government
of Manipur is quashed and set aside;
(b) List WP(C) No.630 of 2020 along with WA No.11 of
2020 and it is open to the parties herein to approach the
Division Bench of this Court praying for taking up the writ
appeal, at an early date, along with WP(C) No.116 of 2020
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 15
and praying for passing appropriate orders, thereafter,
keeping in mind the fact that some of the private
respondents had retied on attaining the age of
superannuation during the pendency of these cases;
(c) WP(C) No.685 of 2020 is allowed and consequently,
the proceedings of the review DPC adopted in its meeting
held on 03-08-2020 and the consequent order dated 31-
08-2020 issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government
of Manipur are quashed and set aside;
(d) In view of the order (c) above, passed by this Court,
WP(C) No.31 of 2021 stands disposed of;
(e) The official respondents shall prepare a fresh final
seniority list for the post of the MFS Grade-II and publish
the same only after WA No.11 of 2020 along with WP(C)
No.630 of 2020 being disposed of by this Court;
(f) After a fresh final seniority list for the post of the MFS
Grade-II being published as per order (e) above, the
official respondents shall constitute a review DPC which
shall consider all eligible officers and recommend the
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 16
names for appointment on promotion to the post of the
MFS Grade-I;
(g) In view of the orders passed by this Court hereinabove,
the proceedings of the DPC probably held on 24-12-2020
as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government in WP(C) No.607 of 2020 in terms of the
interim order dated 23-11-2020 passed by this Court,
stand quashed and set aside with the direction that no
further action pursuant thereto shall be taken by the official
respondents for the purpose of promotion from the post of
the MFS Grade-II to the post of MFS Grade-I."
21. Thus, from the above order, it is clear that while
setting aside the review DPC dated 3.8.2020 and the
consequential order dated 31.8.2020, the official respondents
were directed to prepare a fresh final seniority list for the post of
MFS Grade-II and publish the same only after the Appeal in
W.A.No.11 of 2020 along with W.P.(C) No.630 of 2020 disposed
of. It was also directed that after a fresh final seniority list for the
post of MFS Grade-II being published, the official respondents
shall constitute a review DPC which shall consider all eligible
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 17
officers and recommend the names for appointment on
promotion to the post of MFS Grade-I.
22. Pursuant to the order dated 19.2.2021 passed by
this Court, an order dated 27.7.2021 came to be issued by the
Department of P&AR cancelling the final seniority list of MFS
Grade-II issued vide order dated 12.11.2020 and the
appointment of 10 Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest
Service Grade-II vide order dated 31.8.2020. On 28.7.2021, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests addressed a letter to the
Additional Chief Secretary (Forests and Environment) requesting
to move the Department of P&AR to take further necessary
action for holding a fresh DPC to review the earlier DPC which
has now been cancelled by the order dated 27.7.2021 and also
for promotion of eligible Range Forest Officers namely Kh. Hitler
Singh,N.Munal Meitei and K.Samte to fill up the vacant posts of
MFS Grade-II and may also issue a fresh seniority list of MFS
Grade-II at an early date. In the said letter, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests also requested to allow L.Biranmangol to
continue in his present place of posting and Kh. Hitler Singh may
be transferred and posted as Range Forest Officer, Headquarter
in the office of DFO, Tamenglong Forest Division. The Principal
Chief Conservator also requested to move the Department of
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 18
P&AR for posting an Indian Forest Service Officer to the post of
DFO, Tamenglong Forest Division.
23. Accordingly, the Department of P&AR (Personnel
Division) issued the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 and the said
order reads thus:
"In inviting reference to this Department's Order
No.18/3/2020-MFoS/DP dated 27.07.2021 (copy
enclosed) regarding cancellation of the
appointment of 10 (ten) Range Forest Officers to
the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II issued vide
order No.18/5/2018-MFoS/DP dated 31.08.2021, I
am directed to state that this Government has
decided to hold a review DPC for all the DPCs held
since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers
to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II.
2. In view of above, you are therefore requested to
kindly furnish the duly filled-in Requisition Forms,
Note for DPCs, Vigilance Clearance, ACRs,
Seniority List(s), etc at an early date for further
necessary action."
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 19
24. The said order dated 5.8.2021 was addressed to
the Under Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of
Manipur and copies were also marked to the Staff Officer to the
Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
Upon receipt of the said order dated 5.8.2021, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest passed a consequential order dated
7.8.2021 and the order dated 7.8.2021 reads thus:
"With reference to letter No.APPT-7/2/2021-DP-DP dated
5th August, 2021 of the Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Govt. of
Manipur, on the above subject, I am to submit herewith the
following required documents for all the DPCs held since
2013 for promotion of Range Forest Officers to the
Manipur Forest Service Grade-II for favour of further
necessary action:
1. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2011-13
along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s).
2. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2014-16
along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s).
3. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2017-18
along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s).
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 20
4. Requisition Forms for vacancy for the year 2019-20
along with Vigilance Clearance and Seniority list(s).
5. Note for DPC."
25. As could be seen from the common order passed in
W.P.(C) No.606 of 2020 and the connected writ petitions, it
transpires that the review DPC held on 3.8.2020 and its
subsequent order dated 31.8.2020 were quashed and the
respondents were directed to hold a fresh review DPC. Thus,
pursuant to the direction of this Court only, the Department of
P&AR issued the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 directing the
Under Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of
Manipur to furnish the duly filled-in requisition forms and note for
DPCs and similarly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
by the impugned order dated 7.8.2021, submitted the documents
for all the DPCs held since 2013 for promotion of Range Forest
Officers to the Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. There is no
reason to believe that the aforesaid impugned orders have been
issued contrary to the direction of this Court dated 19.2.2021.
Therefore, there is no ground to interfere.
26. It appears that on 1.10.2021, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest informed the Under Secretary (Forest and
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 21
Environment) to take up further necessary action for review of
the earlier DPCs held since 2013.
27. Before filing the writ petition, the petitioners have
submitted a representation on 21.8.2021 to the respondents
praying to consider their case in the fresh review DPC of the
earlier DPC meeting held on 31.10.2013 in connection with
appointment by promotion to 10 vacancies of Manipur Forest
Service, Grade-II/Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Forest
Department. Admittedly, the said representation has not been
considered and in the counter filed by the second respondent, it
has been stated that the representation of the petitioner is under
consideration and will be disposed of as soon as possible by the
Department of Personnel in consultation with the Department of
Forest and Environment. The non-consideration of the
representation of the petitioners by the respondent authorities
will entitle the petitioners in seeking the relief.
28. Since the petitioners are not within the zone of
consideration, they have not been considered for promotion to
the post of MFS Grade-II in the DPC held earlier on 31.10.2013
and the review DPC held on 7.7.2018 and 28.4.2020
respectively.
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 22
29. In the instant case, the petitioners reported that they
have completed the certificate course in Wildlife from Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun. According to the respondents, all the
other Range Forest Officers considered eligible in earlier DPC
have also possessed the certificate in Forestry from Government
recognised Rangers Training Colleges run and recognised by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India, but not from the State Forest Service
Colleges. As stated supra, the petitioners were not considered
for promotion to MFS Grade-II in the earlier DPCs as they have
not submitted the certificates to the Department in time. The
reason for non-consideration of the petitioners is also on the
ground of they being not informed the certificates for Wildlife
Management to the Department in time.
30. Further, as could be seen from the order of the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 24.7.2020 it is clear
that departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioners for
their misconduct of providing false information/allegation to the
MPSC, Department of Personnel and Forest Department. In the
said order, it has been stated as under:
"Thus, at this stage it becomes important to verify
"Though the Department/Government has nominated
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 23
them for training at Wildlife Institute of India (WII), it was
their responsibility to furnish the Course Completion
Report along with Certificate to the PCCF & HoFF or
State Government after returning from the training.
Whether the three above-mentioned officers have
informed the office of the PCCF & HoFF or the
Government about completion of their training by 2013
in writing and submitted the Certificate, it is not
forthcoming from the records". The Statement made by
the AD during the DPC meeting as mentioned in para
3(a) above must have been based on available records
submitted by the Department/Government at that point
of time.
...
In view of the above, an enquiry may be essential on
the points mentioned in Para 3, 4 & 5 above before the
action against the 3 (three) officers for tarnishing the
image of the Government and the MPSC."
31. Thus, the petitioners were not considered for
promotion to MFS Grade-II against the 10 vacancies of MFS
Grade-II, as they have not submitted the certificates to the
Department in time and also an enquiry is ordered against them
for tarnishing the departments. When the petitioners failed to
submit the certificates in time and the conduct of the petitioners
are not upto the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, the
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 24
respondents are right in not considering the petitioners for
promotion in the review DPC held earlier.
32. It is pertinent to note that earlier the petitioners have
filed W.P.(C) No.273 of 2020 seeking to consider them in the
fresh review DPC of the DPC held on 31.10.2013 in connection
with the appointment by promotion to 10 vacancies of MFS
Grade-II and appoint the petitioners to the said post with effect
from 2.12.2013 with consequential benefits in case if they are
selected and recommended by the review DPC. After
highlighting the appointment order dated 12.6.2020, the said writ
petition was withdrawn by the petitioners on 16.6.2020.
33. It also appears that challenging the show cause
notice dated 4.7.2020, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.509
of 2020. Further, challenging the result of the review DPC held
on 28.4.2020 and the consequent appointment dated 12.6.2020,
the petitioners have also filed W.P.(C) No.466 of 2020 and the
same was dismissed as infructuous later on. Thereafter,
challenging the proceedings of the review DPC held on 3.8.2020
and the consequential order dated 31.8.2020, the petitioners
have field W.P.(C) No.31 of 2021. As stated supra, W.P.(C)
No.31 of 2021 came to be disposed of along with the connected
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 25
writ petitions on 19.2.2021 and only pursuant to the direction
issued in the said batch of writ petitions, the impugned orders
came to be issued by the respondents. Since the impugned
orders are issued pursuant to the direction of this Court in the
earlier round of litigation, the interference of the impugned orders
is not called for. However, there is no merit in the writ petition.
34. There is no quarrel over the proposition settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 6 SCC
725, wherein, in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26, it has been held as
under:
"24. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment
in Y.V.Rangaiah case [(1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC
(L&S) 382] would not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of this case. The aforesaid judgment
was rendered on the interpretation of Rule 4(a)(1)(i) of
the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1976. The aforesaid Rule provided for
preparation of a panel for the eligible candidates every
year in the month of September. This was a statutory
duty cast upon the State. The exercise was required to
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 26
be conducted each year. Thereafter, only promotion
orders were to be issued. However, no panel had been
prepared for the year 1976. Subsequently, the Rule was
amended, which rendered the petitioners therein
ineligible to be considered for promotion. In these
circumstances, it was observed by this Court that the
amendment would not be applicable to the vacancies
which had arisen prior to the amendment. The
vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules
would be governed by the old Rules and not the
amended Rules.
25. In the present case, there is no statutory duty cast
upon the respondents to either prepare a yearwise
panel of the eligible candidates or of the selected
candidates for promotion. In fact, the proviso to Rule 2
enables the State to keep any post unfilled. Therefore,
clearly there is no statutory duty which the State could
be mandated to perform under the applicable Rules.
The requirement to identify the vacancies in a year or to
take a decision as to how many posts are to be filled
under Rule 7 cannot be equated with not issuing
promotion orders to the candidates duly selected for
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 27
promotion. In our opinion, the appellants had not
acquired any right to be considered for promotion.
Therefore, it is difficult to accept the submissions of Dr.
Rajeev Dhavan that the vacancies, which had arisen
before 17-5-1999 had to be filled under the unamended
Rules.
26. It is by now a settled proposition of law that a
candidate has the right to be considered in the light of
the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" on the
date the consideration took place. There is no rule of
universal or absolute application that vacancies are to
be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when
the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old
vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the
candidate having acquired a right to be considered for
promotion. The right to be considered for promotion
accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible
candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in
Y.V.Rangaiah case [(1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC
(L&S) 382] lays down any particular time-frame, within
which the selection process is to be completed. In the
present case, consideration for promotion took place
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 28
after the amendment came into operation. Thus, it
cannot be accepted that any accrued or vested right of
the appellants has been taken away by the
amendment."
35. The learned Additional Advocate General has also
relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) Y.V.Rangaiah and others v. J.Sreenivasa Rao and
others, (1983) 3 SCC 284
(ii) State of Tripura and others v. Nikhil Ranjan
Chakraborty and others, (2017) 3 SCC 646
(iii) D.Raghu and others v. R.Basaveswarudu and
others, Civil Appeal Nos.1970-1975 and 1976 of
2009, decided on 5.2.2020, MANU/SC/0125/2020
36. Since the law is well-settled that it is the rules which
are prevalent at the time when the consideration took place for
promotion, which would be applicable and a candidate has the
right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which
implies the rule in force on the date the consideration took place
and there is no rule of universal or absolute application that
vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
P a g e | 29
date when the vacancy arises, the aforesaid decisions are not
elaborated further. Since the petitioners have not shown valid
ground for interference in the orders impugned, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order dated 5.8.2021 of the
Department of P&AR conveying the decision of the Government
to hold a Review DPC for all the DPCs held since 2013 for
promotion of the Range Forest Officers to the Manipur Forest
Service Grade-II and the consequential order dated 7.8.2021 of
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for holding the review
DPC considering the eligible officers as per Rule 5(C) of the
Manipur Forest Service (1st Amendment Rules), 2019 are
perfectly correct and no interference is warranted. That apart, the
petitioners have also failed to make out a valid ground for
interference. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same
is liable to be dismissed.
37. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 587 of 2021
