Manipur High Court

Rajkumar Surendra Singh vs State Of Manipur Represented By ... on 24 May, 2022

                                                                                                 Page |1
SHAMUR Digitally signed
AILATPA by
        SHAMURAILATP                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M       AM SUSHIL
        SHARMA
                                                      AT IMPHAL
SUSHIL Date: 2022.05.25
        15:35:36 +05'30'                            WP(C) No. 108 of 2021
SHARMA
                                   1.    Rajkumar Surendra Singh, aged about 54 years,
                                         S/o. RK. Karnajit Singh, R/o. Khurai Thoidingjam
                                         Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal
                                         East District, Manipur - 795010.
                                   2.    Keisam Bishwajit Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.
                                         Late K. Ibomcha R/o Yaiskul Police Lane, P.O. &
                                         P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -
                                         795001.

                                   3.    Longjam Deven Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.
                                         Late L. Tomba Singh, R/o. Yairipok Kekru, P.S. -
                                         Yairipok, P.O. - Thoubal, District - Thoubal,
                                         Manipur - 795149.


                                                                                    ....PETITIONERS

                                                              -V E R S U S-

                                   1.    State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
                                         (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South
                                         Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. -
                                         Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

                                   2.    The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering
                                         Department, Government of Manipur, PWD
                                         Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal
                                         West District, Manipur - 795001.


                                   3.    Kirankumar Laishram, aged about 30 years, S/o. L.
                                         Manglem Singh, R/o. H/No. 120, Khangabok Awang
                                         Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District,
                                         Manipur-795138.


                                   4.    Dorendra Rajkumar, aged about 45 years, S/o. R.K.
                                         Nokulsana Singh, R/o. Sagolband Sayang, P.O. &



                           WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of
                           2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021)
                           and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)
                                                                       Page |2



              P.S. _ Lamphel. Imphal West District, Manipur-
              795004.

        5.    Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 31 years, W/o.
              Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal
              Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East
              District, Manipur - 795005.

        6.    Thangjam Yogita Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o.
              Th. Munindro Singh, R/o. Khurai Thangjam Leikai,
              Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. -
              Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

        7.    Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sh.
              Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O.
              - Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal
              West, Manipur-795003.

        8.    Laishram Irish Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o. L.
              Surendrakumar Singh, R/o. Lamding Laikai, P.O. &
              Wangjing, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District,
              Manipur-795148.

        9.    Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 34 years,
              D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal
              Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang
              Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.

        10. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 43
            years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, Chingamathak Pishum
            Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal
            West District, Manipur-795001.

        11. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41
            years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai
            Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong,
            P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -
            795010.

        12. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 30 years,
            D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima
            Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal
            West District, Manipur - 795140.




WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of
2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021)
and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)
                                                                       Page |3



        13. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 31 years,
            D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace
            Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal
            East District, Manipur -795001.

        14. Narengbam Livingstone Singh, aged about 31
            years, S/o. N. Robindro Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai,
            Thoubal, B.P.O. - Sangaiyumpham, P.S. -
            Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148.

        15. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 35 years,
            S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village,
            Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur,
            Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.

        16. John Thanglienmang, aged about 35 years, S/o.
            Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal
            Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat,
            Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.

        17. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 44 years, S/o. (L)
            K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband
            Kabrabam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel,
            Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

        18. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 47 years, S/o.
            Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village,
            P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur -
            795130.

        19. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 35 years, S/o. K.
            Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. -
            Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106.

        20. Salima Begum, aged about 36 years, D/o. Md.
            Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai,
            B.P.O. & P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District,
            Manipur - 795008.

        21. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 36 years, S/o.
            Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang,
            Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. -
            Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.




WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of
2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021)
and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021)
                                                                       Page |4



        22. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 32 years, S/o.
            Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane,
            P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East
            District, Manipur-795001.

        23. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 41 years, S/o.
            Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum,
            P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur-
            795147.

        24. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52
            years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok
            Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal
            West District, Manipur -795001.

        25. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th.
            Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha,
            Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -
            Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.

        26. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o.
            Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. &
            P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.

                                                     .... RESPONDENTS

WP(C) NO. 191 OF 2021

Y. Sarat, aged about 54 years, S/o. (L) Yumnam Mohon, R/o. Uripok Naoremthong Bazar, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

....PETITIONER

-V E R S U S-

1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD

WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) Page |5

Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

3. Kirankumar Laishram, aged about 30 years, S/o. L.

Manglem Singh, R/o. H/No. 120, Khangabok Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.

4. Dorendra Rajkumar, aged about 45 years, S/o. R.K.

Nokulsana Singh, R/o. Sagolband Sayang, P.O. & P.S. _ Lamphel. Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.

5. Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 31 years, W/o.

Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.

6. Thangjam Yogita Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. Th.

Munindro Singh, R/o. Khurai Thangjam Leikai, Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. -

Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

7. Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sh.

Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O. - Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.

8. Laishram Irish Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o. L.

Surendrakumar Singh, R/o. Lamding Laikai, P.O. & Wangjing, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur- 795148.

9. Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 34 years, D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.

10. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, Chingamathak Pishum Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

11. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41 years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.

12. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 30 years, D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795140.

13. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.

14. Narengbam Livingstone Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. N. Robindro Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai, Thoubal, B.P.O. - Sangaiyumpham, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148.

15. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 35 years, S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village, Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.

16. John Thanglienmang, aged about 35 years, S/o. Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.

17. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 44 years, S/o. (L) K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband Kabrabam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

18. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 47 years, S/o. Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795130.

19. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 35 years, S/o. K. Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. - Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106.

20. Salima Begum, aged about 36 years, D/o. Md. Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai, B.P.O. & P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795008.

21. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 36 years, S/o. Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang, Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

22. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 32 years, S/o. Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.

23. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 41 years, S/o. Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum, P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur-795147.

24. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.

25. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th. Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.

26. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.

- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.

.... RESPONDENTS

WP (C) NO.755 OF 2021

K. Ibochou Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o. Late K. Ibohal Singh, resident of Sagoltongba Awang Leikai, P.O. - Langjing, P.S. - Patsoi, Imphal West, Manipur - 795113.

....PETITIONER

-V E R S U S-

1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Secretary / Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

4. The Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.

5. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.

6. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th.

Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.

7. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.

- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.

.... RESPONDENTS WP (C) NO. 849 OF 2021

Salew Lorii Mao, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late D. Salew, a resident of Tadubi Bazar, P.O. & P.S - Tadubi, Senapati District, Manipur - 795104.

....PETITIONER

-V E R S U S-

1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Secretary / Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

4. The Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.

5. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.

6. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th. Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.

7. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.

- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.

.... RESPONDENTS

WP (C) NO. 297 OF 2022

1. Ksh. Tombi Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o. Late Ksh. Achou Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, P.O. & P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795008.

2. L. Paulungmuan, aged about 50 years old, S/o. Late L.

Chinthang, R/o. Tedim Road, near UBI Churachandpur, P.O. - Churachandpur, P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.

3. Khaidem Irabanta Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Kh. Bhubon Singh, R/o. Kakwa Nameirakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795008.

4. Th. Pika Singh, aged about 48 years, S/o. Th. Tombi Singh, R/o. Khagempalli Panthak, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001

....PETITIONERS

-V E R S U S-

1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, Imphal West District, 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.

3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

4. Kirankumar Laishram, aged about 31 years, S/o. L.

Manglem Singh, R/o. H/No. 120, Khangabok Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.

5. Dorendra Rajkumar, aged about 46 years, S/o. R.K.

Nokulsana Singh, R/o. Sagolband Sayang, P.O. & P.S. _ Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.

6. Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 32 years, W/o.

Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.

7. Thangjam Yogita Devi, aged about 32 years, D/o. Th.

Munindro Singh, R/o. Khurai Thangjam Leikai, Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. -

Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.

8. Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. S.

Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O. - Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

9. Laishram Irish Singh, aged about 37 years, S/o. L.

Surendrakumar Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai, P.O. & Wangjing, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur- 795148.

10. Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 35 years, D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.

11. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, R/o. Chingamathak Pishum Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

12. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41 years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.

13. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795140.

14. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 32 years, D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.

15. Narengbam Livingstone Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. N. Robindro Singh, R/o. Lamding Leikai, Thoubal, B.P.O. - Sangaiyumpham, P.S. - Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795148.

16. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 36 years, S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village, Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.

17. John Thanglienmang, aged about 36 years, S/o. Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.

18. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 45 years, S/o. (L) K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband Kabrambam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

19. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 48 years, S/o. Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795130.

20. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 36 years, S/o. K. Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. - Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106.

21. Salima Begum, aged about 37 years, D/o. Md. Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai, B.P.O. & P.S.

- Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795008.

22. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 37 years, S/o. Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang, Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

23. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 33 years, S/o. Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane, P.O. -

Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.

24. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 42 years, S/o. Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum, P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur-795147.

25. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 53 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.

26. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 31 years, D/o. Th. Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.

27. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S.

- Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.

.... RESPONDENTS MC (WP (C)) NO. 145 OF 2021 REF: WP (C) NO. 108 OF 2021

1. Thokchom Bebina Devi, aged about 31 years, W/o.

Dipankar Singh Kshetrimayum, R/o. Kongpal Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.

2. Soibam Oasis Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. Sh.

Binod Singh, R/o. Ningombam Makha Leikai, P.O.

- Manipur University, P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.

3. Wangkheimayum Aruna Devi, aged about 34 years, D/o. W. Joykumar Singh, R/o. Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O. & P.S.- Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132.

4. Ningombam Sanjitkumar Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o. N. Manao Singh, Chingamathak Pishum

Makhong, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Kakwa, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

5. Samurailatpam Rahul Dev Sharma, aged about 41 years, S/o. Dr. S. Dhanamani Sharma, R/o. Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.

6. Kongkham Bideshori Devi, aged about 30 years, D/o. K. Bhimo Singh, R/o. H/No. 6, Malom Tuliyaima Awang Leikai, P.O. - Tulihal, P.S. - Nambol, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795140.

7. Khumallamba Leena Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, R/o. H/No. 77, Palace Compound, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -795001.

8. William Jangkhosuan Baite, aged about 35 years, S/o. Zamngam Baite, R/o. Bijang Village, Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. - Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.

9. John Thanglienmang, aged about 35 years, S/o.

Soikhogin Singson, R/o. No. 12, Type - III, Tribal Colony, New Checkon, P.O. & P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795005.

10. Kabrambam Somorjit, aged about 44 years, S/o. (L) K. Mangi Singh, R/o. H/No. Thangmeiband Kabrabam Leikai, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

11. Chamdanlung Rongmei, aged about 47 years, S/o. Thiudin Rongmei, R/o. Chingkham Kabui Village, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur - 795130.

12. Joel Rangnamei R, aged about 35 years, S/o. K. Raisong, R/o. Katomei Village, P.O. & P.S. - Senapati, Senapati District, Manipur-795106.

13. Salima Begum, aged about 36 years, D/o. Md. Hasan Ali, R/o. H/No. 27, Keikhu Mayai Leikai, B.P.O. & P.S. - Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795008.

14. S.S. Joel Kamei, aged about 36 years, S/o. Thaingamlung Kamei, R/o. H/No. 59, Lungdaisang, Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

15. Seigoulen Lhungdim, aged about 32 years, S/o. Solet Lhungdim, R/o. 1st Street, New Lambulane, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.

16. Thanchui Panmei, aged about 41 years, S/o. Gaijinlung Panmei, R/o. Gaidimjang, Khoupum, P.O. & P.S. - Khoupum, Noney District, Manipur- 795147.

17. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o. Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.

....APPLICANTS

-V E R S U S-

1. Rajkumar Surendra Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o.

RK. Karnajit Singh, R/o. Khurai Thoidingjam Leikai, P.O. - Lamlong, P.S. - Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795010.

2. Keisam Bishwajit Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.

Late K. Ibomcha R/o Yaiskul Police Lane, P.O. & P.S.

- Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

3. Longjam Deven Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o.

Late L. Tomba Singh, R/o. Yairipok Kekru, P.S. - Yairipok, P.O. - Thoubal, District - Thoubal, Manipur

- 795149.

.... RESPONDENTS

MC (WP (C) No. 140 OF 2022 REF: WP (C) NO. 755 OF 2021

K. Ibochou Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o. Late K. Ibohal Singh, resident of Sagoltongba Awang Leikai, P.O. - Langjing, P.S. - Patsoi, Imphal West, Manipur - 795113.

....APPLICANT

-V E R S U S-

1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Public Health Engineering), Old Secretariat, South Block, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. -

Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Secretary / Commissioner, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur, PWD Complex, Khoyathong, P.O. & P.S - Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.

4. The Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.

5. Wairokpam Anandakumar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late W. Amuyaima Singh, R/o. Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.

6. Kuspa Thoidingjam, aged about 30 years, D/o. Th.

Nishikanta Singh, R/o. Singjamei Chingamakha, Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. - Imphal, P.S. -

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.

7. Puyam Ramboji Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o.

Dr. Puyam Gojen Singh, R/o. Lilong Chajing, P.O. & P.S. - Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur-795130.

                                                       .... RESPONDENTS

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

For the Petitioners/
applicants                       ::      Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate
                                         in all the writ petitions and for the

                                         of 2022;

                                         Ms. Babita Th., Advocate for the

                                         of 2021.

For the Respondents              ::      Mrs.Ch. Sundari, GA for the
                                         State Respondents in all the writ
                                         petitions and Misc. cases;

                                         Mr. E. Premjit, Advocate for the
                                         private respondent in MC(WP(C))
                                         No. 145 of 2021;

                                         Mrs. Babita Th., Advocate private
                                         respondent Nos. 5,7,9 to 13, 15 to
                                         23 and 26 for the private
                                         respondents in the writ petitions
                                         and in MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of
                                         2022.

                                         Mr. Kh. Athouba, GA for the
                                         MPSC respondent in WP(C) No.
                                         755 of 2021
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment &
Order                            ::      02.05.2022

Date of Judgment &
Order                            ::      24.05.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

W.P.(C) Nos.108, 191 and 297 of 2022 have been filed by

the petitioners to quash the final seniority list of Assistant

Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants

working in Public Health Engineering Department, Manipur as on

29.01.2021 and to restrain the official respondents from holding

Departmental Promotion Committee in connection with

promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Health

Engineering Department on the basis of the impugned final

seniority list dated 29.01.2021.

2. W.P.(C) Nos.755 and 849 of 2021 have been filed

by the petitioners to quash the order dated 30.10.2015 issued by

the Under Secretary (PHED), Government of Manipur filling up

three vacancies of Assistant Engineers by way of direct

recruitment of the private respondents to the post of Assistant

Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department,

Government of Manipur, coupled with the prayer to quash the

seniority list dated 29.01.2021. In the said petition, the petitioner

has also sought a prayer to direct to fill the three vacancies of

Assistant Engineer arose due to promotion of H.Ibotombi Singh,

L.Brojendro Singh and Th. Joychandra Singh to the post of

Executive Engineer on 8.4.2020, 8.4.2020 and 28.2.2020

respectively by promotion by holding necessary DPC/Review

DPC.

3. In W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021, this Court passed an

order dated 10.2.2021 not to hold DPC for promotion to the post

of Executive Engineer, PHED. Aggrieved by the said interim

order, respondent Nos.5, 7, 9 to 13, 15 to 23 and 26 in the said

writ petition have filed M.C.(WP) No.145 of 2021 to vacate the

interim order dated 10.2.2021. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.755

of 2021 has also filed M.C.(WP) No.140 of 2021 to restrain the

respondents from disturbing the present posting place of the

petitioner.

4. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is

one and the same, they were heard together and disposed of by

this common order.

5. Since the grievance of the petitioners in these writ

petitions is almost similar, W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 is taken as a

lead case for disposal of these petitions.

6. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is as

follows:

The petitioners became eligible for promotion to the

post of Assistant Engineers in the year 1993 being Section

Officer Grade-I (Degree Holders) as per the relevant Recruitment

Rules, continued to remain stagnant for a considerable long

period of time due to the inaction of the Government in holding

the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) at regular annual

intervals against the vacancies occurring during the course of a

year as per the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum

dated 29.4.1999. Instead of filling up the vacancies of Assistant

Engineers arose from time to time, the State Government had

issued various orders allowing Section Officers Grade-I to

function as Assistant Engineers without any extra remuneration.

6.1. As per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules,

2009, 60% of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion and

40% by direct recruitment. In view of a complete ban on direct

recruitment, the only means to fill up the vacancies of Assistant

Engineer in the Department is by way of promotion. However,

the Government of Manipur had issued requisition for filling up

25 out of 27 vacancies of the period from 2007 to 2012 by direct

recruitment during the subsistence of complete ban on direct

recruitment. Accordingly, 16 vacancies had to be filled up by

promotion and 11 by direct recruitment.

6.2. On 8.9.2014, the Government of Manipur issued

appointment orders filling up 22 vacancies of Assistant

Engineers by way of direct recruitment. The issuance of

appointment orders was subject to the outcome of the Civil

Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter,

by the judgment dated 2.9.2015, the Civil Appeal Nos.6783, 6784

and 6785 of 2015 were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. While disposing of the appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the

appellants therein for promotion against the promotion quota

keeping the questions of law raised by them open. However,

contrary to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in

contravention of the admitted fact of the Government to fill up 16

vacancies by promotion including four vacancies of the year

2010, the respondent authorities have issued orders dated

30.10.2015 filling up three out of the said four vacancies of

Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment.

6.3. The issue with regard to the appointment of direct

recruitment Assistant Engineers in the tentative seniority list was

pending before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016.

However, the petitioners came to understand that a process is

underway for holding DPC for promotion to the post of Executive

Engineer in the Department based on the seniority position of the

Assistant Engineers reflected in the final impugned seniority list.

6.4. According to the petitioners, in the eventuality of

holding such DPC, the direct recruit Assistant Engineers

reflected at Serial Nos.1 to 21 in the impugned seniority list would

be considered for promotion as per the provisions of

P.W.D./I.F.C.D. (including MI Department)/ P.H.E.D/Electricity

Department, Manipur Executive Engineer

(Elect/Mech)/(Civil/Mech) Recruitment Rules, 1986 requiring six

years of regular service in the grade of Assistant Engineer to be

eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Unless

the placement of the said direct recruit Assistant Engineers

above the petitioners in the impugned final seniority list is

quashed or in the alternative, unless the official respondents are

restrained from holding DPC for promotion to the post of

Executive Engineer in the Department, the petitioners would be

put to irreparable loss and injustice.

7. The official respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition

stating that the calculation for direct/promotion quota are done

from the vacancies occurring from time to time and also carrying

forward the back-log quota of direct/promotion as the case may

be. Though in the year 2013, the State Government decided to

hold DPC, the same could not be held due to the direction of this

Court dated 4.12.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.852 of 2013.

Subsequently, the said interim order stands vacated and the

DPC for promotion quota was held in the year 2015. It is stated

that three vacancies were filled as per the outcome of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6783 of 2015.

8. According to the official respondents, the petitioners

were appointed in the year 2018, whereas the appointment of the

private respondents were in the year 2014 and 2015 respectively.

As such, the petitioners are juniors than the private respondents.

The tentative seniority list was notified properly and therefore, the

claim of the petitioners is baseless and without any proof. The

notification of the tentative seniority list is just addition of newly

promoted Assistant Engineers and deletion of retired Assistant

Engineers and in doing so all standing rules of Government have

been followed. Several objections/applications by the Assistant

Engineers of PHED on the tentative seniority list as on 15.9.2020

were made, including claims were received from the concerned

officers to their seniority position. The respondent State after

examining the matter minutely and also considering all objections

received from the officers, found that the claims made by them

are not admissible under the relevant guidelines for fixing the

seniority position of Government employees. Therefore, the

claim of the petitioners is not admissible under the relevant

guidelines for fixing of seniority position and thus, prayed for

dismissal of the writ petition.

9. The private respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition

stating that leaving of vacancies in the grade of Assistant

Engineers unfilled in time inspite of the existence of the Office

Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 might be due to certain reasons

other than financial crunch. As regards the stagnation, it is a fact

that the petitioners themselves admitted that they were allowed

to function as Assistant Engineers in the Department. The

petitioners were in fact granted financial upgradation under

ACP/MACP.

10. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

passing the interim order on 3.7.2014 in SLP No.35459 of 2013

allowing the State Government to fill up 22 of the 25 vacancies

requisitioned on 2.2.2013 for direct recruitment by keeping three

posts unfilled. In the subsequent connected cases, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court passed orders with a direction that appointments

made pursuant to the notification dated 7.5.2013 issued on the

basis of requisition dated 2.2.2013 shall be subject to the

outcome of those subsequent petitions. On 8.9.2014, the

Government of Manipur issued an order giving appointment to

22 persons as Assistant Engineers on the recommendation of

the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC). On 2.9.2015,

the Hon;ble Supreme Court passed a final judgment to the effect

that all the cases connected with the requisition of 25 posts of

Assistant Engineers on direct recruitment quota and 16 for

promotion quota. Accordingly, the State Government was

allowed to fill up both direct and promotion quota.

11. It is also stated that out of 25 posts of Assistant

Engineers advertised for direct recruitment quota, appointments

were given to 22 persons on 8.9.2014. As per Standing Order

21, Grade-I officers were also given promotion as Assistant

Engineers on the recommendation of the MPSC in its meeting

held on 19.12.2015 and 22.12.2015 respectively. Filling up of 25

posts on direct recruitment and 21 on promotion was done by

maintaining year-wise vacancies and the provisions of the

relevant Recruitment Rules. In fact, the petitioners have not

challenged the appointment of 21 Section Officers Grade-I on

promotion to Assistant Engineers. Though final seniority list was

notified in pursuance of the order of this Court, it was again

challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.407 and 442 of 2017 and the

petitioners were still in the Grade of SO Grade-I, but not Assistant

Engineers or equivalent. In fact, the petitioners have not

challenged the promotion of 21 SO Grade-I officers to Assistant

Engineers against promotion quota.

12. It is stated that the vacancy against promotion quota

for the years 2007 to 2015 comes to 21 and against these 21

vacancies of SO Grade-I were given promotion on 29.12.2015

and the petitioners were not within the zone of consideration for

giving promotion against these 11 vacancies inspite of their

eligibility. The petitioners were given appointment on promotion

as Assistant Engineers against promotion quota on 23.2.2018.

The petitioners became Assistant Engineers only with effect from

23.2.2018, cannot claim for retrospective seniority and challenge

the seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 29.1.2021. The

petitioners who were given appointment on promotion against

the vacancies available after 2015 by a subsequent DPC are to

be juniors to the private respondents in the grade of Assistant

Engineers and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

13. Assailing the impugned seniority list dated

29.1.2021 and the impugned appointment order dated

30.10.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are Section Officers Grade-I (Degree Holders) and

as per Column 10 of the PWD, IFCD and PHED, Manipur A.E.

(Civil/Mechanical)/ASW Recruitment Rules, 2019 [for short, "the

Rules of 2019'], 60% of the vacancies are to be filled up by

promotion and 40% by direct recruitment. Out of 60% promotion

quota, 50% of the vacancies are to be filled by Section Officer

Grade-I (Degree Holder) and the remaining 50% by Section

Officer Grade-I (Diploma Holder). Thus, it is the number of

vacancies against which the provisions of this Rule would apply

in the ratio of 60% by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment.

14. The learned counsel further submitted that the Chief

Engineer issued a letter dated 29.8.2012 reflecting 27 vacancies

of Assistant Engineers and out of 27 vacancies, 16 had to be

filled up by promotion and 11 had to be filled up by direct

recruitment. However, 25 out of 27 vacancies were carved out

to be filled by direct recruitment, leaving one vacancy of the year

2010 and another of the year 2012. Thus, the learned counsel

for the petitioner questioned the calculation of the aforesaid

vacancies, as the calculation made in the said letter is in violation

of the relevant rules.

15. The learned counsel then submitted that the quota

for filling up vacancies has to be applied to the number of existing

vacancies and not to the cadre strength of the Department.

Allowing the quota for direct recruit and promotion to be

calculated on the total cadre strength would cause serious injury

to the seniority position of the petitioners. If the vacancies were

so filled as per the relevant rules in time, out of 27 vacancies, 16

would have been filled up promotion and, therefore, the 16 direct

recruit Assistant Engineers would not have been reflected in the

impugned seniority list.

16. The learned counsel next submitted that the

administrative instructions which are supplementary to the

statutory rules and are binding on the Government and that the

Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 requires DPCs to be

convened at regular annual intervals to draw panels for

promotion and making promotion against vacancies year-wise.

However, in the instant cases, the official respondents have

failed to prepare year-wise selection list for promotion and that

the inaction of the Government cannot affect the rights of the

employees entitled to be empanelled year-wise against the

available vacancies. In support of the said submission, the

learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia

v. State of Punjab, (1975) 3 SCC 503 and B.S.Minhas v. Indian

Statistical Institute, (1983) 4 SCC 582.

17. The learned counsel then submitted that on

2.2.2013, the Department of P&AR (PD), Government of Manipur

submitted a requisition to the Secretary, MPSC for recruitment of

25 vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the PHED along with

other vacancies of Assistant Engineer in the other Departments

like IFCD, PWD, Electricity (Power) etc. without authority during

the ban on recruitment. At that time, some of the Sections

Officers of the Department submitted a representation to the

Department to withdraw the said requisition letter dated 2.2.2013

and they have also filed W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 challenging the

letter dated 2.2.2013. During pendency of the said writ petition,

the MPSC issued an advertisement dated 7.5.2013 for filling up

of the posts consequent to the requisition letter dated 2.2.2013.

During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Government

of Manipur also issued an order dated 12.8.2013 partially lifting

the ban on direct recruitment.

18. The learned counsel would submit that W.P.(C)

No.155 of 2013 came to be disposed of on 25.9.2013 and while

disposing of the said writ petition, this Court held that if any

appointment is made under the direct recruitment quota in

excess of the direct recruitment quota as per the relevant

Recruitment Rules, the petitioners, if aggrieved, would be at

liberty to approach this Court again. Challenging the order dated

25.9.2013, SLP (C) No.35459 of 2013 was filed and by the order

dated 29.11.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted

conditional stay. The said order dated 29.11.2013 was modified

on 3.7.2014 reserving three vacancies for the three petitioners in

the said SLP. Soon after the order dated 3.7.2014, the MPSC

declared the final merit list of the candidates on 18.7.2014

consequent to the advertisement dated 7.5.2013. Thereafter, the

petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.145 of 2015 before this Court

for passing an order in line with the order dated 3.7.2014 and by

the order dated 25.7.2014, this Court declined to pass any interim

order, however, the Court observed that any appointment made

pursuant to the notification shall be subject to the outcome of the

case.

19. The learned counsel further submitted that assailing

the order dated 25.7.2014, SLP (C) No.29104 of 2014 came to

be filed and by the order dated 14.8.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court directed that any appointment made pursuant to the said

notification shall be subject to the outcome of the case.

Thereafter, the Government of Manipur issued an order dated

8.9.2014 for filling up 22 vacancies of Assistant Engineers by way

of direct appointment in PHED subject to the outcome of SLP (C)

No.35459 of 2013. In fact, by the said order dated 8.9.2014, only

the private respondents herein were appointed to the post of

Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment. According to

the learned counsel for the petitioners, the private respondents

cannot be allowed to take advantage of the interim order for fixing

their seniority position amongst the Assistant Engineers of the

Department before finally deciding the issue of their basic

appointment in the cadre.

20. The learned counsel then submitted that the SLPs

preferred were subsequently numbered as Civil Appeals being

Nos.6783, 6784 and 6785 of 2015 and by the common judgment

dated 2.9.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the case of

the appellants therein shall be considered for promotion against

promotion quota leaving the questions of law raised by the

petitioners open. Since the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court was not implemented in letter and spirit and that the

petitioners were not considered for promotion against the 16

vacancies, they have filed W.P.(C) Nos.108, 191 of 2021 and 297

of 2022.

21. According to learned counsel for the petitioners,

contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, three

vacancies out of the said admitted vacancies were filled by direct

recruitment appointing the private respondents 24 to 26 in

W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 to the post of Assistant Engineers in the

Department vide impugned order dated 30.10.2015 in

continuation of the order dated 8.9.2014 inter alia mentioning the

outcome of Civil Appeal No.6783 of 2015. This fact of non-filling

up of three admitted vacancies of the year 2010 is also depicted

in the DPC proceedings held on 19.12.2015 and 22.12.2015

respectively.

22. The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court never directed the

said three reserved vacancies vide order dated 3.7.2014 to be

filled up by direct recruitment. Further, it was not an easy task to

fight a case upto the Hon'ble Apex Court which took years of

patience involving heavy monetary expenditure. In fact, after

achieving a favourable judgment from the Hon'ble Apex Court,

all the petitioners were not given their due benefits and it is highly

injustice to them. Since three out of 25 advertised vacancies

were admitted as promotion quota as aforesaid and the same

being placed on record, the Hon'ble Apex Court passed the

judgment dated 2.9.2015 disposing of the Civil Appeals. In view

of the above, the appointment orders dated 30.10.2015 are liable

to be quashed and consequently, their names are liable to be

struck down from the impugned seniority list and issue a fresh

seniority list by setting aside the senior list impugned herein.

23. Per contra, Mrs. Sundari, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that on

the implementation of ban on direct recruitment of posts as well

as promotion, the Department has allowed some Sections

Officers Grade-I to hold the post of Assistant Engineers on in-

charged basis in their grade of Section Officers Grade-I. If the

petitioners were not agreeable to discharge their duties as

Assistant Engineers on in-charged basis, they could have turned

down the same in writing at the time of their engagement as in-

charge Assistant Engineers. In fact, the eligible Section Officers

Grade-I were granted ACP/MACP to enjoy the financial benefits.

24. She further submitted that the calculation for

direct/promotion quota are done from the vacancies occurring

from time to time and also carrying forward the backlog quota of

direct/promotion, as the case may be and that the State

Government decided to hold DPC for promotion quota in the year

2013 and, accordingly, requisition of vigilance clearance and

ACRs were made. However, the DPC could not be held due to

the interim order of this Court dated 4.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No.852

of 2013 and finally, when the said interim order was vacated,

DPC for promotion quota was held in the year 2015.

25. The learned Government Advocate further

submitted that the three vacancies were filled as per the outcome

of the Hon'ble Apex Court ruling in Civil Appeal No.6783 of 2015

etc. and W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013, which is stated in the

appointment order itself. According to learned Government

Advocate, the petitioners were appointed in the year 2018,

whereas the appointments of the private respondents were in the

year 2014 and 2015 respectively. As such, the petitioners are

juniors than the private respondents.

26. The learned Government Advocate then submitted

that even though the petitioners have challenged the

appointment of the private respondents in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and

138 of 2016, the said writ petitions are reserved for judgment and

the judgment is yet to be pronounced by the Court concerned.

27. The learned Government Advocate urged that

similar case of the same direct recruits of 2014 for Engineering

Departments conducted by the MPSC was challenged in W.

P.(C) No.217 of 2016 and by the order dated 8.11.2019, this

Court held that the petitioners therein have no right to seek

retrospective seniority corresponding to the vacancies which

arose during 2004 to 2010 along with consequential benefits.

According to learned Government Advocate when similar case

has been considered and dismissed by this Court, the present

writ petitions cannot have different views and, therefore, the writ

petitions have any merit and prayed for dismissal of the same.

28. The learned Government Advocate has produced

the following citations :

1. Srikant Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2017) 1 SCC 457

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 24 as follows :

"24........................ The cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. The right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in the

WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 36

given cadre. The percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which from the cadre and has not relevance to the vacancy that would occur."

2. Judgment and order dated 08.11.2022 of the Hon'ble High

Court passed in WP(C) No. 217 of 2016 and WP(C) No. 523

of 2014 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed in para 43 as

follows :

"43. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no right to seek retrospective seniority corresponding to the vacancies which arose during 2004 to 2010 along with consequential benefits. Further, as stated supra, while disposing of the Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed to consider the petitioners' case for promotion against the promotion quota and accordingly, the respondent authorities have considered the case of the petitioners and given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers which was also admitted by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in these matters and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed."

29. Ms. Babita, the learned counsel appearing for the

private respondent Nos. 5,7,9 to 13, 15 to 23 and 26 submitted

that out of 25 vacancies of Assistant Engineers advertised for

direct recruitment quota, appointments were given to 22 persons

on 8.9.2014 and another three on 30.10.2015 on the basis of the

recommendation of the MPSC. Thus, it did not encroach upon

promotion quota. At the same time, 21 Section Officers Grade-I

were also given promotion as Assistant Engineers on 29.12.2015

on the recommendation of the MPSC. Thus, filling up of 25 posts

on direct recruitment and 21 on promotion were done by

maintaining year-wise vacancies and as per the applicable the

provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules.

30. The learned counsel for the private respondents

urged that only as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.463 of 2016 dated 9.3.2017, final seniority list of Assistant

Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants in

PHED was notified on 22.4.2017. Though the said final seniority

list was notified in pursuance of the order of this Court, it was

again challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.407 and 442 of 2017 by the

petitioners. In fact, the petitioners did not challenge the

promotion of 21 Section Officers Grade-I to Assistant Engineers

against promotion quota. Challenge to the seniority list of

Assistant Engineers and equivalent made by the petitioners was

not tenable in law. Further, presuming but not admitting, that the

challenge of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers and

equivalent by the petitioners are tenable in law even they were

given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers/equivalent

only on 23.2.2018 as per the Rules and that they have accepted

their promotions also.

31. According to the learned counsel for the private

respondents, the statement of the petitioners that if the vacancies

of the year 2007 to 2012 were calculated as per the relevant

Recruitment Rules, there could not be any valid justification for

filling up of 25 out of 27 vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the

Department by way of direct recruitment is incorrect and in fact,

the Chief Engineer, in his letter dated 29.8.2012 itself, has

furnished the year-wise vacancy position for the period 2007 to

2012.

32. The learned counsel argued that the petitioners

were not within the zone of consideration for giving promotion

against these 21 vacancies and they were given appointment on

promotion as Assistant Engineers against promotion quota vide

order dated 23.2.2018 and therefore, they cannot claim

retrospective seniority and consequently, challenge the

impugned seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 29.1.2021.

Further, the appointment of 25 Assistant Engineers on direct

recruitment basis vide order dated 8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015

suffer from no illegalities.

33. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

34. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were

promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers against the later

vacancies and that they were placed below the direct recruits in

the impugned seniority list. Though the petitioners were

promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers during the pendency

of the writ petitions, they have also reserved their right to pursue

the pending cases. Further, the placement of direct recruits in

the seniority list has caused serious injury to them, resulting in

the elimination of promotional avenues of the petitioners.

Further, the exact number of vacancies are not yet decided by

this Court in the earlier round of litigations initiated in W.P.(C)

No.155 of 2013 and Civil Appeal Nos.6783, 6784 and 6785 of

2015 respectively.

35. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the

enjoyment of financial benefits of ACP/MACP has nothing to do

with the right of the petitioners to be considered for promotion to

the next higher post against due vacancies. Further, the Manipur

Combined Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment of

Assistant Engineer Rules, 2006 has nothing to do with the

calculation of vacancies. The impugned appointment orders

dated 30.10.2015 and the subsequent promotion orders were not

issued as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore,

in the light of the above, the appointment orders dated

30.10.2015 and the impugned seniority list dated 29.1.2021 are

liable to be quashed.

36. First of all, the petitioners herein admitted that they

were appointed on promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers

in the year 2018 and the private respondents were appointed

directly on the recommendation of the MPSC in the year 2014

and 2015 respectively. The validity and correctness of the

appointments of the private respondents was questioned in

W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 and the judgment in the said

case was reserved by this Court on 13.6.2019 after hearing all

parties and the judgment is yet to be pronounced.

37. Now the claim of the petitioner is that as the

tentative seniority list was prepared showing the private

respondents above the petitioners and after an objection being

raised by the petitioners thereto, the impugned final seniority list

has also been prepared showing the private respondents above

the petitioners.

38. According to the petitioners, the promotion is to be

made from Section Officer Grade-I and others in the manner

provided under the Recruitment Rules and as per the PWD, IFCD

and PHED, Manipur Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mech)/ASW

Recruitment Rules, 1984/2009/2013, the vacancies of the post of

Assistant Engineer are to be filled up 60% by promotion and 40%

by direct recruitment. Out of this 60%, 50% are to be filled by

Section Officer Grade-I (Degree Holders) and the remaining 50%

are to be filled by Section Officer Grade (Diploma Holders).

According to the petitioners, all the above three Rules are pari

materia as regards promotion from Section Officer to Assistant

Engineer grade. As per the said Rule, a decree holder of Section

Officer Grade-I become eligible for promotion to the post of

Assistant Engineer after completion of three years regular

service in the grade. Thus, the petitioners being Section Officer

Grade-I (Degree Holders) claim that they are eligible for

promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers since the year 1993.

39. On the other hand, the respondent State contended

that on the implementation of ban on direct recruitment of posts

as well as promotion, the Department has allowed some Section

Officers Grade-I to hold the post of Assistant Engineers on in-

charge basis in their Grade Pay of Section Officers Grade-I.

Accordingly, the petitioners were also agreed to discharge their

duties as Assistant Engineers on in-charge basis and they were

also granted ACP/MACP to enjoy the financial benefits under

Section Officer Grade-I. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners

that they continued to remain stagnant in the same grade as

Section Officers for considerable long period of time cannot be

accepted.

40. In the aforesaid pleadings, it is appropriate to refer

to the earlier proceedings initiated by the parties. As could be

seen from the records, on 29.8.2012, the Chief Engineer, PHED

submitted a proposal to the Principal Secretary, PHED for direct

recruitment of Assistant Engineer in PHED in respect of 25

vacancies out of 27 vacancies and, accordingly, the Department

of P&AR vide order dated 2.2.2013 submitted a requisition to the

Secretary, MPSC for recruitment of 25 vacancies of Assistant

Engineers in the PHED along with other vacancies. Challenging

the order dated 2.2.2013, some of the Section Officers of the

Department filed W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 before this Court.

Pending writ petition, the MPSC issued an advertisement dated

7.5.2013 consequent to the order dated 2.2.2013 and also during

pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Manipur issued

an order dated 12.8.2013 lifting the ban partially on direct

recruitment. Subsequent to the lifting of ban, W.P.(C) No.155 of

2013 came to be disposed of on 25.9.2013 and the operative

portion of the order reads thus:

"[10] In view of the above facts, having heard the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, this

Courses of the view that the present petition can be

disposed of at this stage as follows. Since the

Government has already taken a decision as evident

from the order dated 12.8.2013 for lifting the ban on

direct recruitment partially in respect of certain posts

including the post of Assistant Engineer for Public

Health Engineering Department, the action taken by

the Department for filling up the vacancies in the

grade of Assistant Engineer against direct

recruitment quota as mentioned in the impugned

letter dated 02.02.2013 cannot be faulted with and

accordingly, no writ can be issued to set aside/quash

WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 44

the impugned letter dated 02.02.2013. However, as

regards the actual number of vacancies to the post

of Assistant Engineer in the Public Health

Engineering Department which may be filled u by

direct recruit is clarified that the State authorities

would re-examine the exact number of vacancies

falling under direct recruitment quota before any

appointment is made to the post of Assistant

Engineer in terms of the recommendation of the

Manipur Public Service Commission on direct

recruitment quota, so that any vacancy, which

otherwise would fall under the promotion quota is not

filled up by direct recruitment. Accordingly, if any

appointment is made under the direct recruitment

quota in excess of the direct recruitment quota as

per the relevant recruitment rules, the petitioners, if

aggrieved, would be at liberty to approach this Court

again."

41. Challenging the order dated 25.9.2013, SLP (C)

No.35459 of 2013 has been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court

and by the interim order dated 29.11.2013, the Hon'ble Apex

Court granted conditional stay and the same was subsequently

modified vide order dated 3.7.2014 allowing the State

Government to fill up 22 vacancies out of 25 as requested vide

letter dated 2.2.2013 for direct recruitment by keeping three posts

unfilled.

42. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C)

No.145 of 2014 praying for passing an interim order as per the

order dated 3.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C)

No.35459 of 2013. By the order dated 25.7.2014, this Court

declined to pass such relief and assailing the order dated

25.7.2014, the petitioners have preferred SLP (C) No.29104 of

2014. While issuing notice in the said SLP, the Hon'ble Apex

Court directed that any appointment made pursuant to the

notification shall be subject to the outcome of the case. While

so, the Government of Manipur issued order dated 8.9.2014

giving appointment to 22 persons as Assistant Engineers on the

recommendation of the MPSC on direct recruitment basis. On a

perusal of the proposal/letter dated 5.6.2015 of the MPSC

addressed to the Government, it is seen that the number of

vacancies of Assistant Engineers against direct recruitment

quota and promotion quota stood as 25 and 16 respectively.

43. The Special Leave Petitions subsequently

numbered as Civil Appeals and the relevant portion of the

judgment dated 2.9.2015 of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads thus:

"14. As noticed above, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel,

very fairly submitted that 16 vacancies for promotion

against the promotion quota are available and in any

case the appellants shall be considered for

promotion. In that view of the matter, we are not

inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed

by the High Court. However, we dispose of the

appeals holding that the appellants' case shall be

considered for promotion against the promotion

quota as they are much above in the seniority list.

The question of law raised by the appellants shall be

kept open."

44. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that despite the request made by the

petitioners to comply with the aforesaid direction of the Apex

Court dated 2.9.2015, the Government of Manipur issued the

impugned order dated 30.10.2015, thereby filling three vacancies

of Assistant Engineers of the year 2010 by way of direct

recruitment. According to learned counsel, the said three

vacancies filled vide impugned order dated 30.10.2015 were

already been admitted by the Government as promotion quota

before the Apex Court in the Civil Appeals.

45. Countering the argument of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Government Advocate as well as the learned

counsel for the private respondents submit that the perusal of the

letter dated 5.6.2015 of the MPSC would reveal that direct

recruitment and promotion quota were 25 and 16 respectively

and as per the information furnished, the number of 16 vacancies

for promotion quota includes the vacancies of the year 2010. It

is also the say of the respondents that three vacancies were filled

as per the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court and the

order passed in W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 and the said factum was

also stated in the appointment orders itself.

46. It appears that challenging the requisition letter

dated 2.2.2013 and the consequent advertisement dated

7.5.2013 and also the impugned appointment orders dated

8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C)

Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 and the same are still pending.

According to the petitioners, in those matters arguments were

heard and the judgment was reserved. Admittedly, in the said

two writ petitions, no stay was granted by the Court concerned

from proceeding these matters further. In the absence of stay

order, these petitions were taken up and the parties have also

agreed for disposal of these matters.

47. It also appears that pending the aforesaid two writ

petitions, a tentative seniority list dated 18.5.2016 of Assistant

Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants in

PHED was issued. The said tentative list was challenged in

W.P.(C) No.463 of 2016 and by the order dated 9.3.2017, the

said writ petition was disposed of with the following orders:

"Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.R.K.Nokulsana, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Sanajaoba, learned counsel for the private respondents, Dr. R.K Deepak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Sundarl, learned GA for the respondent No.

1.

The present writ petition has been filled challenging the impugned tentative seniority list dated 18-5-2016 and seeking other consequential reliefs.

When this matter was taken up, it has been submitted on behalf of the parties that this petition

can be closed with the direction to the State respondent authorities to finalize the seniority list in respect of Assistant Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department within a time frame so that the respondents can proceed accordingly as regards appointment, promotion etc., in accordance with the final seniority list.

Since all the parties are agreeable with the disposal of the writ petition in that line, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent Nos. 1&2 to finalize the seniority list in respect of Assistant Engineers in the Public Health Engineer Department as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months after considering any representation or objection that may be filled against the tentative seniority list which has been already published.

Dr. R.K Deepak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that as far as Interim arrangements have been made on the basis of the Impugned tentative seniority list, the authorities would not like to disturb the same as far as possible.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction."

48. Thereafter, the Government of Manipur issued final

seniority list of Assistant Engineers and others on 22.4.2017.

Challenging the said final seniority list, the petitioners in W.P.(C)

No.463 of 2016 have filed another writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.407 of 2017 and this Court by the interim order dated

9.6.2017 directed the respondents to not to disturb the places of

postings of the petitioners therein. Challenging the very same

seniority list dated 22.4.2017, W.P.(C) No.442 of 2017 came to

be filed and pending W.P.(C) No.442 of 2017, the petitioners

were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers in PHED along

with other Section Officers on 23.02.2018.

49. It is pertinent to point out that out of 25 posts of

Assistant Engineers advertised for direct recruitment quota,

appointments were given to 22 persons on 8.9.2014 and another

three on 30.10.2015 mainly based on the recommendation of the

MPSC. The aforesaid appointments, in fact, did not encroach

upon the promotion quota. At the same time, as rightly argued

by learned Government Advocate, 21 Section Officers Grade-I

were also given promotion as Assistant Engineers on 29.12.2015

on the recommendation of the MPSC. According to the learned

Government Advocate, the petitioners were not included in the

promotion list as they were not within the zone of consideration.

The aforesaid argument of the learned Government Advocate

merits acceptance. Further, the petitioners have failed to

challenge the appointment of the aforesaid 21 Section Officers

Grade-I on promotion to Assistant Engineers. Therefore,

challenging the impugned seniority list of Assistant Engineers

and equivalent by the petitioners was not sustainable in the eye

of law.

50. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the petitioners

were appointed in the year 2018, whereas the appointment of the

private respondents, as admitted by the petitioners themselves,

is of the years 2014 and 2015 respectively. As such, the

petitioners are quite juniors than the private respondents. As

stated supra, even though the petitioners have challenged the

appointment of private respondents in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138

of 2016 before this Court, this Court has not stayed the

appointment of the private respondents. As such the remedy

available now to the petitioners were to pursue the aforesaid writ

petitions.

51. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court dated 2.9.2015, this Court finds that the judgment of the

Apex Court amounts to or contributed to the acceptance of the

position that number of posts so far filled up against the direct

recruitment and promotion quotas were the vacancies caused

during the vacancy years in question and as per the provisions

of the relevant Recruitment Rules of the post.

52. The contention of the respondents is that the

vacancy against promotion quota for the years 2010 to 2012 was

7 and for the years 2013 to 2015 was 9 and again it may be stated

that the vacancy for the years 2007 to 2008 was 5, thus, the total

vacancy against the promotion quota for the years 2007 to 2015

comes to 21 and against these 21 vacancies, 21 Section Officers

Grade-I were given promotion on 29.12.2015. Since the

petitioners were not within the zone of consideration for giving

promotion against the 21 vacancies at the relevant point of time,

they were given promotion as Assistant Engineers against the

promotion quota only on 23.02.2018.

53. The fact remains that the petitioners were given

appointment on promotion as Assistant Engineers against the

promotion quota only with effect from 23.2.2018 and therefore,

they cannot claim for retrospective seniority and challenge to the

seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 29.01.2021 which

comprises of 25 Assistant Engineers who were given

appointment as early as 8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015 respectively

against the direct recruitment quota and 21 Assistant Engineers

who were given promotion from Section Officer Grade-I earlier

than the petitioners.

54. The claim of the petitioners for retrospective

seniority with effect from the date of eligibility corresponding to

the vacancies that arose during 2007 to 2015 and placing them

above the names of the aforesaid appointees in the seniority list

of Assistant Engineers is unacceptable, as the petitioners

accepted their promotion and they did not challenge the

promotion order dated 29.12.2015.

55. It is apposite to mention that similar case for the

same direct recruits of 2014 for Engineering Departments

conducted by the MPSC was considered by this Court in W.P.(C)

Nos.217 of 2016 and 523 of 2014 and by the common order

dated 8.11.2019, this Court passed the following order:

"43. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the petitioners have no right

to seek retrospective seniority corresponding to the

vacancies which arose during 2004 to 2010 along with

consequential benefits. Further, as stated supra,

WP(C) No. 108 of 2021, WP(C) No. 191 of 2021, WP(C) No. 755 of 2021, WP(C) No. 849 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 297 of 2022, MC(WP(C)) No. 140 of 2022(Ref:- WP (C) No. 755 of 2021) and MC(WP(C)) No. 145 of 2021 (Ref:- WP (C) No. 108 of 2021) P a g e | 54

while disposing the Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, directed to consider the petitioners

case for promotion quota and accordingly, the

respondent authorities have considered the case of

the petitioners and given promotion to the post of

Assistant Engineer which was also admitted by the

petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to

interfere in these matters and the writ petitions are

liable to be dismissed."

56. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the private

respondents that when a similar case has been considered and

dismissed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.217 of 2016 and 523 of

2014, another similar case, namely the present batch of writ

petitions cannot have different views. Nothing has been

produced by the petitioners to show that any appeal is pending

against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.217 of 2016 and 523 of

2014.

57. The grounds raised by the petitioners for

cancellation of the final seniority list dated 29.1.2021 is that the

requisition for direct recruitment of 25 vacancies in the grade of

Assistant Engineers/equivalent grade in PHED vide letter dated

2.2.2013 during the period 6.11.1999 to 11.8.2013 when there

was ban of direct recruitment and the consequent advertisement

dated 7.5.2013 by the MPSC was in violation of the relevant

Recruitment Rules. Similarly, the petitioners claim that the

appointment orders dated 8.9.2014 and 30.10.2015 giving

appointment to direct recruits on the basis of the

recommendation of the MPSC was illegal. It is also contended

by the petitioners that out of 27 vacancies only 11 posts should

be filled against direct recruitment quota and thus the

appointments of 25 persons on direct recruitment were illegal.

Their names should not be in the final seniority list dated

29.1.2021. It is also contended that the out of 25, placement of

last three direct recruits should not be above the petitioners in

the seniority list. Since W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138 of 2016 are

pending at pronouncing judgment stage, no DPC for promotion

to the Executive Engineer should be held.

58. On a thorough analysis of these matters, this Court

finds that by the order dated 25.9.2013 passed in W.P.(C)

No.155 of 2013, this Court dismissed the challenge to the

requisition dated 2.2.2013 and the advertisement dated

7.5.2013. The SLPs preferred against the order passed in

W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013 and subsequently numbered as Civil

Appeals were disposed by the Apex Court on 2.9.2015 holding

that the appellants shall be considered for promotion against the

promotion quota leaving the question of law raised by the

petitioners open. In fact, the Apex Court did not interfere with the

order dated 25.9.2013. Therefore, now the appointment of 25

Assistant Engineers on direct recruitment basis cannot be

questioned by the petitioners and thus, the impugned

appointment order dated 30.10.2015 does not suffer from any

illegality.

59. As rightly argued by learned Government Advocate,

the petitioners who were given appointment on promotion

against the vacancies available after 2015 by a subsequent DPC

are admittedly juniors to the private respondents in the grade of

Assistant Engineers. Eligibility and promotion to the next higher

post which are to be considered accordingly to the relevant

Rules. Therefore, the appointment of 25 Assistant Engineers on

direct recruitment and 21 on promotion do not cause any

prejudice to the petitioners.

60. It is reiterated that admittedly, the petitioners, who

are degree holders were appointed as Section Officers Grade-I

during 1990 and they were eligible for promotion to the post of

Assistant Engineers as per the Recruitment Rules of the post in

the year 1993. They were also eligible for consideration for

promotion against the vacancies caused during the year 2007 to

2015. Since the petitioners were not within the zone of

consideration, only 21 Section Officers Grade-I were considered

for promotion. The petitioners cannot claim seniority with

retrospective effect so as to place their names above the 25

direct recruits and 21 promotees in the seniority list of Assistant

Engineers. In fact, the names of the petitioners were appear in

the seniority list of Section Officer Grade-I till the day they were

given promotion to Assistant Engineers on 23.02.2018.

61. When W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 came up for

admission, on 10.2.2021, this Court passed the following interim

order:

"Heard Shri E. Premjit, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that they were

appointed on promotion to the posts of Assistant

Engineer in the year 2018. The private respondents

were appointed directly on the recommendation of

the MPSC in the year 2014. The validity and

correctness of the appointment of the private

respondents was questioned in a writ petition for

which the judgment and order is reserved by Court

No. 2. As the Tentative Seniority List was prepared

showing the private respondents above the

petitioners and after an objection being raised by the

petitioners thereto, a Final Seniority List has been

prepared showing the private respondents above

the petitioners.

The validity and correctness of the Seniority List is

being challenged by the petitioners in this writ

petition on the inter alia grounds that the judgment

and order has not yet been delivered by Court No. 2

as regards the validity and correctness of the

appointment of the private respondents. In the

Seniority List, it appears that the positions of the

private respondents have not been made subject to

the outcome of the writ petition for which the

judgment and order has been reserved.

Without awaiting the pronouncement of the

judgment and order, if a DPC is held considering the

private respondents for further promotion to the

posts of Executive Engineer, it may create a legal

complication in the matter.

In view of the above, let notice be issued to the

respondents, returnable in three weeks.

Smt. Th. Babita, learned counsel submits that he has

filed a Caveat today on behalf of some of the

respondents but the same is not on board. Since

Smt. Th. Babita, learned counsel has filed a Caveat

on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 6, 8 and 14, she

accepts notice on behalf of them. As regards the

remaining respondents, step be taken by the

counsel appearing for the petitioners for service of

notice upon them by speed post.

List the matter on 18-02-2021 so as to enable Shri

Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate to seek

instruction in the matter and till then, no DPC be held

for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer,

PHED."

62. The interim order dated 10.2.2021 mainly passed

on the ground that the validity and correctness of the seniority list

is being challenged by the petitioners and that the judgment and

order has not yet been delivered by Court No.2 as regards the

validity and correctness of the appointment of the private

respondents. Since this Court found that there is no illegality in

the seniority list challenged in these writ petitions, the non-

delivery of the judgment and order in W.P.(C) Nos.122 and 138

of 2016 pending before this Court in respect of the correctness

of the appointment of the private respondent will not in any way

prevent this Court in deciding these petitions based on the

materials produced by both sides.

63. As stated supra, while passing the interim order

dated 3.7.2014 in the SLP by the Apex Court, it has been clearly

stated that the State shall be free to fill up 22 out of 25 vacancies

advertised in the direct recruitment quota leaving 3 unfilled.

When the Civil Appeals arising out of the SLPs were disposed of

on 2.9.2015, the Apex Court did not interfere the order of this

Court dated 25.9.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.155 of 2013

whereby dismissed the case challenging the requisition letter

dated 2.2.2013 and the advertisement dated 7.5.2013. Now 25

posts advertised for direct recruitment quota were given

appointment and 21 Section Officers Grade-I who filed W.P.(C)

No.155 of 2013 and other persons were given promotion to

Assistant Engineers, including the petitioners, who were also

Section Officers Grade-I (Degree Holders) on 23.02.2018

against the Degree Holders quota on the recommendation of the

DPC. As per the relevant Rules, the petitioners shall always be

juniors to the private respondents in the grade of Assistant

Engineers.

64. In fact, on a perusal of the impugned final seniority

list, the Joint Secretary (PHE), Government of Manipur has

considered the objections/claims made by the concerned officers

and after considering the claims/objections, the said authority

has passed the impugned order dated 29.1.2021 in the following

terms:

"No.2/4/2012-PHE: Whereas, Government of Manipur

has notified tentative seniority list of Assistant

Engineer/Asst. Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants

working in P.H.E. Department, Manipur inviting any

claims/objections, if any from the concerned officers

vide this Department's Notification of even number

dated 18.11.2019.

2. And Whereas, Chief Engineer, PHED has also

furnished several applications for claims and objection

submitted by Assistant Engineers of PHED, Manipur on

the tentative seniority list as on 15.9.2020 wherein

addition of newly promoted AEs and deletion of retired

AEs are made.

3. And Whereas, some objections/claims were

received from the concerned Officers to their seniority

position. Government have examined minutely all the

claims/objections received from the concerned Officers

and found that the claims/objections are not admissible

under the relevant guidelines for fixing of seniority

position of Government employees.

4. Now, therefore, the Governor of Manipur is pleased

to issue the Final Seniority List of Assistant

Engineer/Asst. Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants

working in Department as per Annexure."

65. From the above, it is clear that before publishing the

final seniority list impugned, the Government of Manipur notified

the tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineer/Assistant

Surveyor of Works/Engineer Assistants working in PHED inviting

any claims/objections, if any from the concerned officers vide

Department notification dated 18.11.2019. The Chief Engineer,

PHED also furnished several applications for claims and

objections submitted by Assistant Engineers on the tentative

seniority list as on 15.9.2020 wherein addition of newly promoted

Assistant Engineers and deletion of retired Assistant Engineers

are made. Only after minutely examining the objections/claims

and finding that the objections/claims are not admissible under

the relevant rules and guidelines for fixing the seniority position

of the Government employees, the impugned final seniority list

dated 29.1.2021 came to be issued. The argument of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated

30.10.2015 and the subsequent promotion orders were not

issued as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil

Appeals cannot be countenanced. In view of the above, this

Court finds no infirmity in the impugned seniority list. Since the

petitioners were appointed in the year 2018 and the private

respondents were appointed in the years 2014 and 2015

respectively, they have been accordingly placed in the seniority

list.

66. For all the reasons stated above, this Court finds

that the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of

law and, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. There is no

valid ground raised by the petitioners to call in question the

impugned appointment orders and the seniority list. Finding no

merit in these writ petitions, the same are liable to be dismissed.


67.             In the result,

                (i)       The writ petitions are dismissed.


                (ii)      M.C.(WP) No.145 of 2021 is allowed and

                          the interim order dated 10.02.2021

                          passed in W.P.(C) No.108 of 2021 shall

                          stands vacated.


                (iii)     M.C.(WP) No.140 of 2021 is closed in

                          view of the dismissal of the W.P.(C)

                          No.755 of 2021.

                (iv)      No costs.




                                                          JUDGE

       FR/NFR

      Sushil