Manipur High Court
Thangjam Bijananda Singh Aged ... vs The State Of Manipur on 29 November, 2022
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2022.12.01
09:59:54 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No. 726 of 2016
1. Thangjam Bijananda Singh aged about 53 years, S/o (L)
Th. Chandramani Singh of Khurai Nandeibam Leikai, PO
Lamlong and PS Porompat, District-Imphal East, Manipur.
2. Naorem Dhangge Meetei, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) N.
Thambalangou of Khurai Soibam Leikai, PO Lamlong and
PS Porompat, District-Imphal East, Manipur.
3. Sarungbam Ashokumar Singh aged about 56 years, S/o
(L) s. Chaomacha Singh of Chingamathak Nameirakpam
Leikai, PO Imphal and PS Singjamei, District-Imphal
West, Manipur.
....... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary to
the Government of Manipur, Office at the Secretariat
Complex, Babupara, Imphal West.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 1
2
2. The Commissioner/Secretary (Home) to the Government of
Manipur Office at the Secretariat Complex, Babupara,
Imphal West.
3. The Commissioner/Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms(Personnel Division) Government of
Manipur at the Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal
West.
4. The Director General of Police, Gvernment of Manipur,
Office of Babupara, Imphal West.
5. The Manipur Public Service Comission represented by the
Secretary, MPSC, office at North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
....Official Respondents
6. T. Arunkumar Singh.
7. S. Nandakishore Singh
8. Thamei Gaipuril kabui (ST)
9. Sh. Jugeshore Sharma
10. R.K.Khomdon Singh
11. S. Somorjit Singh
12. Th. Nungshi Singh
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 2
3
13. M. Mubi Singh
14. L. Deben Singh
15. A. Ghanashyam Sharma
16. Th. Sarat Singh
17. K. Mangi Singh
18. A. Surendra Sharma
19. L. Kulachandra Singh
20. S. Shamu Singh (SC)
21. Akhuba Kabui (ST)
22. S. Ingo Singh
23. S. Punyaban Singh
24. S. Meghachandra Singh
25. H. Gyaneshore Singh
26. M. Kumarjit Singh
27. Y. Rajendro Singh
28. P. Binod Ranjan Singh
29. I. Chitaranjan Singh
30. Mangkhojang Kipjen (ST)
31. Seikhomang Touthang (ST)
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 3
4
32. K. Ajit Kumar Sharma
33. N. Manglemba Singh
34. K. Pukeho Mao (ST)
35. L. Thangboi Kuki (ST)
36. N. Angam Ningshen (ST)
37. T. Thongjapao (ST)
38. J.S Peter Makanmi (ST)
39. H. Pearson TKL (ST)
40. Ningam Siro (ST)
41. NL Kongam Anal (ST)
42. Swelling Hope Chiru (ST)
43. G. Jemkhansuan Paite (ST)
44. Ch. Adani Mao (ST)
45. Ginjamang Vaiphei (ST)
46. R. Jonah (ST)
....Private respondents.
With
WP(C)No. 885 of 2016
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 4
5
Shri Thingom Ramgopal Singh, aged about 55 years, S/O Th.
Yaima singh of Chingamakha Yengkhom Leikai, PO & PS
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Manipur through its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of
Manipur, its office at Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal
West.
2. The Principal Secretary/Addl.Chief Secretary(Home),
Government of Manipur.
3. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reform(Personnel Division),
Govt. of Manipur its office at Babupara, Imphal West.
4. The Director General of Police, Government of Manipur.
5. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, MPSC, having its Office at North AOC, Imphal,
Manipur.
....Official Respondents
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 5
6
6. Thamei Gaipuni Kabui(ST)
7. Sh. Jugeshore Sharma
8. RK Khomdon Singh
9. S. Somorjit Singh
10. M. Mubi Singh
11. L. Deben Singh
12. A. Ghanashyam Sharma
13. Th. Sharat Singh
14. K. Mangi Singh
15. A. Surendra Sharma
16. L. Kulachandra Singh
17. S. Shamu Singh(SC)
18. Akhuba Kabui(ST)
19. S. Ingo Singh
20. S. Punyaban Singh
21. S. Meghachandra Singh
22. H. Gyaneshore Singh
23. M. Kumarjit Singh
24. Y. Rajendro Singh
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 6
7
25. P. Binod Ranjan Singh
26. I. Chitaranjan Singh
27. Manggkhojang Kipgen(ST)
28. Seikhomang Thouthang(ST)
29. K. Ajit Kumar Sharma
30. N. Manglemba Singh
31. K. Pukeho Mao(ST)
32. L. Thangboi Kuki(ST)
33. N. Angam Ningshen(ST)
34. T. Thongjapao (ST)
35. JS Peter Makanmi(ST)
36. H. Pearson TKL(ST)
37. Ningam Siro(ST)
38. NL Kongam Anal(ST)
39. Swelling Hope Chiru(ST)
40. G. Jemkhansuan Paite(ST)
41. CH. Adani Mao(ST)
42. Ginjamang Vaiphei(ST).
....Private respondents.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 7
8
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners : Mr. M. Rarry, Adv in WP(C)No.726
of 2016; Mr. K. Roshan, PH.
Sanajaoba, and Mr. NG
Jagatchandra, Adv in WP(C)
No.885 of 2016
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Biswajit, Mr. BR Sharma,
Serto T Kom, Mr. I. Denning, Mr.
A. Mohendro, Mr. A.Jhalajit and Mr.
RS Reisang Sr. Adv. in both the writ
petitions
Date of Reserved : 20.09.2022
Date of order : 29.11.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] W.P.(C) No.726 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioners to
quash the proceedings and recommendations of the review Departmental
Promotion Committee meeting (3rd review DPC) held on 19.8.2016 relating
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 8
9
to the appointment by promotion from Inspectors of
Police/Subedars/Subedar-Majors of Manipur Police Department to Manipur
Police Service Grade-II in Manipur Police Department and the promotion
order dated 15.9.2016 and to direct the respondent State to
convene/constitute a fresh/review DPC meeting to appoint by promotion from
the posts of Inspectors of Police/Subedars/Subedar Majors of Manipur Police
Department to Manipur Police Service Grade-II and to select the petitioners
in Manipur Police Grade-II in an unbiased and fair manner.
[2] W.P.(C) No.885 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner to
quash the impugned promotion order dated 15.9.2016 and to direct the
respondents to convene/constitute a fresh DPC held on 18.9.2016 relating
to appointment of MPS Grade-II within a specific period according to the
judgment and order dated 12.3.2010 and order dated 23.10.2015 passed in
W.P.(C) Nos.265 of 2007 and W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 respectively.
[3] Facts
:
The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.726 of 2016 is that they
were initially appointed as Jamadars in Manipur Police Department and were
subsequently promoted as Subedars. While the petitioners were working as
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 9
Subedars, 41 vacant posts of MPS Grade-II became available for promotion,
out of which 2 vacant posts existed in the year 2006-2007 and 39 posts for
the year 2006-2007, where reservation for SC is NIL and ST is 12. Following
100 roster point existing at the relevant time, the first DPC selected 12 ST
candidates and 1 SC candidate and the petitioners herein were selected in
the 1st DPC proceedings dated 12.1.2007 in view of their seniority and having
overall grading of "very good" in the ACRs. In the meanwhile, some of the
officers, who were not selected, have filed W.P.(C) No.265 of 2006
challenging the first DPC dated 12.1.2007 and the consequent appointment
dated 1.3.2007 and the said writ petition was allowed with a direction to hold
a review DPC. Accordingly, 2nd review DPC dated 1.7.2013 was held where
the reservation proposal of the State Government remained the same and
the 2nd review DPC selected 12 ST candidates and 1 SC candidate and the
present petitioners were again selected in the 2nd review DPC dated 1.7.2013
and promotion order dated 18.10.2013 was issued. Two officers who were
not selected again challenged the 2nd review DPC in W.P.(C) No.816 of
2013. The said writ petition was allowed with certain directions. However in
W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 the reservation in regard to the present promotion
to MPS Grade-II officers was not under challenge. Finally, 3rd review DPC,
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 10
which is impugned herein, was held, wherein the petitioners were not
selected. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the writ petition.
[3.1] Resisting the writ petition, respondents 1 and 3 filed counter
stating that reservation for appointment to the posts and services under the
Government of Manipur including by promotion to MPS Grade-II is governed
by the Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 and the Rules framed
thereunder from time to time. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the Act
shall apply to all appointments to the posts and services under the State
except for exemptions as provided thereunder. It is stated that as per DoPT
Office Memorandum dated 11.7.2002 read with Office Memorandum dated
31.1.2005, in case of promotion by selection method, SC/ST candidates
appointed by promotion on their own merit and not owing to reservation or
relaxation of qualifications will not be adjusted against the reserved points of
the reservation roster and they will be adjusted against unreserved points.
Therefore, there is no question of violation of reservation policy by the State
Government.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 11
[3.2] Respondents 9, 11, 30, 35, 37 and 40 filed counter stating that
reservation for appointment to the post and services under the Government
of Manipur including that of promotion to MPS Grade-II is governed by the
Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 [for short, "the said Act"] and the
rules framed thereunder from time to time. Section 3 of the said Act provides
that the said Act shall apply to all appointments to the posts and services
under the State except for exemptions as provided thereunder. It is stated
that as per DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11.7.2002 read with Office
Memorandum dated 31.1.2005, in case of promotion by selection method,
SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and not owing
to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will not be adjusted against the
reserved points of the reservation roster and they will be adjusted against
unreserved points. Therefore, there is no question of violation of reservation
policy by the State Government. It is stated that 1 SC candidate and 4 ST
candidates of the consolidated combined merit list of the officers
recommended were not recommended in the reserved post, but are
recommended in the unreserved post by virtue of merit which is permissible
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 12
by law. It is incorrect to state that the promotion order dated 15.9.2016
appointing 1 SC and 17 ST candidates are based on illegal recommendation.
[3.3] Denying the averments set out in the writ petition, respondent
Nos.42 to 45 filed counter stating that 1 SC candidate (at Sl. No.15 of the
consolidated combined merit list of the officers recommended and found at
para 10 of the DPC proceedings held on 19.8.2016) and 4 ST candidates (at
Sl. No.3, 16, 25 and 26 of the consolidated combined merit list of the officer
recommended found at para 10 of the DPC proceedings held on
19.8.2016)were not recommended in the reserved posts, but were
recommended in the unreserved post by virtue merit which is permissible by
law because reserved category candidates can compete for the non-
reserved posts and also in the event of their selection to the non-reserved
posts, their number cannot be counted for working out the percentage of the
reservation, obviously because non-reserved post are open to all.
[3.4] It is stated that 2 unreserved candidates namely K.Ajitkumar
Sharma and Manglemba Singh whose names found at Sl. No.27 and 28 of
the consolidated combined merit list of the officers recommended found at
para 10 of the DPC dated 19.8.2016 would go to show that candidates
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 13
selected from Sl. No.1 to 28 of the said merit list are selected for the
unreserved posts based on merit and that only the 12 ST candidates
including respondents 42 to 45 whose names are found in the consolidated
combined merit list of the officers recommended in the DPC dated 19.8.2016
were selected and recommended for the 12 ST reserved posts. The
respondents 42 to 45 denied the statement of the petitioners that the
promotion order dated 15.9.2016 appointing 1 SC and 17 ST candidates are
based on illegal recommendation.
[4] The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.885 of 2016 is that he
was initially appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Manipur
Police Department and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of
Inspector of Police and the next promotion is Manipur Police Service Grade-
II and he was eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of MPS
Grade-II as per Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965. For filling up of 41 MPS
Grade-II, on 12.1.2007, the official respondents in consultation with MPSC
held DPC and the said DPC recommended 41 officers, out of which, two are
vacancy of the year 2005-2006 and 39 posts for the year 2006-2007.
Challenging the DPC proceedings and its promotion order dated 1.3.2007,
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 14
the petitioner and respondent No.11 have filed W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007
before the Gauhati High Court and by the order dated 12.3.2010, W.P.(C)
No.265 of 2007 was allowed with a direction to hold fresh DPC taking all the
ACRs of the petitioner within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said
order, the respondent State filed writ appeal. Thereafter, the official
respondents in consultation with MPSC held a review DPC on 1.7.2013 and
in the said review DPC instead of considering the petitioner and respondent
No.11, the official respondents recommended the persons who are not party
in W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007. Being aggrieved by the non-consideration and
non-recommendation of the petitioner and respondent No.11 in the review
DPC held on 1.7.2013 for appointment/promotion to the post of MPS Grade-
II, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 was filed and the said
writ petition was disposed of on 23.10.2015 thereby setting aside the review
DPC proceedings and the promotion order dated 18.10.2013 with a direction
to hold fresh DPC by considering the petitioner and respondent No.11.
However, the official respondent, by adopting different yardstick and
considering the reservation policy, recommended many officers who were
not recommended in the DPC 2007 and DPC 2013 and the said
recommendation was without collecting the data of reservation of Scheduled
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 15
Caste and Scheduled Tribe and the official respondents appointed the
excess reservation beyond the prescribed percentage of reservation.
According to the petitioner, there is no reservation quota and the reserve
category who are higher in the seniority list has been converted to the
unreserved category taking thereby that they have good merit, but those
reserve category officers have taken their relaxation in the eligibility criteria
and their promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police
(Legal)/Subedar Major/Subedar, they were promoted under the Reserved
category. They cannot claim their promotion to the next higher post of MPS
Grade-II under the reserved category. As such, said review DPC dated
18.9.016 and the promotion order dated 15.9.2016 are liable to be set aside.
[5] The third respondent filed counter stating that the review DPC
dated 19.8.2016 was held in compliance of the High Court's order dated
23.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 and as per the guidelines for
DPC as laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. The zone
of consideration for 39 vacancies for the post of MPS Grade-II under the
promotion quota which arose in 2006-07 is 82. It is stated that the overall
ACR grading prepared by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) was taken into
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 16
account by the review DPC in respect of 43 officers who were parties in
W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007 were assessed by the review DPC strictly on the
basis of their original ACRs recorded by the competent authority as were
available with the State Government as on 12.1.2007. The ACRs of the
petitioner was never settled by this Court in the order dated 12.3.2010 in
W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007. There was neither manipulation of ACRs, nor
downgrading or upgrading of ACRs in the said DPC. It is further stated that
as per DoPT's Office Memorandum dated 11.7.2002 read with Office
Memorandum dated 31.1.2005, in case of promotion by selection method,
SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and not owing
to reservation or relaxation of qualification will not be adjusted against the
reserved points of the reservation roster. They will be adjusted against
unreserved points. There is no question of destroy of the ACRs and relevant
records by the Departmental of Personnel, Government Manipur. Therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
[5.1] Respondent No.7 filed affidavit stating that pursuant to the
direction dated 12.3.2010 given in W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007, review DPC was
held on 1.3.2013 by the respondent MPSC and the MPSC had properly
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 17
assessed the ACRs of the eligible officers of Manipur Police Department and
thereafter, on the basis of the DPC, eligible officers were recommended in
order of merit including respondent No.7. It is stated that the DPC had
considered the cases of all eligible candidates numbering 82 who were within
the zone of consideration including respondent No.7 and having regard to
the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India which mandates for
equal opportunity in the matters of employment, the review DPC is required
to consider all those who have been considered by the DPC. In the said
review DPC, the petitioner was not recommended.
[5.2] It is further stated that the review DPC dated 19.8.2016 was
held in compliance with the order dated 23.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.816 of
2013. The zone of consideration for 39 vacancies for the post of MPS Grade-
II under the promotion quota which arose in 2006-07 is 82. The DPC was
held on 19.8.2016 by considering over all ACRs of all eligible officers within
the zone of consideration and there was no question of manipulation of ACRs
of all eligible officers to downgrade or upgrade in the said DPC. Review DPC
was held on 1.7.2013 according to the relevant ACRs of candidates who
were within the zone of consideration, including the respondent No.7. The
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 18
seventh respondent came at Serial No.1 in the review DPC because of his
merit. However, the allegation levelled against respondent No.7 is baseless
and not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
[5.3] The respondent MPSC filed counter stating that the High Court
ordered to hold a review DPC and in compliance of the order, review DPC
was held and all those candidates who are eligible and within the zone of
consideration were considered irrespective of whether they are
petitioner/respondents or not. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned
orders.
[5.4] Respondent No.9 filed counter stating that as directed by the
High Court in the order dated 23.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013, DPC
was held on 19.8.2016 by considering over all ACR's of all eligible officers
within the zone of consideration and there was no question of manipulation
of ACRs of all eligible officers to downgrade or upgrade in the said DPC. The
allegations levelled by the petitioner are baseless and having no foundation.
Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 19
[6] Submissions:
Assailing the impugned review DPC and its subsequent promotion
order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was
violation of reservation policy in the impugned third DPC dated 19.8.2016
and that earlier 1st DPC and 1st review DPC followed the correct post based
reservation norms of selecting the number of reserved posts in model roster
of 100 points whereby the selected 12 ST officers were arranged according
to their selection in order of precedence and they were placed in the points
available in the already maintained model roster of 100 points. He would
submit that the name of 1st ST officer who was selected first was placed first
in the said model roster of 100 points and order of precedence of subsequent
selectee was accordingly maintained. According to the learned counsel, the
post based reservation norms of following model roster of 100 points was
done in the previous 1st DPC and 1st review DPC/2nd DPC, but erroneously,
mala fide and illegally not followed in the impugned 3rd DPC/2nd review DPC.
[7] The learned counsel further submitted that it is not in dispute
that appointment by promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II is governed by
the provisions of Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 as amended from time.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 20
Drawing attention to Rule 20, the learned counsel submitted that Rule 20
clearly mentions about applicability of said rule only in respect of
appointment by direct recruitment and omitting promotion. The language of
the statute is clear and unambiguous and its literal meaning has to be read
as per law. Reading further down into the said Rule 20, it mentions about
giving benefits of orders issued by the Central Government from time to time
only in case of direct recruitment and not promotion.
[8] The learned counsel next submitted that there is no other
provision in the MPS Rules regarding special provision for SC/ST and that
MPS Rules is silent about giving any benefit of reservation to SC/ST in
matters of promotion under the Rules.
[9] Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of K.Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro
and others, (2020) 5 SCC 689, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the provision of MPS Rules will only apply even in relation to
special provision for ST/SC regarding reservation and such provision of
reservation can only apply to direct recruitment and not in promotion.
Further, the Office Memorandum of the Central Government or Circulars
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 21
relating to Central Government employees about reservation cannot be
made automatically applicable to Manipur State Police Officers.
[10] The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there is no
legal justification to oust the petitioners in the 2nd review DPC when they have
been selected with "very good" in prior two DPC consecutively and that the
previous two round litigations were by unreserved candidates and the issue
was only of upgrading of ACRs, not related to petitioners and not at all related
to implementation of post based reservation policy with model roster of 100
points. The State Government is the only authority to decide whether
reservation in promotion is to be given for appointment of MPS Grade-II,
whereas it was by way of "Note for DPC" dated 2.1.2007 mentioned that 29-
UR and 12-ST as per post based roster in a model roster of 100 points is to
be adopted and followed. Thus, the Government policy has been illegally
changed in the impugned 2nd review DPC without giving any reason in an
illegal manner and without jurisdiction and authority of law.
[11] The learned counsel then submitted that the 2nd review DPC is
based on directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 dated
23.10.2015 and there is no observation of any kind by the learned Single
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 22
Judge regarding any issue of reservation in earlier 1st DPC or the 1st review
DPC and that the impugned proceedings ignored the direction of this Court
regarding ACRs and that the private respondents have failed to comply with
the said order of this Court. On the contrary, in the guise of implementing
the same order, the present illegal, arbitrary and mala fide act of violating the
reservation policy of the State Government has been committed by the
impugned 2nd review DPC dated 19.8.2016. Thus, a prayer is made to set
aside the impugned DPC proceedings and its consequential promotion
order.
[12] Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that
reservation for appointment to the posts under the Government of Manipur,
including by promotion to MPS Grade-II is governed by Manipur Reservation
of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder from time to time.
Drawing this Court's attention to Section 3 of the said Act, the learned
Government Advocate submitted that the said Act shall apply to all
appointments to the posts and services under the State except for
exemptions as provided thereunder.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 23
[13] The learned Government Advocate would submit that as per
the Office Memorandum dated 31.1.2005 of the DoPT, in case of promotion
by selection method, SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own
merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will not be
adjusted against the reserved points of the reservation roster and that they
will be adjusted against unreserved post. Hence, there is no question of
violation of reservation policy by the State Government.
[14] The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.14,by
placing written submissions, submitted that following the 100 roster point
existing at the relevant point of time proposed by the State Government, the
1st DPC selected 12 ST candidates (1 ST/respondent no.46 recommendation
was kept in a sealed cover) and 1 SC candidate. The petitioners were
selected in 1st DPC proceeding dated 12.1.2007 in view of their seniority and
having overall grading of "very good" in the ACRs. Some officers who were
not selected had filed W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007 challenging the 1 st DPC and
the consequential appointment order dated 1.3.2007 and the said writ
petition was disposed of on 12.3.2010 with a direction to hold a review DPC.
He submits that pursuant to the order dated 12.3.2010, 2 nd review DPC was
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 24
held on 1.7.2013 where the reservation proposal of the State Government
remained the same as above. Accordingly, the 2nd review DPC selected 12
ST candidates and 1 SC candidate.
[15] The learned counsel urged that the petitioners were again
selected in the 2nd review DPC proceeding dated 1.7.2013 and promotion
order dated 18.10.2013 was issued. The two officers, who were not
selected, have challenged the proceedings of the 2nd review DPC on the
ground that again an illegality has been committed in the 2 nd review DPC by
causing down gradation of ACRs in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 and the said
writ petition was allowed with directions. According to the learned counsel,
W.P.(C) N.816 of 2013 has not dealt with the reservation policy of the State
Government in regard to the present promotion to MPS Grade-II officers.
[16] The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned 3 rd
review DPC was held on 19.8.2016 when the petitioners who have been
selected in the 1st DPC and 2nd review DPC based on the same ACRs
showing them to have overall grading of "very good" assessed for the
relevant period, were not selected in the impugned 3rd review DPC.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 25
[17] In the written submissions, it has been stated that the State
Government had clearly taken a decision regarding the reservation for
various categories of posts for appointment to MPS Grade-II in Manipur
Police Department, where it has been intimated to the MPSC to recommend
41 officers for SC-nil, for ST-12 with respect to vacancy years 2005-06 - 2
nos. and 2005-07 - 39 (UR-27 & ST-12) and in view thereof, the MPSC was
legally bound to follow the said reservation policy as adopted by the State
Government. He submits that the 100 point reservation roster followed by
the State Government at the relevant point of time was not adhered to by the
MPSC in making recommendation in 3rd review DPC and that the 3rd review
DPC has violated the reservation policy by illegally making a
recommendation of a total of 1 SC candidate against nil reserved SC
vacancy and 17 ST candidates against 12 ST approved vacant posts and
only 21 UR candidates instead of 27 UR vacancy have been illegally
selected.
[18] The learned counsel then submitted that after promotion to
MPS Grade-II, the private respondents are earned next higher post i.e. MPS
Grade-I and thereafter selection grade and some of them expired and some
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 26
retired peacefully. He also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also
settled the seniority position of the private respondents in the Civil Appeal
Nos.8833-8835 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019 and once the dispute was settled
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be re-opened again. Thus,
a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition.
[19] Challenging the impugned promotion order dated 15.9.2016 in
W.P.(C) No.885 of 2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the DPC was bound to adhere to the guidelines contained in the Office
Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 and that the recommendation of the DPC for
promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II had been made in complete violation
of the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 and Rule 5A of
the MPS Rules and, as such, the recommendation and impugned order
dated 15.9.2016 are liable to be set aside.
[20] The learned counsel further submitted that the DPC held on
1.7.2013 and the DPC held on 18.9.2016 are in violation of the judgment of
this Court dated 12.3.2010 and 23.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.265 of
2007 and 816 of 2013 and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 27
[21] The learned counsel added that the review DPC has adopted
different yardstick for different candidates and therefore, there is a clear case
of discrimination and arbitrariness and, hence the authority has violated
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the recommendation and
impugned order dated 15.9.2016 is liable to be interfered with.
[22] The learned counsel urged that some of the private
respondents in collusion with the official respondents have changed the
grading of their ACRS before holding the review DPC by rewriting again so
as to defeat the rights of the petitioners. Thus, a prayer is made to allow
W.P.(C) No.885 of 2016.
[23] The learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent submitted
that the review DPC dated 19.8.2016 was held in compliance of the High
Court's order and as per the guidelines for DPC as laid down by the
Government of Manipur in the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 and that
the zone of consideration for 39 vacancies for the post of MPS Grade-II under
the promotion quota which arose in 2006-07 was 82. As directed by this
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 28
Court vide order dated 23.10.2015, the DPC was held on 19.8.2016 by
considering the overall ACRs of all eligible officers within the zone of
consideration and that there was no question of manipulation of ACRs of
eligible officers to downgrade or upgrade in the said DPC.
[24] Similar argument, as has been made by learned counsel for the
7th respondent, was raised by learned counsel appearing for the 9 th
respondent. He further added that there is no question of destroyed of all
ACRs and relevant records by the Department of Personnel and that the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no
foundation in the eyes of law.
[25] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/MPSC
submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the impugned review
DPC was held and all those candidates who are eligible and within the zone
of consideration were considered irrespective of whether they are
petitioner/respondent or not and there is no arbitrariness in issuing the
impugned orders. There is no merit in the writ petition and therefore, the
same is liable to be dismissed.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 29
[26] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused
the materials available on record.
[27] Discussion:
The sum and substance of the arguments made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that when the petitioners who have always been
selected in the 1st DPC and the 2nd review DPC based on the same ACRs
showing them to have overall grading of "very good" assessed for the
relevant period, were not selected in the impugned 3 rd review DPC
proceedings and that when the State Government had clearly taken a
decision qua the reservation of posts for various categories of posts for
appointment to MPS Grade-II in Manipur Police Department, where it has
been intimated to the MPSC to recommend 41 officers (SC-nil, for ST-12
with respect to vacancies year 2005-06 - 2 nos. and 2006-07 - 39 (UR-27 &
ST 12), the MPSC was legally bound to follow the said reservation policy as
adopted by the State Government and that the 100 point reservation roster
followed by the State Government at the relevant time was not adhered to
by the MPSC in making recommendation in 3rd review DPC. Therefore, the
3rd review DPC has violated the reservation policy by illegally making a
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 30
recommendation of a total of 1 SC candidate against nil reserved SC
vacancy and 17 ST candidates (one under sealed cover) against 12 ST
approved vacant posts. Finally, only 21 UR candidates, instead of 27 UR
vacancy have been illegally selected.
[28] As could be seen from the records, as many as 41 vacant posts
of MPS Grade-II were available for appointment on promotion from amongst
the eligible Inspectors of Police, out of which 2 vacancies occurred in the
year 2005-06 and 39 vacancies occurred in the year 2006-07. A DPC was
held on 12.1.2007 for consideration of eligible persons for appointment on
promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II and the said DPC recommended 41
Inspectors of Police against the aforesaid vacancies occurred in the years
2005-06 and 2006-07 for appointment on promotion. On the
recommendation, an order dated 1.3.2007 was issued appointing 40
Inspectors of Police/Subedars/Subedar-Majors as MPS Grade-II.
[29] Aggrieved by the said order dated 1.3.2007, the petitioners
herein and other similarly situated persons have filed W.P.(C) No.265 of
2007 before the Gauhati High Court and the Gauhati High Court, by the order
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 31
dated 12.3.2010, disposed of the said writ petition with the following
direction:
"The respondents are directed to hold a Review DPC within 3
(three) months from today, keeping in view the observation and
finding recorded above by the Court. However, considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that
the private respondent Nos.8 to 45 shall continue under the
present arrangement till the Review DPC, as ordered, is held
within the time stipulated above."
[30] Aggrieved by the said direction, W.A.No.174 of 2012 was
preferred by the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007, which was
dismissed by a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court on 13.9.2012.
Thereafter, a Contempt Case No.62 of 2010 was filed and pursuant to the
direction made in the said Contempt Case, a review DPC was held on
1.7.2013 which recommended the private respondents for appointment on
promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II and on the recommendation of the
review DPC, the State Government issued order dated 18.10.2013
appointing the private respondents and similarly situated persons as MPS
Grade-II.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 32
[31] Being aggrieved by the recommendation of the review DPC and
the Government Order dated 18.10.2013, the petitioners herein and others
have filed W.P.(C) No.816 of 2013 and by the order dated 23.10.2015, this
Court while quashing the proceedings of the review DPC and the
Government Order dated 18.10.2013, issued following directions:
"a) The official respondents and in particular, the respondent
No.5, MPSC shall convene/hold a Review DPC to consider the
cases of all eligible candidates who were within the zone of
consideration as on 12-01-2007 for appointment on promotion to
the post of MPS Grade-II in accordance with the Manipur Police
Service Rules, 1965 and submit its recommendation within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and order;
b) All incumbents as on date including the petitioners, private and
proforma respondents shall be allowed to continue in service in
their respective positions till the recommendation being submitted
by a Review DPC and appointment orders being issued by the
State Government based on its recommendation;
c) While considering the ACRs of the eligible candidates as one
of the factors of determining merit, the overall grading of ACRs as
per the Assessment Chart prepared by the Deputy Registrar
(Judicial) which has remained undisputed/uncontroverted by any
one and has attained finality, shall be the only basis so far as the
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 33
petitioners and the respondents who were parties before the
Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.265 of 2007, are concerned
and in other words, it is made clear that no down-gradation or up-
gradation of ACRs is permissible in respect of these persons;
d) In so far as the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 and others who were
not parties before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.265 of
2007 are concerned, the overall grading of their ACRs shall be
made strictly on the basis of their original ACRs recorded by the
competent authorities, as were available with the State
respondents as on 12-01-2007, under the provisions of OM dated
29-04-1999 as interpreted/held by the Division Bench of this
Court on 02-06-2015 in W.A.No.39 of 2010 and in other words, it
is made clear that no down-gradation or up-gradation of their
ACRs is permissible except in accordance with what has been
held by the Division Bench of this court in the said writ appeal;
e) There shall be no order as to costs."
[32] Pursuant to the direction dated 12.3.2010, 2nd review DPC
dated 1.7.2013 was held where the reservation proposal of the State
Government remained same as in 1st review DPC and the 2nd review DPC
selected 12 ST candidates and one SC candidate and the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.726 of 2016 were again selected and promotion order dated
18.10.2013 was issued. However, the unselected officers have challenged
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 34
the 2nd review DPC on the ground that an illegality has been committed in
the proceedings of the 2nd review DPC by causing down-gradation/up-
gradation of ACRs and against the direction passed in W.P.(C) No.265 of
2007.Consequently, review DPC was held on 19.8.2016 for filling up of 41
vacant posts, for the vacancy year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and the order
dated 15.9.2016 was issued promoting the private respondents numbering
40 with effect from 1.3.2007. Assailing the review DPC dated 19.8.2016 and
its subsequent promotion order, W.P.(C) Nos.867 of 2017, 346 and 923 of
2021 were filed by the aggrieved persons and this Court, by a common order
dated 24.11.2022, dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions. The following
paragraphs of the said order are relevant and the same is extracted
hereunder:
"96. Assuming, though without admitting, that some
irregularities were committed by the Department in the process
of promotions of some private respondents, since maximum of
the promotees were already retired and only few of them are
left with very short span of service tenure, apart from the fact
that many incumbents have already occupied the vacant seats
of MPS Grade-II by virtue of the private respondents being
promoted to the higher posts i.e. MPS Grade-I, the present writ
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 35
petitions filed by the petitioners are fit cases to be dismissed by
applying the principle of equity in the interest of justice.
97. It is reiterated that earlier, the learned Single Judge
of this Court has passed an order directing that the batch of MPS
promotees appointed on 1.3.2007 must be given seniority above
the direct recruit MPS appointed on 14.8.2007 and the learned
Single Judge justified that direct recruits can claim seniority only
from the date of their regular appointment. Aggrieved by the
order of the learned Single Judge, writ appeal was filed and a
Division Bench while upholding the ruling of the learned Single
Judge observed that seniority for direct recruits cannot be
reckoned from a date prior to their appointment. Aggrieved over
the same, direct recruits approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that as per Rule 28 of the
MPS Rules, 1965, seniority in the service shall be determined
based on the date of appointment to the service and directed the
State Government to prepare a revised inter-se seniority list in
respect of MPS Grade-II cadres within the stipulated time.
Accordingly, the State Government under its office letter dated
28.5.2021 have furnished the names of the eligible officers and
the list of names are prepared considering the seniority positions
of the incumbents which have attained finality after adjudication
of various rounds of litigations.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 36
98. As the vacancies were determined by the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs for the year 2016,
2017 and 2018 as 5, 1, 4, 1 respectively, the Selection Committee
meeting was held on 3.12.2021 for preparation of year-wise
select list of 2016 to 2019 for promotion to IPS of Manipur cadre
and the minutes of the Committee was also forwarded vide letter
dated 13.12.2021 to the State Government with a copy to the
Government of India for furnishing their observations and
recommendations of the Committee. Therefore, this Court is of
the view that the petitioners have no right to insist the
respondent/State to prepare a fresh final seniority list of MPS
officers.
99. Any issues which have attained finality having
already decided by the Apex Court becomes infructuous and
moreover the same has been covered by the principles of res
judicata and constructive res judicata. While passing the
judgment dated 19.11.2019, the Apex Court observed that all the
consequential actions will follow from the judgment. This Court
is obliged to follow the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and
following the principles laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is
of the view that there is no illegality in the promotion to MPS
Grade-II and the present writ petitions are futile exercise for re-
opening the matters which have adjudicated and effected by the
orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 37
100. As stated supra, on the basis of the proposal
submitted by the State Government dated 28.5.2021, the
Selection Committee was held on 3.12.2021 for preparation of
year-wise selection list of 2016 to 2019 for promotion of State
Police Service officers to IPS of Manipur cadre. However, the
recommendation of the Selection Committee has not been
finalized in view of the interim order dated 20.12.2021 passed by
this Court thereby directing to maintain status quo as on
20.12.2021.
101. When these writ petitions were taken up for hearing,
on 17.12.2021, this Court directed to list the writ petitions before
another Bench on 22.12.2021 for consideration of the interim
order. Subsequently, MC(WP) No.317 of 2021 has been filed by
the petitioners praying for rectification of the order as regards the
status quo to be maintained by the parties. The said application
was taken up on 20.12.2021 and this Court allowed the
application thereby directing that status quo as on that date shall
be maintained by all the parties till the next date of hearing. The
said order of status quo still continues.
102. Alleging that the interim order passed by this Court is
contradictory to the judgment of the Apex Court dated 19.11.2019
passed in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019, MC(WP) Nos.88
of 2022 and 20 of 2022 have been filed by the private
respondents. Admittedly, the interim order of status quo granted
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 38
by this Court in these writ petitions is contradictory to the
judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.8833-8835
of 2019, dated 19.11.2019.
103. Since the matter of seniority has been well settled and
this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of
cases held that the seniority/promotion granted on the strength of
DPC selection should not be unsettled after a lapse of time, this
Court finds merits in the case of the private respondents. In the
absence of any violation in the impugned orders, undertaking a
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
unwarranted in these cases.
104. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view
that there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioners and also
the present writ petitions at the hands of the petitioners are hit by
laches and the principles of res judicata and constructive res
judicata, apart from the principle of estoppel.
105. In the result,
(1) The writ petitions are dismissed.
(2) The interim order dated 17.12.2021 passed in the writ
petitions read with the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by
this Court shall stand vacated and MC (WP) Nos.88 and
20 of 2022 are allowed.
(3) In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, MC (WP)
No.280 of 2021 is closed.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 39
(4) The respondent authorities are directed to proceed
further as expeditiously as possible.
(5) There will be no order as to costs."
[33] The overall analysis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court
is of the view that the petitioners were never concerned with the reservation
policy of the State Government in regard to the promotion to MPS Grade-II
officers in the earlier round of litigations.
[34] As per the Manipur Police Service Rules, the method of
recruitment to MPS Grade-II is 50% direct recruitment and another 50% of
the promotional quota shall be filled up amongst the Inspector, Subedar-
Major, Inspector (Legal) etc. As per the Office Memorandum on consolidated
instruction on the DPC, the post of MPS Grade-II is a selection post i.e. merit-
cum-seniority, where seniority alone cannot be criteria for promotion.
[35] According to the respondent State, reservation is provided for
promotion to MPS Grade-II by applying the Manipur Reservation of
Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1976 and as per the Office Memorandum of Central Government
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 40
dated 11.7.2022, SC/ST candidates selected on its own merit and not owing
to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will not be adjusted against the
reserved points of the reservation roster. They will be adjusted against
unreserved points.
[36] Office Memorandum dated 11.7.2022 provides:
(i) The SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on
their own merit and not owing to reservation or
relaxation of qualifications will not be adjusted against
the reserved points.
(ii) If an unreserved vacancy arises in a cadre and there
is any SC/ST candidate within the normal zone of
consideration in the feeder grade, such SC/ST
candidate cannot be denied promotion on the plea
that the post is not reserved. Such a candidate will
be considered for promotion along with other
candidates treating him as if he belongs to general
category. In case he is selected, he will be appointed
to the post and will be adjusted against the
unreserved point.
(iii) SC/ST candidates appointed on their own merit (by
direct recruitment or promotion) and adjusted against
unreserved points will retain their status of SC/ST and
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 41
will be eligible to get benefit of reservation in
future/further promotions, if any.
(iv) 50% limit on reservation will be computed by
excluding such reserved category candidates who
are appointed/promoted on their own merit.
[37] The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 only mentions about giving
appointment in the reserve posts at the reserved points in the model roster
register already maintained and working in order of precedence, one after
another, as per select list, by placing a particular selectee in the slot/post
already earmarked in the roster register of MPS Grade-II.
[38] The learned counsel further submitted that the proceeding of
the impugned 2nd review DPC is completely silent as to why a total of 17 ST
plus 1 SC candidates have been selected against reservation and nothing
has been found about the claim of adjustment of ST/SC on merits and any
adjustment made contrary to the proceedings, cannot be sustained in the
eye of law.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 42
[39] The aforesaid argument of the leaned counsel for the
petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that the Office Memorandum
of DoPT dated 11.7.2022 read with the Office Memorandum dated 31.1.2005
which stipulates that in the case of promotion by selection method, SC&ST
candidate appointed by promotion on their own merit not owing to reservation
or relaxation of qualification will not be adjusted against the reserved point
of the reservation roster and they will be adjusted against the unreserved
point.
[40] It is pertinent to mention that 1 Scheduled Caste candidate and
4 Schedule Tribe candidates of the consolidated combined merit list of the
officers recommended in the DPC proceedings held on 19.8.2016 are not
recommended in the reserved post, but are recommended in the unreserved
post by virtue of merit which is permissible by law. In case of promotion by
selection method, SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own
merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will not be
adjusted against the reserved point of the reservation roster and they will be
against unreserved points. Thus, it is clear that there is no question of
violation of reservation policy by the State as alleged by the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 43
[41] In Ritesh R. Sah v. U.L.Yamul, (1996) 3 SCC 253, after
noticing the Larger Bench decision in the cases of Indra Sawhney, 1992
Supp (3) SCC 217 and R.K.Sabharwal, (1995) 2 SCC 745, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:
"13. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that if a
candidate is entitled to be admitted on the basis of his own merit
then such admission should not be counted against the quota
reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other
reserved category since that will be against the constitutional
mandate enshrined in Article 16(4).
14. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]
commonly known as Mandal case, this Court held thus:
'811. In this connection it is well to remember that the
reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal
reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging
to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition
field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted
against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be
treated as open competition candidates.'
15. In R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745] the
Constitution Bench of this Court considered the question of
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 44
appointment and promotion and roster points vis-à-vis
reservation and held thus:
'4. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a
particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it
has to be taken that the posts show at the reserve points are to
be filled form amongst the members of reserved categories and
the candidates belonging to the general category are not
entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other
hand the reserved category candidates can compete for the
non-reserved posts and in the event of their appointment to the
said posts their number cannot be added and taken into
consideration for working out the percentage of reservation.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State
Government to make any provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of
citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately
represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore
incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that
the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made
is not adequately represented in the State Services. While
doing so the State Government may take the total population of
a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State
Services. When the State Government after doing the
necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the
extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 45
saidBackward Class then the percentage has to be followed
strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or
changed simply because some of the members of the
Backward Class have already been appointed/promoted
against the general seats. As mentioned above the roster point
which is reserved for a Backward Class has to be filled by way
of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No
general category candidate can be appointed against a slot in
the roster which is reserved for the Backward Class. The fact
that considerable number of members of a Backward Class
have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the
State Services may be a relevant factor for the State
Government to review the question of continuing reservation for
the said class but so long as the instructions/rules providing
certain percentage of reservations for the Backward Classes
are operative the same have to be followed. Despite any
number of appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward
Classes against the general category posts the given
percentage has to be provided in addition.'
16. In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684]
it has been held that while determining the number of posts
reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the
candidates belonging to reserved category but
selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not by virtue of rule
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 46
of reservation) shall not be counted as reserved category
candidates."
[42] Though the petitioners contended that the plea of the
respondent State is not based on what has been recorded in the proceedings
of the impugned 2nd review DPC dated 19.8.2016, nor the impugned
government order and the same is an explanation, nothing has been
produced by the petitioners to establish the same.
[43] As is seen from the materials available on record, the State
Government had clearly taken a decision qua the reservation of posts in the
appointment of MPS Grade-II in Manipur Police Service. In this regard,
Article 320 of the Constitution of India stipulates that as regards to the issue
of reservation of post is within the domain of the State Government.
[44] Further, the issue of appointment and promotion to MPS Grade-
II earlier challenged by some of the petitioners went up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and as stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled
the issue. The issue dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court though in
regard to the seniority of MPS Grade-II and settled the issue by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the said issue settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 47
pertains to the impugned DPC and its subsequent promotion order.
Therefore, entering into the settled issue by this Court is disobeying the order
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the respondent State, after
exhausting all legal remedies, the petitioners have now filed the writ petitions
to reopen the settled issue.
[45] Once the petitioners accepted the verdict of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, they cannot take a u-turn to stop induction of the some
promotees. The aforesaid act of the petitioners to futile the whole exercise
amounts to mala fide intention and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law.
[46] It is trite law settled and that a settled seniority position should
not be unsettled [Ref: BimleshTanwar v. State of Haryana and others,
(2003) 5 SCC 604].
[47] It is reiterated that DPC is required to make an overall
assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by
adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the
process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fide or
arbitrariness that the selection calls for interference. When the DPC has
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 48
proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same
yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the
process of assessment by DPC, the Court will not interfere.
[48] As stated supra, following the aforesaid legal position, this
Court in W.P.(C) Nos.867 of 2017, 346 and 923 of 2021 has not interfered
with and dismissed all the writ petitions. The findings rendered in the
aforesaid writ petitions are squarely applies to the cases on hand. Since
challenge to the promotion and seniority among the officers of MPS Grade-
II for the period in question was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is
inclusive of reservation, this Court is of the view that the clock cannot be
turned back and further it will amount to opening of Pandora's box, making
reverse to the whole administration of the Police Department.
[49] For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the
3rd review DPC has not violated the reservation policy. The DPC was held
on 19.8.2016 by considering all ACRs of all eligible officers within the zone
of consideration and there was no question of manipulation of ACRs of
eligible officers to downgrade or upgrade in the said DPC. Moreover, the 3rd
review DPC and its subsequent promotion impugned herein have been
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 49
upheld by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, interference
in the proceedings of the 3rd review DPC dated 19.8.2016 on the ground of
violation of the reservation is unwarranted and, there is no merit in the claim
made by the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
[50] In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
WP(C) No. 726 of 2016 wih WP(C)No.885 of 2016 Page 50
