Manipur High Court
Shri Moirangthem Imochandra ... vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 10 January, 2023
Digitally signed by LAISHRAM
LAISHRAM DHAKESHORI DEVI
DHAKESHORI DEVI Date: 2023.01.10 14:44:03
+05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR : AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No. 1004 of 2022
Shri Moirangthem Imochandra Singh, aged about 40 years,
S/o M. Gouramohon Singh, a resident of Khangabok Part-
III,Cherapur Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Additional
Secretary(AR), Government of Manipur, office at Old
Secretariat, Babupara, Imphal, PO & PS- Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
2. The Director General, State Academy of Training,
Takyelpat, Imphal, Government of Manipur Office at
Takyelpat, P.O. Langjing& PS- Patsoi, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. TheAdditionalDirector, State Academy of Training,
Takyelpat, Imphal, Government of Manipur Office at
Takyelpat, P.O. Langjing& PS- Patsoi, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
... Respondents
4. Shri Oinam Rajesh Singh aged about 37 years, son of (L)
O. Chaoba Singh, resident of
HeirangoithongAhongsangbamLeikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Shri MaibamSamananda Singh aged about 37 years, son of
(L) M. Tomba Singh, a resident of TenthaKongbal, PO-
Wangjing and & PS- Khongjom, Thoubal District, Manipur.
6. Shri ThokchomChingkheinganbaMoirangcha, aged about
36 years, son of Th. Binoy Singh, a resident of
LamdingThokchomLeikai, PO-Wangjing and PS-Thoubal,
Thoubal District, Manipur.
... Proforma Respondent
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 1
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner ∷ Mr.K. Bipinchandra Sharma, Advocate
For the respondents ∷ Mr.A.Vashum, Government Advocate
Date of Hearing ∷ 20-12-2022
Date of Judgment ∷ 10-01-2023
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.K.Bipinchandra Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2] The present writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia,
for directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to recall/review/modify the
selected list of candidates for undergoing three months85 th batch State
Accounts Training or in the alternative to direct the respondents No. 1
to 3 to allow the petitioner to undergo the said State Accounts Training
in the next 86th batch.
[3] The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
Accountant alongwith 69(sixty-nine) other incumbents, including the
present respondent nos. 4-6 on regular basis in order of merit in the
Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur, by an order
dated 24-12-2016 issued by the Director of Education(S), Government
of Manipur. In the said appointment order, the name of the petitioner
appears at Sl. No. 31 while the names of the respondent Nos. 4-6
appeared at Sl. No. 41, 42 and 49 respectively, thereby showing that
the petitioner is senior to the respondent Nos. 4 - 6. It is also the case
of the petitioner that since his appointment as Accountant, he has been
discharging his duties sincerely, diligently and obediently without any
blemish or adverse remarks and to the satisfaction of his superior
officers, fellow colleagues and subordinate staffs. The petitioner has
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 2
also passed the Office Procedure Examination conducted by the State
Academy of Training, Manipur at Takyelpat in the year 2019, which is
an essential qualification for undergoing the said accounts training.
[4] On 08-10-2021, the Director General, State Academy of
Training, Manipur issued a notification thereby notifying to all
department concerned that the 6(six) months State Accounts Training
(84thbatch) was scheduled to commence from the 1st week of
December, 2021 at the State Academy of Training, Takyelpat and that
any Group 'C' employee who fulfils the eligibility criteria and who wish
to participate in the said training should get himself/herself nominated
by the concerned Head of Department/Head of Office on or before 17-
11-2021. As per the said notification, the eligibility criteria was any
Group-C employee who have passed Office Procedure Examination
conducted by the State Academy of Training and having 3(three) years
regular service in case of Graduate and 5(five) years regular service in
case of Under Graduate were eligible for undergoing the said training.
[5] As the petitioner was eligible and interested to undergo
the said training, he applied for the same by submitting an application
dated 02-11-2021 and upon consideration of his application, the
Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur nominated the
names of 21(twenty-one) candidates including the petitioner to the
State Academy of Training for the said training, however, the petitioner
was not selected for the said training. It is the case of the petitioner that
some candidates from the Education Department (S) who were junior
to him was selected for the said training and according to the petitioner,
such selection was made illegally, arbitrarily and without any justifiable
reasons or norms.
[6] Subsequently, the Director General, State Academy of
Training, Manipur issued a notification dated 28-07-2022 notifying that
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 3
eligible Group-C employees of the Government of Manipur may
nominated themselves through the concerned Head of Department for
undergoing the 3(three) months State Accounts Training (85 th batch)
scheduled to be commenced in the 4th week of August, 2022 at the
State Academy of Training, Takyelpat, Manipur. The petitioner being
eligible and interested applied for the said training and thereafter the
Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur nominated 62 (sixty-
two) employees including the petitioner in order of priority for attending
the said 3(three) months (85th batch) Sate Accounts Training course. In
the said list, the name of the petitioner is at Sl.No. 11 while the name of
the respondent Nos. 4 - 6 are at Sl. Nos. 14, 15 & 19 respectively.
[7] It is the case of the petitioner that when the final select list
dated 05-09-2022 was notified, the name of the petitioner was not
included whereas the names of the respondent Nos. 4 - 6 who were
junior to the petitioner, were included as having been selected for
undergoing the said 85th batch State Accounts Training. Having been
aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
[8] Mr. K. Bipinchandra Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that the said selection of 182 (one hundred
and eighty-two) candidates for the 85th batch Training course has been
made illegally, arbitrarily, irrationally and the same is tainted with
extraneous consideration, selective discrimination,
materialirregularities, full of bias, favouritism, nepotism and without any
application of minds and in complete violation of the provisions of
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, bad in the
eye of law.
[9] It has also been submitted that the selection of candidates
for the 84th and 85th batch of State Accounts Training was full of doubt
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 4
and confusion and highly questionable for the simple reason that there
was no proper yardstick and established procedure including the total
number of candidates to be selected in a batch and proportionate
representation from any department and accordingly, the selection
method adopted by the official respondents was bad in law.
[10] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that on making inquiry by the petitioner, it
was found out that the respondent Nos. 4 - 6 have been selected
pursuant to the direction given by this Court in its order dated 07-03-
2022 passed in WP(C)No. 977 of 2021. The said order was passed by
this Court on the ground that persons who were junior to the
respondent Nos. 4 - 6 have been allowed to join the said training by
ignoring the nomination of respondent Nos. 4 - 6 without any justifiable
reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted
that the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief granted by this
Court to the respondent Nos. 4 - 6 since the petitioner is senior to the
said respondents and that if the petitioner is granted similar relief, the
grievance of the petitioner will be fully redressed and assuaged. The
learned counsel further submitted that the present writ petition may be
disposed of by directing the official respondents to allow the petitioner
to undergo the State Accounts Training in the next 86 th batch of State
Accounts Training.
[11] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 1
and 2, it has been stated that the petitioner along with all the 563 other
applicants were eligible for undergoing the State Accounts Training,
however, on account of the limitation in the number of trainees who can
be accommodated in one batch, all the applicants cannot be selected,
accordingly, out of 563 applicants only 182 candidates were selected
for the 85th batch State Accounts Training.In the said affidavit-in-
opposition, it has also been stated that the Selection Board of the
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 5
85thbatch State Accounts Training consists of officials nominated by the
State Government as well as officials of the State Academy of Training,
Takyelpat, Manipur and that the Selection Board resolved to make
selection of trainees with seniority of service as principle criteria within
the department. Accordingly, the most senior applicant in respect of
Education Department (S) were selected, however, respondent Nos. 4-
6 were selected as per the direction of this Court given in its order
dated 07-03-2022 passed in WP(C) No. 977 of 2021.
[12] It has also been stated that the Selection Board have
made the selection of the candidates for the 85th batch State Accounts
Training after thorough discussion and application of minds and after
due consideration of several factors to ensure the most possible fair
selection and that selection for the next batches of State Accounts
Training will also be made by the Selection Board with seniority within
departments as the principle criteria.It has further been stated that if
this Court directed the respondent Nos. 1-3 to select the present
petitioner in the next batch of State Accounts Training, a situation is
likely to arise whereby other applicants who are senior to the petitioner
will be superseded by the petitioner in the next batch of selection and
this could result in a cycle of similar petitions being made by the other
applicants for inclusion in the State Accounts Training.
[13] I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and also carefully
perused the records of the present petition. On careful examination of
the statements made by the official respondents in their affidavit-in-
opposition, this Court is of the considered view that respondent Nos. 4
- 6 have been included in the selection list of candidates for
undergoing the 85th batch of State Accounts Training pursuant to the
direction given by this Court in its order dated 07-03-2022 passed in
WP(C) No. 977 of 2021. The said order had been passed by this Court
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 6
only on the ground that since the candidates who were junior to the
present respondent Nos. 4 - 6 have been allowed to join the said
training by ignoring the nomination of respondent Nos. 4 - 6 without
any justifiable reason. This Court also found considerable force in the
submission advanced on behalf of the official respondents that if this
Court directs the official respondents to select the petitioner in the 86 th
batch of State Accounts Training without considering the seniority
position of the petitioner in the Education Department (S), a situation is
likely to arise whereby other applicants who are senior to the petitioner
may be superseded by the petitioner in the next batch of selection and
this could result in a cycle of similar petitions being made by the other
applicants for inclusion of their names in the select list for the said
State Accounts Training. This Court is also of the considered view that
if the selection of candidates for undergoing the said State Accounts
Training is based on seniority, there will be no question of superseding
a senior by a junior within the same department and accordingly, this
Court is of the considered view that the criteria adopted by the
Selection Board for selecting the candidates for the 85th batch training
is just and reasonable and this Court do not find any ground or reason
for interfering with the same.
[14] On being inquired about seniority position of the petitioner
in the Education Department (S), neither counsel for the petitioner nor
the Government Advocate could furnish any information to this Court.
This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner is granted
similar relief as were granted to respondent Nos. 4 - 6 without
ascertaining the seniority position of the petitioner, there is every
likelihood of allowing the petitioner to supersede a senior incumbent
within the Education Department (S). Accordingly, this Court declines
to grant the relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In
the result, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 7
[15] In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
parties are directed to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Dhakeshori
FR/NFR
WP(C) No. 1004 of 2022 Page 8
