Manipur High Court
Dr. L. Ranjit Singh vs The Union Of India on 3 June, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2023.06.05 10:53:55 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023
(Video Conference)
Dr. L. Ranjit Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o (L) L. Chandra
Singh of Kontha Ahallup Awang Leikai, P.S., Heingang,
Imphal East District.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
3. The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS),
Imphal, through its Director (RIMS), P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795004.
4. The Deputy Director (Admn.), Regional Institute of
Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795004.
.... Official Respondents
5. Dr. Hemam Priyosakhi Devi, aged about 63 years, W/o
Sinam Rajendra Singh, resident of Chingmeirong
East, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal
West, Manipur- 795001.
.... Private Respondent
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |2
MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023
Ref:- WP(C) No. 65 of 2023
Dr. L. Ranjit Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o (L) L. Chandra
Singh of Kontha Ahallup Awang Leikai, P.S., Heingang,
Imphal East District.
...Applicant
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
3. The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS),
Imphal, through its Director (RIMS), P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795004.
4. The Deputy Director (Admn.), Regional Institute of
Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795004.
.... Official Respondents
5. Dr. Hemam Priyosakhi Devi, aged about 63 years, W/o
Sinam Rajendra Singh, resident of Chingmeirong
East, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal
West, Manipur- 795001.
.... Private Respondent
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |3
MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Ref:- WP(C) No. 65 of 2023
Dr. L. Ranjit Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o (L) L. Chandra
Singh of Kontha Ahallup Awang Leikai, P.S., Heingang,
Imphal East District.
...Applicant
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
3. The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS),
Imphal, through its Director (RIMS), P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795004.
4. The Deputy Director (Admn.), Regional Institute of
Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur- 795004.
.... Official Respondents
5. Dr. Hemam Priyosakhi Devi, aged about 63 years, W/o
Sinam Rajendra Singh, resident of Chingmeirong
East, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal
West, Manipur- 795001.
.... Private Respondent
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |4
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE ACTNG CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MV MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner :: Mr. HS Paonam, Sr.Adv.
Mr. A. Arunkumar, Adv.
For the respondents :: Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI,
Mr. Y. Paikhomba, Adv.,
Dr. RK Deepak, Sr. Adv.
Mr. L. Rajesh, Adv.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment & Order :: 03.06.2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.05.2023
Heard also Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI assisted by Mr. Y.
Paikhomba, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Dr. RK
Deepak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Rajesh, learned
counsel for the fifth respondent today and the reply arguments
advanced by Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
for the arguments of the respondents No. 1 to 5.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash
the impugned order dated 16.1.2023 issued by the second respondent
entrusting the additional charge of Director, Regional Institute of
Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal to the fifth respondent and to direct
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for conferring the
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |5
charge of Director, RIMS being the senior most Professor in RIMS
pending appointment of a regular Director in RIMS.
3. Pending writ petition, the Under Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government India had issued an order
dated 10.4.2023 extending additional charge of the post of Director,
RIMS without any financial benefits up to 11.10.2023 or till regular
appointment of Director, RIMS or till further orders, whichever is earlier,
the petitioner has filed MC (WP) No.121 of 2023 to quash the same
coupled with a prayer to stay the said order.
4. Pending writ petition, the petitioner has filed a fresh Misc.
Case in MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023 seeking prayer to dispose of the
above writ petition without taking into account of the order dated
01.05.2023 regarding regular appointment to the post of Director, RIMS
and also seeking further prayer to direct the official respondents to allow
the present applicant to function as In-charge Director, RIMS even for
a few days or month for doing complete justice for the gross injustice
meted out to him by quashing and setting aside the impugned order
dated 16.01.2023 as prayed for by the applicant in the main writ petition
and subsequent extension order for securing ends of justice.
5. The brief facts are that by an order dated 12.10.2022, the
petitioner was entrusted with the charge of Director, RIMS and the said
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |6
order was challenged by the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022
claiming to be senior to the petitioner on the basis of an inter-se
seniority list which has not been approved by the competent authority.
The petitioner who is older in age is senior to the fifth respondent as
both of them were appointed as Professor in RIMS on the same day
under the Time Scale Promotion Rules without maintaining any merit.
This Court, by the order dated 19.12.2022, quashed the order dated
12.10.2022 on the ground of non-consideration of senior persons at the
time of conferring the charge to the petitioner with liberty to the official
respondents for making fresh interim in-charge arrangement in respect
of vacant post of Director, RIMS strictly in terms of Rule 12(1)(iii) of the
Rules and Regulations of the RIMS. Thereafter, a seniority list in
respect of 5 senior most Professors were prepared by constituting a
Committee in pursuance of the direction of the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare and the same was forwarded to the Health Ministry by
the officials of RIMS. However, ignoring the fresh seniority list, the fifth
respondent was entrusted with the additional charge of Director, RIMS
by cancelling the earlier order dated 12.10.2022, which is arbitrary
exercise of power in mala fide without considering the case of other
senior Professors. Hence, the writ petition.
6. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents 1 to 4 filed
affidavit-in-opposition stating that Dr. A.Santa Singh has been
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |7
repatriated from the post of Director, RIMS with effect from 11.10.2022
AN and the authorities have issued an order dated 12.10.2022
entrusting the additional charge for the post of Director, RIMS to the
petitioner for a period of 6 months or till regular appointment of Director,
RIMS. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.10.2022, the fifth
respondent filed W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022 on the ground that she is at
Serial No.3 in the seniority list of Professors, RIMS and Serial No.1
being Dr. L.Jaichand Singh has already superannuated and Serial No.2
being Dr. Taruni Ngangbam is about to retire which is leaving the fifth
respondent as the senior most Professor and her further claim that she
is the senior most person in the next lower grade of Director.
7. It is stated that the inter-se seniority list of Professor of
RIMS relied on by the fifth respondent was not yet approved by the
Executive Council of RIMS and therefore, the plea that the fifth
respondent is the senior most Professor is unfounded and without any
basis. As against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022, the
petitioner has filed W.A.No.131 of 2022 and the same was dismissed
by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.1.2023. Pursuant to the letter
dated 1.12.2022 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the then
Director, RIMS constituted a four member Committee to examine the
seniority list of the Professor and, on 9.1.2023, the then Director (the
petitioner herein) has sent a letter to the Ministry for fixing of final inter-
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |8
se seniority list of 5 senior most Professors of RIMS based on the
recommendation of the Committee. It is stated that the Appointment
Committee of Cabinet vide DoPT dated 13.1.2023 has not approved
the proposal of entrustment of additional charge of the post of Director,
RIMS to the petitioner and based on the available tentative seniority list
of Professors, ordered entrusting of additional charge of Director, RIMS
to the fifth respondent as she is found to be the senior most which has
neither been challenged by anybody nor have been interfered with by
any Court of law vide the impugned order dated 16.1.2023.
8. It is stated that the additional charge given to the fifth
respondent is for making up the interim vacancy caused thereon,
particularly, after the Court's order dated 19.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C)
No.867 of 2022 and the Contempt Case Nos.202 of 2022 and 2 of 2023.
The tentative inter-se seniority list of all Professors of RIMS on roll as
on 31.12.2022 has been notified vide notice dated 19.1.2023 for
information and submission of objection, if any on or before 28.1.2023.
As per Rule 12(1)(iii) bye-laws of RIMS and as directed by this Court in
the order dated 19.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022, the Ministry
have decided to entrust the additional charge for the post of Director,
RIMS to the fifth respondent as stop gap till a regular Director is
appointed. Since the appointment of the Director, RIMS is going on full
swing, the respondents 1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
Page |9
9. The fifth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating
that as per final inter-se seniority list of Associate Professors of the
RIMS as on 31.1.2009 issued by the then Director, the fifth respondent
has been placed at Serial No.7 and the petitioner has been placed at
Serial No.11. Though both of them were promoted on the same day i.e.
1.2.2005, the fifth respondent was promoted on regular basis and the
petitioner was promoted under the time scale promotion. It is stated
that the fifth respondent was not aware of any seniority list wherein the
petitioner is alleged to have been senior to the fifth respondent. In fact,
in the final inter-se seniority list issued in the year 2015, the fifth
respondent has been placed at Serial No.37 and the petitioner has been
placed at Serial No.40. In the combined inter-se seniority list of
Professors 2022, the fifth respondent has been placed at Serial No.37
and the petitioner has been placed at Serial No.40.
10. It is stated that there is no provision in the RIMS bye-laws
and the Rules and Regulations of the RIMS which requires the
Executive Council Society of the RIMS to prepare approval of seniority
list of any faculty or non-teaching staff without which seniority lists can
be enforced. Assuming but not admitting the necessity of finalizing a
fresh seniority list of Professors, how can the Committee decide on the
seniority of only five Professors without even publishing a tentative
seniority list and inviting objections from interested parties. The manner
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 10
in which the said seniority lists was finalized and the hastiness shown
by the then Director in submitting the seniority list to the Ministry raise
questions of mala fide intention and collusion of the then Director in-
charge with other vested interested persons. The ratio decidendi in
D.P.Das v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 115 is not applicable to the
case on hand.
11. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. HS Paonam, the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order dated 16.1.2023 pertaining to the entrustment of additional
charge of the post of Director, RIMS, Imphal to the fifth respondent
cannot be considered as an order issued in compliance with the order
passed in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022, as the condition
provided for consideration have not been satisfied and, hence, it would
be in the interest of justice that the order dated 16.1.2023 is liable to be
quashed.
12. The learned senior counsel further submitted that when
the impugned order dated 16.1.2023 was issued the seniority list
prepared by the Committee in pursuance of the communication dated
1.12.2022 was already in the knowledge of the official respondents and
therefore, the impugned order dated 16.1.2023 having been issued
without considering many senior Professors above the fifth respondent.
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 11
13. The learned senior counsel would submit that the
petitioner and the fifth respondent have been promoted to the post of
Professor on the same day under the Time Scale Promotion Rules
where the merit is not involved and the petitioner being older in age than
the fifth respondent, she should be treated as junior in terms of the
principles enunciated in the case of D.P. Das v. Union of India, (2011)
8 SCC 115. Similarly, it is an undeniable fact that the petitioner and the
fifth respondent were promoted to the post of Associate Professor on
the same day in RIMS. However, the petitioner was promoted to the
post of Assistant Professor on 1.2.1997, whereas the fifth respondent
was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on 1.2.1999 i.e. two
years later than the promotion of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner
shall be treated as senior to the fifth respondent on the basis of the age
as well as on the basis of seniority in the grade of Assistant Professor.
14. The learned senior counsel submitted that there are more
than four Professors above the fifth respondent, who were given
promotion to the post of Assistant Professor earlier than the fifth
respondent even though they were given promotion to the post of
Associate Professor and Professor on the same day without
maintaining merit. Such a pick and choose policy of the official
respondents in conferring higher charge of Director, RIMS to the fifth
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 12
respondent has violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner as
guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
15. Adding further, Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending writ petition, the
second respondent issued an order dated 1.5.2023 conveying approval
for appointment of Dr. Guruaribam Sunil Kumar Sharma, Director
Professor (Forensic Medicine & Toxicology), Vardhman Mahavir
Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi to the post of
Director, RIMS, Imphal on deputation on foreign service basis for a
period of 5 years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of
the post or upto the age of superannuation in his parent cadre or until
further orders, whichever is earlier. The said order stipulates Dr.
Guruanbam Sunil Kumar Sharma to join the post of Director, RIMS,
Imphal within one month of the issue of the said order.
16. Per contra, Mr. Kh. Samarjit, the learned DSGI appearing
for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that just to fill up the post as stop
gap till such time a regular Director is appointed, the Ministry has
decided to entrust the additional charge for the post of Director, RIMS
to the fifth respondent on the larger interest and importance attached to
such an important Medical Institute, which is not only catering to the
needs of the State of Manipur, but also of the entire North-East Region
and such good intention of the respondent authorities in not
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 13
letting/leaving the Institute in high and dry condition without a Director
cannot be faulted with, more so, when the fifth respondent has already
reported assumption of additional charge as Director vide joining letter
dated 16.1.2023 and the report of the Deputy Director dated 16.1.2023.
17. Mr. Kh. Samarjit, the learned DSGI further submitted that
pending writ petition, the Appointment Committee of Cabinet conveyed
approval of competent authority for appointment of Dr. Guruaribam
Sunil Kumar Sharma, Director Professor (Forensic Medicine &
Toxicology) as Director, RIMS, Imphal on deputation on foreign service
for a period of 5 years with effect from the date of assumption of charge
of the post or upto the age of superannuation in his parent cadre, or
until further orders, whichever is the earliest. Since the appointment Dr.
Guruaribam Sunil Kumar Sharma is pursuant to the approval of the
Appointment Committee of Cabinet, no fault can be attributed against
the respondent authorities.
18. Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI also submitted that the
respondent authority already called for the objection from the
professors for considering the final seniority list and the same is
pending. He also pointed out that by letter dated 19.01.2023, the
tentative seniority list is prepared based on the final seniority list of
professors notified by notice No. B/2243/2005-RIMS (Pt.) dated
27.07.2015 and subsequent addition of promotees after 2015 and
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 14
against this notice dated 19.01.2023, the petitioner as well as the 5 th
respondent alongwith the other persons were submitted their objections
and the same is pending for consideration.
19. Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI further stated that the
petitioner has prayed in the writ petition that he may be given In-Charge
by quashing the In-charge order given to 5th respondent till the regular
Director appointment to be made by the official respondent but in the
MC(WP(C))No.160 of 2023 strengthening the prayer made in the writ
petition has prayed that he may be given In-Charge even after the
regular appointment given to Mr. Dr. Guruaribam Sunil Kumar Sharma.
Therefore, the Misc. application cannot be taken into and as per the
prayer made in the writ petition once the regular appointment of Director
was appointed, the petitioner has no case at all.
20. Dr. RK Deepak, the learned senior counsel for the fifth
respondent submitted that the seniority of Professors should be based
on the seniority position by the incumbents while they were Associate
Professors. Since the fifth respondent was senior to the petitioner while
they were Associate Professors, the authorities of RIMS had rightly
fixed the seniority position of Professors in the final inter-se seniority list
of Professors 2015 as well as the combined final inter-se seniority list
of Professors 2017. He would submit that the entrustment of additional
charge of Director, RIMS to the fifth respondent was in compliance with
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 15
the order dated 19.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022. In fact,
the official respondents have exercised due diligence and have not
violated any law in issuing the impugned orders. Further, the seniority
list of five Professors prepared by the Committee is not a seniority list
at all and it suffers from irregularity that the petitioner claims to have
been associated with the tentative seniority list. That apart, the
petitioner is trying to mislead this Court by reiterating wrong material
facts again and again.
21. The learned senior counsel further submitted that vide
order dated 1.2.2005, the fifth respondent was appointed through
regular promotion to the substantive post of Associate Professor,
whereas vide order dated 21.4.2005, the petitioner was appointed to
the post of Associate Professor with effect from 1.2.2005 under the
Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 and that the preference of those
appointed through regular promotion over those appointed on Time
Scale Promotion as regards fixing seniority is a well settled principle of
law. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.
22. This Court considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials available on record.
23. The grievance of the petitioner is that ignoring the fresh
seniority list, the fifth respondent was entrusted with the additional
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 16
charge of Director, RIMS, Imphal by cancelling the earlier order dated
12.10.2022. Further grievance of the petitioner is that pending writ
petition, the order dated 1.5.2023 came to be issued by the second
respondent appointing Dr. Guruaribam Sunil Kumar Sharma as
Director, RIMS without the leave of the Court. Therefore, both the
orders are liable to be quashed.
24. As could be seen, prior to the issuance of the order dated
12.10.2022, one Dr. Ahanthem Santa Singh was appointed to the post
of Director, RIMS, Imphal on deputation basis for a period of 5 years
with effect from 9.11.2018 vide order dated 28.7.2021 and before
completion of his tenure of 5 years, Dr. Ahanthem Santa Singh was
repatriated prematurely from the post of Director to his parent cadre
with effect from 12.10.2022 vide order dated 18.7.2022 issued by the
Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare. After repatriation of Dr.Ahanthem Santa Singh and
pending process for appointment of Director, RIMS on regular basis,
the authorities of RIMS issued the order dated 12.10.2022 entrusting
the additional charge for the post of Director, RIMS to the petitioner for
a period of 6 months or till regular appointment of Director, RIMS or till
further orders whichever is earlier.
25. Challenging the order dated 12.10.2022, the fifth
respondent herein has filed W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022 and, this Court, by
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 17
the order dated 19.12.2022, allowed the writ petition. In paragraph 14,
this Court observed thus:
"[14] In so far as the contention advanced by the
learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5
is concerned, it has to be pointed out that as the
validity and correctness of the said tentative inter-se-
seniority list of Professor, RIMS has not been
questioned or challenged by anybody and as such
issue is not before this Court in the present
proceeding, this Court is of the considered view that it
will not be just and proper to entertain and decide the
points and contentions raised by the learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in the present
proceedings. Accordingly, this Court declined to do
so.
For the findings and reasons given hereinabove, the
present writ petition is hereby allowed by quashing
and setting aside the impugned order dated
12.10.2022. Quashing of the impugned order will not
preclude the official respondents from making fresh
interim in-charge arrangement in respect of the vacant
post of Director, RIMS, Imphal strictly in terms of the
provisions of Rule 12(1)(iii) of the Rules and
Regulations of RIMS.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition
is disposed of without any order as to costs."
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 18
26. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2022, the petitioner
has filed W.A.No.131 of 2022 and, by the judgment dated 19.1.2023,
the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal by observing
as under:
"[7] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel, would
contend that it would be necessary to examine
whether the cases of other senior professors were
considered when the decision was taken to entrust the
additional charge to respondent No.1 herein.
However, in our considered opinion, any grievance
that the appellant may have with regard to the later
order dated 16.1.2023 would constitute a fresh cause
of action as the decision embodied therein was taken
by the authorities independently, in compliance with
the direction of the learned Judge that they should
follow the relevant Rules scrupulously. As to whether
there was any error on the part of the authorities in
doing so would not fall for consideration in this appeal
and would necessarily have to be subjected to judicial
review by way of independent proceedings instituted
in accordance with law.
Leaving it open to the appellant to do so, if so advised,
W.A.No.131 of 2022 is dismissed."
27. Pursuant to the leave granted by the Division Bench of this
Court and aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2023, the petitioner is
before this Court. The observation of the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 19
W.P.(C) No.867 of 2022 is quashing of the order dated 12.10.2022 will
not preclude the official respondents from making fresh interim in-
charge arrangement in respect of vacant post of Director, RIMS, Imphal
strictly in terms of the provisions of Rule 12(1)(iii) of the Rules and
Regulations of RIMS.
28. Rule 12(1)(iii) provides:
"12. Director of Institute
12(1)
(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained
hereinabove, the President, RIMS may appoint a
person to officiate as director either during temporary
absence of the regular incumbent or where the office
of Director falls vacant for any reason for a period not
exceeding six months at a time within the
concurrence of the Central Government. However,
in respect of unanticipated vacancies (the regular
appointments to which require ACC approval) the
administrative ministry may, with the approval of the
Minister in charge, order additional charge
arrangements subject to maximum period of six
months, with effect from the date of occurrence of the
vacancy and also subject to the condition that the
officer to whom the additional charge is assigned is
the senior most officer in the next lower grade and is
clear from vigilance angle."
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 20
29. On examination of the provisions of Rule 12(1)(iii) supra,
it is clear that in respect of unanticipated vacancies in the post of
Director, RIMS, the administrative Ministry may, with the approval of the
Minister in-charge, order additional charge arrangements subject to
maximum period of 6 months, with effect from the date of occurrence of
the vacancy and also subject to the condition that the officer to whom
the additional charge is assigned is senior most officer in the next lower
grade and is clear from the vigilance angle.
30. In the order impugned dated 16.1.2023, it has been stated
as under:
"In compliance of Hon'ble High Court order dated
19.12.2022 in W.P. (C) No.867 of 2022 filed by Dr.
H.Priyosakhi Devi vs UOI & others, this Ministry's
order No.U.12025/53/2022-NE dated 12.10.2022
entrusting additional charge to the post of Director,
RIMS to Dr. L.Ranjit Singh, Prof. Obst & Gynae, RIMS,
Imphal is hereby cancelled.
2. The additional charge to the post of Director, RIMS,
Imphal is hereby entrusted to Dr. H.Priyosakhi Devi,
Prof. ENT, RIMS, Imphal upto 11.04.2023 or till
regular appointment of Director, RIMS, Imphal or till
further orders, whichever is the earliest.
3. This issues with the approval of competent
authority."
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 21
31. The second respondent entrusted the additional charge to
the post of Director, RIMS, Imphal to the fifth respondent based on the
inter-se seniority list of Professors, RIMS, Imphal as on 25.7.2015.
Whereas when we see the inter-se seniority list of Professors, RIMS,
Imphal as on 9.1.2023, the petitioner's name found place at Serial No.1
and the fifth respondent's name found place at Serial No.5. The said
seniority list states the date of birth of the petitioner as "01.09.1958" and
the date of birth of the fifth respondent as "05.06.1960". As rightly
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, ignoring the seniority
list dated 9.1.2023, the second respondent issued the impugned order
dated 16.1.2023 whereby entrusting the charge of the Director, RIMS
to the fifth respondent.
32. As stated supra, in the earlier writ petition, the observation
of this Court is to the effect that the authorities had not even considered
the cases of other senior Professors while placing the petitioner herein
as in-charge Director of RIMS, Imphal and the Court has also observed
that it is left open to the authorities to make interim in-charge
arrangements strictly as per Rule 12(1)(iii) of the Rules and Regulations
of RIMS, Imphal. When such being the observation of this Court and
the Rule 12(1)(iii) made it clear that an additional charge arrangement
was subject to the condition that the officer to whom such additional
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 22
charge is assigned is the senior most officer in the next lower grade,
ignoring the inter-se seniority which was prepared as on 9.1.2023, the
second respondent has entrusted the additional charge to the fifth
respondent as if she is the senior most. That apart, as pleaded by the
petitioner, the tentative seniority list on the basis whereof, the fifth
respondent was entrusted with the additional charge of Director, RIMS,
Imphal was not approved by the Executive Council.
33. The argument of Mr. Kh. Samarjit, the learned DSGI that
the Appointment Committee of Cabinet has not approved the proposal
of entrustment of additional charge of the post of Director, RIMS to the
petitioner and that while awaiting finalization of the seniority list of
Professors, the process which has already been undertaken and going
on in good pace, the authorities, based on the available tentative
seniority list as on the date, have ordered entrusting of additional
charge of Director, RIMS, Imphal to the fifth respondent is not well
founded. Further, the statement of the official respondents that the fifth
respondent is senior most in the said tentative list, which has neither
been challenged by anybody nor have been interfered with by any Court
of law is against the inter-se seniority list of Professors prepared as on
9.1.2023.
34. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner is that the Appointment Committee of Cabinet ought to have
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 23
approved the proposal for entrustment of additional charge of Director,
RIMS being the senior most Professor in RIMS. Further, the tentative
seniority list was not circulated and not approved by the Executive
Council and therefore, it cannot be acted upon in any manner. The
aforesaid arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
cannot be brushed aside for the reason that, as stated supra, nothing
has been produced by the respondents to show that the tentative
seniority list on the basis whereof, the fifth respondent was entrusted
additional charge Director, RIMS was approved by the Executive
Council.
35. The other argument of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the objection of the petitioner claiming to be the senior
most Professor on the ground that he is older than the fifth respondent
and since they were promoted to the post of Associate Professor on the
same date without merit and that the petitioner ought to be senior to the
fifth respondent cannot also be brushed aside, as the petitioner claimed
that he was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor earlier than the
fifth respondent and, as such, the petitioner ought to be placed above
the fifth respondent. In view of the flaw stated above in entrusting the
additional charge of Director, RIMS to the fifth respondent, this Court is
of the view that till the finalization of the seniority list, the petitioner, who
is the senior most and being older and also promoted earlier to the post
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 24
of Assistant Professor than the fifth respondent ought to have been
entrusted with the charge of Director, RIMS, Imphal. As stated supra,
nothing has been produced to show on the basis whereof the fifth
respondent can be treated as senior to the petitioner. On the other
hand, prima facie, it has been proved by the petitioner that by taking
shelter on an unapproved tentative seniority list which the respondents
1 to 4 themselves termed as unauthenticated, the impugned order
dated 16.1.2023 was issued by a colourable exercise of power. In view
of the findings arrived at by this Court that the impugned order dated
16.1.2023 has been issued in colourable exercise of power, the
subsequent extension dated 10.4.2023 granted upto 11.10.2023 or till
regular appointment of Director, RIMS, Imphal or till further orders
whichever is earlier, is unsustainable in law.
36. Coming to the order dated 1.5.2023 issued by the second
respondent, whereby appointing Dr. Guruaribam Sunil Kumar Sharma,
Director Professor (Forensic Medicine & Toxicology), Vardhaman
Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi to the
post of Director, RIMS, Imphal, on deputation on foreign service basis
for the period of 5 years with effect from the date of assumption of
charge of the post or upto the age of superannuation in his parent cadre
or until further orders whichever is earlier, is without the leave of Court.
When the petitioner has challenged the entrustment of additional
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 25
charge of Director, RIMS, Imphal in the writ petition and the respondent
authorities and the fifth respondent are contesting the writ petition, it is
the bounden duty of the authority concerned to obtain permission/leave
of the Court to issue the order dated 1.5.2023. Nothing has been
produced by the respondents 1 to 4 to show that the order dated
1.5.2023 has been issued with the permission of the Court.
37. It is not the case of the respondents 1 to 4 that the
petitioner is not suitable to hold the additional charge to the post of
Director, RIMS, Imphal. The respondents 1 to 4 contended that
pursuant to the order dated 1.5.2023 Dr. Guruaribam Sunil Kumar
Sharma has not joined the duty till date even though the respondent
No. 2 extended the time for 2 (two) weeks i.e. upto 15.06.2023 by order
dated 30.05.2023. Since the petitioner is senior most Professor and
already held the additional charge to the post of Director, RIMS, Imphal
and also he is likely to be superannuated in the month of September,
2023, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice and equity,
the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to consider to give in-charge post
of Director, RIMS, Imphal to the petitioner till his retirement.
38. In the result,
(a) The writ petition is allowed and the order dated
16.1.2023 and the subsequent extension dated
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
P a g e | 26
10.4.2023 issued by the second respondent are set
aside.
(b) MC (WP(C)) No.121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No.
160 of 2023 are disposed of.
(c) The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to give additional
charge of Director, RIMS, Imphal to the petitioner till
his retirement in the month of September, 2023.
(d) Since the order dated 1.5.2023 has been issued
without leave of Court and Dr. Guruaribam Sunil
Kumar Sharma has not joined duty, this Court directs
the respondents 1 to 4 not to give effect of the order
dated 1.5.2023 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare (NE Section) and the same shall be kept in
abeyance.
(e) There will be no order as to costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil/John Kom
WP(C) No. 65 of 2023 with MC(WP(C)) No. 121 of 2023 and MC(WP(C)) No. 160 of 2023
