Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented ... vs Md. Doulat Khan on 27 September, 2023
Digitally signed by
ABUJAM ABUJAM SURJIT SINGH
SURJIT SINGH Date: 2023.09.27
15:40:38 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021
Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary /
Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, office at Old
Secretariat Babupara, P.0. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur- 795001.
2.The Director General of Police (DGP), Manipur, office at PHỌ
Imphal, P.0. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
....Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Md. Doulat Khan, aged about 42 years, S/o Md.Khoma
resident of Yairipok Singh Mayai Leikai, P.O. & PS. Yairipok,
Thoubal District, Manipur.
2. Md. Hassan Ali, aged about 42 years, S/o (L) Md. Hayat Ali
resident of Yairipok Tulihal Mayai Leikai, P.O. Yairipok, P.S.
Andro, Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur.
3. Kongbrailatpam Sachikumar Sharma, aged about 39 years,
S/0 K. Kamini Kumar Sharma resident of Khurai Puthiba
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong. P.S. Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur.
4. Khumantham Kunje Singh aged about 45 years, S/o Kh.
Chandrakumar Singh resident of Meitram Awang Leikai,
P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Nambol. Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Naorem Budha Singh aged about 45 years, S/o (L) N.
Maipak Singh resident of Pangei Bazar, P.O. Pangei, P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |2
6. Waikhom Amarjit Singh aged about 39 years, S/o W.
Nilachandra Singh resident of Singjamei Wangma Pibiya
Pandit Leikai, P.O. & PS. Singjamei, Imphal East, Manipur.
...... Respondents.
MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021
Ashangbam John Fellow, aged about 35 years old, S/o A.
Dhananjoy Singh of Kakwa Laishram Selungba Leikai, P.O. and
P.S. Singjamei, District Imphal West, Manipur.
Applicant
-Versus-
1. Md. Doulat Khan, aged about 42 years, S/o Md.Khoma
resident of Yairipok Singh Mayai Leikai, P.O. & PS. Yairipok,
Thoubal District, Manipur.
2. Md. Hassan Ali, aged about 42 years, S/o (L) Md. Hayat Ali
resident of Yairipok Tulihal Mayai Leikai, P.O. Yairipok, P.S.
Andro, Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur.
3. Kongbrailatpam Sachikumar Sharma, aged about 39 years,
S/0 K. Kamini Kumar Sharma resident of Khurai Puthiba
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong. P.S. Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur.
4. Khumantham Kunje Singh aged about 45 years, S/o Kh.
Chandrakumar Singh resident of Meitram Awang Leikai,
P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Nambol, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Naorem Budha Singh aged about 45 years, S/o (L) N.
Maipak Singh resident of Pangei Bazar, P.O. Pangei, P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |3
6. Waikhom Amarjit Singh aged about 39 years, S/o W.
Nilachandra Singh resident of Singjamei Wangma Pibiya
Pandit Leikai, P.O. & PS. Singjamei, Imphal East, Manipur.
...... Respondents.
MCWP(C)) No. 376 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 625 of 2021
Ningthoujam Kiranjit Singh, aged about 37 years old S/o
Shri N. Thoiba Singh, resident of Wangkhei Ningthem
Pukhri Mapal, P.O. and P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795005.
...... Applicant
-VERSUS-
1. Kameidun Kamei James, aged about 37 years, S/o K.
Ibohal a resident of Keikhu Kabui Village, P.O. Singjamei &
P.S. Irilbung, District Imphal East, Manipur and another.
2. L.T. Solomon Khongsai, aged about 37 years, S/o (L) L.T.
Ngamsei Khongsai, a resident of Zomi Villa, P.O. Imphal &
P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.
3. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary/Special Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur,
office at Old Secretariat Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Director General of Police (DGP), Manipur, office at
PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |4
5. Ashangbam Keshorjit Singh, aged about 41 years old S/o
(L) A. Satyabanta of Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai, P.O.
and P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
..........Respondents.
MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023
Ref:- WP(C) No. 625 of 2021
Ashangbam Keshorjit Singh, aged about 42 years old, S/o
(L) A. Satyabanta Singh of Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai,
P.O. and P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.
....Applicant
-versus-
1. Kameidun Kamei James, aged about 37 years, S/o K.
Ibohal , a resident of Keikhu Kabui Village, P.O.
Singjamei & P.S. Irilbung, District Imphal East, Manipur.
2. L.T. Solomon Khongsai, aged about 38 years, S/o (L)
L.T. Ngamsei Khongsai, a resident of Zomi Villa, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Imphal , District Imphal West, Manipur.
...Respondents
3. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary/Special Secretary(Home), Govt. of Manipur,
office at Old Secretariat Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Director General of Police (DGP), Manipur, office at
PHQ Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
...Proforma Respondents
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |5
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the applicants in
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 :: Mr. S. Niranjan, GA
For the applicants in
MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 :: Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Adv.
For the applicants in
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 ::
For the applicants in
MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 ::
For the Respondents in
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 &
MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 :: Mr. A. Mohendro, Adv.
For the Respondents in
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 &
MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 ::
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 10.08.2023
Date of Judgment & Order ::
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
M.C.(WP(C)) No.319 of 2021 has been filed by the
State to grant leave to publish the result of the DPC held on
26.11.2021 for appointment by promotion from the post of
Havildar to Jemadar in the Manipur Police Department in view of
the order dated 11.10.2021 of this Court passed in W.P.(C)
No.690 of 2021 coupled with a prayer to vacate/modify the said
order dated 11.10.2021.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |6
2. M.C.(WP(C)) No.57 of 2022 has been filed by the
third respondent in the writ petition to modify/vacate the interim
order dated 11.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.690 of 2021.
3. M.C.(WP(C)) No.208 of 2023 has been filed by the
third respondent to alter/modify/vacate the ex parte interim order
dated 20.9.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021 and the order
dated 29.12.2021 passed in MC (WP(C)) No.318 of 2021 in
W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021.
4. M.C.(WP(C)) No.376 of 2022 has been filed by the
applicant NingthoujamKiranjit Singh to implead him as fourth
respondent in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021.
5. Since all the four miscellaneous cases are interlinked
with each other, they were heard together and disposed of by this
common order.
6. The State had filed M.C.(WP(C)) No.319 of 2021 to
vacate the interim order dated 11.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C)
No.690 of 2021 on the ground that the writ petitioners therein are
aggrieved by the Standing Order No.189 dated 15.4.2021 and its
further amendments, which was issued in relation to 15% (out-of-
turn) category. According to the State, the prayer of the writ
petitioners to stall the entire process for promotion of 143 vacant
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |7
posts of Jemadars cannot be allowed. During the pendency of the
said writ petition, the Manipur Police Department submitted
proceedings of Class III DPC for promotion from Havildar to
Jemadar held on 26.11.2021 along with relevant documents to
Home Department vide letter dated 27.11.2021 for filling up of
143 posts of Jemadar by promotion from Havildar including 15%
out-of-turn category. The non-filling up of the available vacancies
of different posts, including the above vacant posts of Jemadar in
time has seriously hampered the administration of policing in the
present law and order situation in the State of Manipur. The
grievance of the writ petitioners is confined to 15% out-of-turn
category as provided under the Recruitment Rules of Jamedar and
the grievance of the writ petitioners should not affect the whole
administration of policing in the State. If leave is not granted to
publish the result of the DPC held on 26.11.2021 for appointment
by promotion from the post of Havildar to Jemadar, whose cases
were considered by the DPC, much hardship would be caused not
only to the State, but also the aggrieved persons.
7. Resisting M.C.(WP(C)) No.319 of 2021, the writ
petitioners filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the writ
petitioners had challenged the Standing Order No.189 dated
15.4.2021 and its amendment, which is contrary to the
Recruitment Rules of Jemadar. The writ petitioners claimed that
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |8
Recruitment Rules of Jemadar of Police, 2009 provides out-of-turn
promotion quota of 15%. The writ petitioners have no intention
to stall the entire process of promotion of 143 vacant posts, as the
portion had already been declared except for 15% out-of-turn
quota. The writ petitioners have already submitted relevant
documents of proceedings of the Class III DPC for promotion from
Havildar to Jemadar. As such continuation of the interim order is
very much in need, as the respondent authorities are ready to
declare the promotion any moment thereby defeating the
legitimate claim of the writ petitioners. If this Court allowed to
publish the result of the DPC held on 26.11.2021 for appointment
by promotion from the post of Havildar to Jemadar in respect of
15% out-of-turn quota during the pendency of the writ petition,
the writ petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and damage.
8. The third respondent in W.P.(C) No.690 of 2021 has
filed M.C.(WP(C)) No.57 of 2022 praying to vacate the interim
order dated 11.10.2021 on the ground that the awards acquired
by the writ petitioners were never used in their service career for
out-of-turn promotion. As such, it is in violation of Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India and utter disregard to the gallant
act of the writ petitioners. Further, the writ petitioners have no
locus standi to file the writ petition. They aware of the existence
of the Standing Order prior to the filing of the writ petition and the
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
Page |9
same was not objected to by them before the competent authority
till date. The third respondent who has taken part in the said DPC
for promotion to the next higher post of Jemadar has a right to
know about the result of the DPC. Therefore, it is necessary to
vacate the interim order dated 11.10.2021 so that the second
respondent to the extent declare the result of the DPC for the post
of Havildar to the next higher post of Jemadar under 15% out-of-
turn category held on 26.11.2021 otherwise all the DPC faced
candidates of the Police Department would suffer loss and injury.
9. The third respondent in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021 has
filed M.C.(WP(C)) No.208 of 2023 to vacate the interim orders
granted on the ground that the said writ petition has been filed to
quash the Standing Order No.189 dated 15.4.2021 as well as the
DPC process for consideration of promotion to the post of Jemadar
from Havildar for the recruitment year 2012-2013 to 2019-2020
under 15% out-of-turn category. The writ petitioners assailed the
Standing Order inter alia on the ground that under the
Recruitment Rules for the rank of S.I., Jemadar, ASI, Havildar and
Head Constable, there is no provision of eligibility for out-of-turn
promotion on considering Good Service Marks and that Rule A and
Sub Rule C(1)(d) of the Standing Order No.189 dated 15.4.2021 is
null and void. According to the third respondent, on 20.9.2021,
this Court passed an interim order to the effect that if DPC is
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 10
conducted for promotion to the post of Jemadar, the result of the
DPC shall not be published without the leave of the Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State had filed M.C.(WP(C))
No.318 of 2021 for vacation of the interim order dated 20.9.2021.
On 29.12.2021, after considering the arguments of the respective
counsel, this Court modified the order thereby allowing the
authorities to announce the result of the said DPC in respect of
general category i.e. for promotion against 85% quota provided
under the Recruitment Rules. However, the authorities were
restrained from announcing the result of the DPC in respect of
promotion against 15% quota for out-of-turn promotion without
the leave of the Court.
10. It is stated by the third respondent that the writ
petitioners have sought staying the declaration of the DPC for
promotion to the post of Jemadar only on the apprehension that
the writ petitioners will not be recommended for promotion to the
post of Jemadar by the DPC held on the basis of the Standing
Order No.189. It is an undisputed fact that the DPC for promotion
to the post of Jemadar has been held and the result of the DPC in
respect of 15% out-of-turn promotion quota is yet to be declared
thereby giving cause of action to claim for stay of the DPC
proceedings. Therefore, the order dated 29.12.2021 passed in
M.C.(WP(C)) No.318 of 2021 restraining the authorities from
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 11
declaring the result of the DPC for promotion under the out-of-
turn quota is liable to the vacated.
11. According to the third respondent, under the
Recruitment Rules for the post of Jemadar, the Director General of
Police has power to recommend persons under the 15% out-of-
turn promotion quota. Since the writ petitioners have not
challenged the powers of the Director General of Police, they
cannot challenge the Standing Order issued to regulate the
recommendation by the Director General of Police. A conjoint
reading of Rule 43 and Rule 44 of Assam Police Manual Part-
IIIwould imply that a candidate who has been awarded Good
Service Marks with the approval of the Director General of Police
can be considered under the 15% out-of-turn quota. Therefore,
there is nothing wrong with the Standing Order under challenge in
the writ petition as well as the DPC held in terms of the Standing
Order.
12. The case of the third respondent is that pursuant to
the interim order dated 29.12.2021, result of the DPC was
declared in respect of the general quota and eligible Havildars who
have been recommended under 85% general quota and were
given appointment followed by issuance of posting order.While so,
despite the fact that the third respondent's case has also been
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 12
considered by the same DPC has been subjected to a situation
where he is not in a position to ascertain as to whether he was
recommended by the said DPC for promotion to the post of
Jemadar or otherwise and also for enjoying the benefit of such
promotion like other eligible candidates who have now given
promotion on the basis of recommendation made by the same
DPC. Therefore, a sense of discrimination and deprivation of right
for promotion has been instilled upon the third respondent for no
fault and has been deprived of the right of promotion to higher
post.
13. Resisting the prayer made in M.C.(WP(C))No.208 of
2023, the writ petitioners inter alia stated that the order dated
29.12.2021 passed in MC No.318 of 2021 is a consequential order
of earlier interim order dated 20.9.2021 passed in the writ petition
when the third respondent is not a party respondent. The
modification/alteration of earlier interim order dated 20.9.2021
passed in the same writ petition, the third respondent is not a
party. Therefore, the order dated 29.12.2022 passed in MC
No.318 of 2021 cannot be considered as ex parte interim order. It
is stated that there is no provision of eligibility of out-of-turn
promotion on considering the Good Service Marks in respect of all
ranks stated under Rule A except for the rank of Inspector of
Police in the relevant Recruitment Rules. Therefore, Rule A and
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 13
Sub Rule C(1)(d) in the Standing Order No.189 dated 15.4.2021
insofar as Good Service Marks is concerned, the same cannot
stand in the eyes of law. The third respondent has filed the MC
No.208 of 2023 after a gap of almost 2 years from the date of
passing the interim orders that too after exchange of pleadings.
The third respondent with ulterior motives, vested interest to
dismantle the entire judicial process, approached this Court with
dirty hands and minds and endeavor to deprive the fundamental
and legal rights of the writ petitioners in considering promotion to
the post of Jemadar from Havildars for the recruitment year 2012-
2013 to 2019-2020 under 15% out-of-turn quota. According to
the writ petitioners, it is necessary to restrain the State
respondents from declaring the result of the DPC in respect of
15% out-of-turn quota promotion in view of the fact that while
passing the interim order dated 20.9.2021 in W.P.(C) No.625 of
2021 and its consequential order dated 29.12.2021 passed in M.C.
(WP(C)) No.318 of 2021, this Court had appreciated the case of
the writ petitioners and after fully considering the balance of
convenience and on seeing irreparable injury to the writ
petitioners. As there is no provision of eligibility for out-of-turn
promotion on considering Good Service Marks in respect of all
ranks in the relevant Recruitment Rules, there is no necessity to
vacate the interim orders passed in the said writ petition.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 14
14. M.C.(WP(C)) No.376 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.625 of
2021 has been filed by one NinghoujamKiranjit Singh to implead
him as fourth respondent in the writ petition stating that he and
the original writ petitioners were eligible candidates for
consideration of promotion to the next higher post of Jemadar
under 15% out-of-turn quota as provided under the Recruitment
Rules and the connected Standing Orders have already faced a
duly constituted regular DPC. The applicant who had already
participated the aforesaid DPC for promotion from the post of
Havildar to Jemadar under 15% out-of-turn quota has been
affected and prejudiced by the ex parte interim order thereby the
result of the said DPC could not be declared. Since the applicant
who is already affected by the ex parte interim order and is more
likely to be affected by any final adverse order is desirous of being
impleaded as respondent No.4 in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021 so as to
enable him to contest the claims and contentions of the writ
petitioners besides protecting his vested right to know the result
of the DPC.
15. Mr. S. Niranjan, learned Government Advocate
submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 11.10.2021
passed in the writ petitions, the authorities have been restrained
from publishing the result of the DPC held on 26.11.2021 for
promotion to the post of Jemadar in Manipur Police Department
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 15
(M.R) under 15% out-of-turn promotion without the leave of the
Court. The learned Government Advocate argued that the
Manipur Police Department has submitted the proceedings of
Class III DPC for promotion to the post of Jemadarfrom Havildar
to the Home Department for filling up of 143 posts of Jemadars by
promotion including 15% out-of-turn quota. The non-filling up of
the available vacancies of different ranks including the vacant
posts of Jemadar in Manipur Police Department is hampering the
administration in the law and order in the State of Manipur.
Therefore, leave may be granted to the State to publish the result
of the DPC held on 26.11.2021 for appointment by promotion to
the post of Jemadar by vacating the interim order dated
11.10.2021.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent in W.P.(C) No.690 of 2021 submitted that the third
respondent who has taken part in the DPC for promotion to the
next higher post of Jemadar under 15% out-of-turn quota has a
right to know about the result of the DPC. Therefore, it would be
in the interest of justice that this Court may pass an order
vacating the interim order dated 11.10.2021 so as to enable the
Director General of Police to declare the result of the DPC for the
post of Havildar to the next post of Jemadar under 15% out-of-
turn quota held on 26.11.2021. If the result of the DPC is not
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 16
published, all the DPC faced candidates namely the Havildars
would put to irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be
compensated by any amount.
17. Similarly, Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for
the third respondent in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021 submitted that on
20.9.2021, this Court had passed an interim order to the effect
that if the DPC is conducted for promotion to the post of Jemadar,
the result of the DPC shall not be published without the leave of
the Court. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the State had filed
M.C.No.318 of 2021 for vacation of the said interim order dated
20.9.2021. This Court, vide order dated 29.12.2021, allowed the
State to declare the result of the DPC for promotion to the post of
Jemadar held on 26.11.2021 in respect of general category and at
the same time, the authorities were restrained from announcing
the result of the DPC in respect of promotion against 15% out-of-
turn quota without the leave of the Court. Since the said order is
causing the injustice to the third respondent and others, the
learned counsel prayed for vacation of the interim order dated
20.9.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021and the order dated
29.12.2021 passed in M.C.(WP(C)) No.318 of 2021.
18. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the writ
petitioners submittedthat there is no provision of eligibility of out-
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 17
of-turn promotion on considering the Good Service Marks in
respect of all ranks stated under Rule A, except for the rank of
Inspector of Police in the relevant Recruitment Rules. Therefore,
Rule A and Sub Rule C(1)(d) in the Standing Order No.189 dated
15.4.2021 insofar as Good Service Marks cannot stand and go
together.
19. The learned senior counsel submitted that the writ
petitioners have no intension to stall the entire process of
promotion of 143 vacant posts, as portion of the vacant posts had
already been declared, except for the 15% out-of-turn quota.
According to the learned senior counsel, the State officials cannot
go against the relevant Recruitment Rules and the existing law. If
the result of the DPC held on 26.11.2021 for appointment by
promotion to the post ofJemadar in respect of 15% out-of-turn
quota during the pendency of the writ petitions is declared, the
writ petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and damages.
20. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021 added that the third respondent in the
said writ petition has filed MC(WP(C)) No.208 of 2023 after a gap
of almost 2 years from the date of passing the interim orders that
too after exchange of pleadings. The third respondent with
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 18
ulterior motives, vested interest to dismantle the entire judicial
process, approached this Court with unclean hands and endeavor
to deprive the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioners in
considering promotion to the post of Jemadar from Havildar for
the recruitment year 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 under 15% out-of-
turn quota.
21. The learned senior counsel further submitted that it
is necessary to restrain the State respondents from declaring the
result of the DPC in respect of 15% out-of-turn quota promotion
in view of the fact that while passing the interim order dated
20.9.2021 in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021 and its consequential order
dated 29.12.2021 passed in M.C. (WP(C)) No.318 of 2021, this
Court appreciated the case of the writ petitioners.Only after
considering the balance of convenience and on seeing irreparable
injury to the writ petitioners, this Court passed the aforesaid
interim orders. As there is no provision of eligibility for out-of-turn
promotion on considering Good Service Marks in respect of all
ranks in the relevant Recruitment Rules, there is no necessity to
vacate the interim orders. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the
miscellaneous cases for vacating the interim orders.
22. This Court considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials available on record.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 19
23. W.P.(C) No.690 of 2021 has been filed by six
petitioners to quash the (i) Standing Order No.189 dated
15.4.2021; (ii) Standing Order No.189 (1st Amendment) dated
23.8.2021; (iii) Standing Order No.189 (2nd Amendment) dated
1.9.2021 issued by the Director General of Police and to set aside
the impugned DPC proceedings for consideration of out-of-turn
promotion to the post of Jemadar from Havildar and to direct the
respondents to give preference to the personnel who have been
awarded the police medal for gallantry by His Excellency, the
President of India over those personnel who have been given
other gallantry awards and to exclude the Good Service Marks as
per the Recruitment Rules.
24. When the said writ petition is taken up for admission
on 11.10.2021, this Court passed the following interim order:
"Heard Mr.A.Mohendro, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners.
Issue notice, returnable within 4 (four) weeks.
Mr.H.Samarjit, learned Government Advocate
accepts notice on behalf of all the
respondents, hence no formal notice is called
for.
List this case again on 16.11.2021.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 20
In the meantime, it is directed that if any DPC
is held for the promotion to the post of
Jamaldar in Manipur Police Department (M.R),
the result of such DPC in respect of the
promotion under the 15 (fifteen) percent out
of turn promotion should not be announced
without the leave of the Court."
25. W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021 has been filed by two
petitioners to quash the very same Standing Order No.189 dated
15.4.2021 as well as the DPC proceedings for consideration of
promotion to the post of Jemadar from Havildar for recruitment
2012-2013 to 2019-2020 under 15% out-of-quota.
26. On 20.9.2021, when the said writ petition was taken
up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order:
"[1] Heard the argument of Mr.
M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.
[2] Heard Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA
who takes notice for the respondent Nos.1 &
2. Since Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA
takes notice for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, no
formal notice is required.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 21
[3] Post the matter for filing counter affidavit
by the respondents on 11.10.2021.
[4] In the interim if the DPC is conducted for
promotion to the post of Jemadar (MR/IRBn.),
the result of the DPC shall not be published
without the leave of the Court.
[5] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA
represented that as per the High Court Rules,
the matter should be listed before the Hon'ble
Division Bench and Single Bench having no
right to hear the matter.
[6] Anyhow without counter affidavit, this
Court will not consider the maintainability of
the writ petition before this Bench.
Therefore, Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA for
the respondent Nos.1 & 2 is directed to file
preliminary objection on that dat.
[7] Registry is directed to issue the copy of
this order to both the parties to their
whatsapp/e-mail."
27. In W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021, the State had filed
M.C.(WP(C)) No.318 of 2021 to vacate the interim order dated
20.9.2021. By the order dated 29.12.2021, this Court disposed of
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 22
M.C.(WP(C)) No.318 of 2021. The order dated 29.12.2021 reads
thus:
"Heard Mr. NiranjanSanasam, learned GA
appearing for the applicants and Mr.
M.Hemachandra, learned senior counsel for
the respondents/writ petitioners.
The only submission advanced by the learned
GA appearing for the applicants is that by an
order dated 20.09.2021 passed in the
connected WP(C) No.625 of 2021, the
authorities have been restrained from
publishing the result of the DPC held on
26.11.2021 for promotion to the post of
Jamadar (MR/IRB) without leave of this Court.
The applicants are seeking leave of this Court
through this application for allowing them to
declare the result of the said DPC in respect
of the General Category only, i.e., 85% quota
provided under relevant Recruitment Rules as
the election code of conduct is knocking at
the door. It has also been submitted by the
learned GA that no prejudice will be caused to
the applicants as their grievance is restricted
in respect of promotion against the 15% out
of turn promotion quota provided under the
RR.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 23
Mr.M.Hemachandra, learned senior counsel
vehemently objected to the submission
advanced by the GA on the ground that such
prayer made by the GA is contrary to the
pleading made by the applicants as well as
the prayer made in the present application.
However, the learned senior counsel fairly
conceded that the dispute raised in the
connected writ petition confines to the
promotion against 15% quota for out of turn
promotion.
After hearing the argument of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is
of the considered view that interest of justice
will be served by allowing the authorities to
announce the result of the said DPC in respect
of the General Category, i.e., for promotion
against 85% quota as provided under the RR.
It is hereby also made clear that the
authorities should not announce the result of
the said DPC in respect of promotion against
15% quota for out of turn promotion as
provided under the RR without leave of this
Court.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is
disposed of."
28. Now the State as well as the private respondents in
the respective writ petitions contend that the grievance of the writ
petitioners should not affect the whole administration in the Police
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 24
Department in the State of Manipur. Though the result of DPC
was declared in respect of the general quota and eligible Havildars
who have been recommended under the 85% quota were given
appointment and thereafter posting orders were issued, the
private respondents whose case has also been considered by the
same DPC have been subjected to a situation where they are not
in a position to ascertain as to whether they have been
recommended by the DPC for promotion to the post of Jemadar or
otherwise and also for enjoying the benefit of such promotion like
the other eligible candidates who have now given promotion on
the basis of the recommendation made by the same DPC.
29. Elaborating further, the State contends that in order
to streamline the existing system of out-of-turn promotion in
respect of police personnel in the Manipur Police Department,
revised guidelines approved by the Home Department was issued
by the Director General of Police being Standing Order No.189
dated 15.4.2021. The Standing Order clearly mentions the
provisions of applicability, eligibility and calculation of vacancy,
methodology of awarding marks, period of achievements,
personnel facing departmental enquiries, interpretation and
relaxation. The Standing Order dated 15.4.2021 is applicable to
all the posts where out-of-turn promotion category is clearly
mentioned in the respective Recruitment Rules. The Standing
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 25
Order has been amended twice with the approval of the Home
Department. The Standing Order allow all the eligible Havildars to
be considered for promotion to the rank of Jemadars under out-
of-turn quota without restricting the normal zone of consideration.
In the absence of the Standing Order, the writ petitioners would
not be eligible to be considered for promotion under out-of-turn
quota, as they are not within the normal zone of consideration.
30. The State further contends that even though the writ
petitioners are gallantry awardees and have not utilized the said
gallantry awards for promotion under out-of-turn quota, these
gallantry awards cannot be used for promotion to Jemadar under
out-of-turn quota as the said awards are not the achievements
while serving in the feeder post i.e. Havildar. The Standing Order
and its amendments are within the ambit of the Recruitment Rules
and have not altered the Recruitment Rules. Prior to the Standing
Order, there was no specific guidelines to assess the grading of
achievements of police personnel for promotion under the out-of-
turn category,whereas the DPC could devise its own method and
procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the
candidates and the Standing Order No.189 will aid in the
assessment. The DPC can make its own independent assessment
and the subsequent amendments were issued to remove the
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 26
confusion that has arisen amongst the eligible and deserving out-
of-turn candidates and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
31. There is no dispute that under the Recruitment
Rules, the Director General of Police has the power to recommend
persons under 15% out-of-turn quota for the post of Jamadar.
Out-of-turn means police personnel has done something
remarkably good. Out-of-turn promotion is permissible to
encourage the police personnel to perform better in service and
the same cannot be granted in breach of the rules governing out-
of-turn promotion.
32. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have not challenged
the power of the Director General of Police. Prima facie, as the
writ petitioners have not challenged the power of the Director
General of Police under the Recruitment Rules, the writ petitioners
cannot challenge the Standing Order issued to regular the
recommendation by the Director General of Police. Therefore, as
rightly argued by the learned counsel for the private respondents,
unless the power of the Director General of Police is curtailed by a
competent authority, the Director General of Police has the
authority to recommend candidate in terms of the Standing Order.
Though the aforesaid observation of this Court would touch upon
the very root of the writ petitions, taking into consideration the
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 27
plea raised by the respective parties on the merits of the Standing
Order and power of the Director General of Police, this Court has
arrived at such finding.
33. As could be seen from the records, in terms of the
same Standing Order, the DPC was held in promotion to the post
of Sub-Inspector of Police from Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police
and they have been given promotion without any interference
from any corner.
34. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the private
respondents submitted that in respect of MR/IRB, due to the
interim orders of this Court, the candidates under the out-of-turn
quota have been deprived of the right to promotion. This not only
shows deprivation, but also the private respondents and similarly
situated candidates have to salute their junior counterparts
serving in the Police Department. This Court finds some force in
the said submission made by the learned counsel for the private
respondents.
35. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
private respondents, the private respondentsare not in a position
to ascertain as to whether they have been recommended by the
said DPC for promotion to the post of Jemadar or otherwise. A
sense of discrimination and deprivation of the right for promotion
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 28
has been instilled upon the private respondents for no fault and
they have been deprived of the right of promotion to the higher
post, inasmuch as they have not even know whether they have
been recommended or not. Except the writ petitioners herein,
others have not questioned and/or challenged the Standing Order
dated 15.4.2021 and its amendments and also the DPC
proceedings for consideration of out-of-turn promotion to the post
of Jemadar from Havildar. Therefore, as rightly argued by learned
Government Advocate only because of the writ petitioners, the
whole administration of policing in the State should not affect.
36. As the State and the private respondents have prima
facie proved that withholding of the result of the DPC in respect of
promotion against 15% quota for out-of-turn promotion is not
only hampering the administration of the Police Department, but
also the private respondents who have taken part in the said DPC
for promotion to the next higher post of Jemadar have right to
know about the result of the DPC.
37. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners
submitted that since exchange of pleadings in the writ petitions
are completed and awaits final hearing for disposal, it is prudent
to hold the result of the DPC held on 26.11.2021 in respect of
15% out-of-turn quota promotion to the post of Jemadar in view
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 29
of the interim orders passed in the writ petitions till the final
adjudication of the cases. According to the learned senior
counsel, the result of the DPC held on 26.11.2021 for appointment
by promotion from the post of Havildar to Jemadarin respect of
15% out-of-turn quota should not be declared till the final disposal
of the case. The aforesaid argument cannot be countenanced.
38. In view of the findings arrived at by this Court in the
preceding paragraph that withholding of the result of the DPC in
respect of promotion against 15% out-of-turn quota is hampering
the administration and also causing hardship to the private
respondents, the arguments of the learned senior counsel to hold
the result of the DPC in respect of 15% out-of-turn quota
promotion to the post of Jemadar cannot be accepted.
39. It is pertinent to note that by submitting their
required documents for consideration for promotion under out-of-
turn promotion quota in spite of having knowledge about the
condition provided in the Standing Order, the writ petitioners have
waived their right to challenge the Standing Order as well as the
DPC held on the basis of the impugned Standing Order. If really
the writ petitioners have aggrieved by the Standing Order, they
should not have submitted their documents for consideration
under out-of-turn promotion category. Prima facie, by submitting
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 30
their documents for consideration under out-of-turn promotion
quota, the writ petitioners have given up their right to challenge
the Standing Order.
40. In the facts and circumstances stated supra, this
Court is of the prima facie view that there is no need for
restraining the State from declaring the result of the DPC in
respect of 15% out-of-turn promotion category. Due to the
interim orders, the candidates under the out-of-turn quota cannot
be deprived of. The interest of justice warrants to vacate the
interim order dated 11.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.690 of 2021
and the interim order dated 20.9.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.625
of 2021 and the order dated 29.12.2021 passed in MC(WP(C))
No.318 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021.
41. As far as M.C.(WP(C)) No.376 of 2022 in W.P.(C)
No.625 of 2021 is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant Ningthoujam Kiranjit Singh was
aspirant for consideration of promotion to the next higher post of
Jemadar under 15% out-of-turn quota as provided under the
relevant Recruitment Rules. Since the applicant Ningthoujam
Kiranjit Singh has already participated in the DPC for promotion
from the post of Havildar to Jemadar under 15% out-of-turn quota
and the interim orders passed in the writ petition are gravely
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 31
affected him, the applicant is in desirous to be impleaded as
respondent No.4 in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021.
The applicant Ningthoujam Kiranjit Singh also sought
to implead on the ground of protecting his vested right to know
the result of the DPC.
42. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact remains that the applicant Ningthoujam Kiranjit Singh
was aspirant for consideration of promotion to the next higher
post of Jemadar under 15% out-of-turn quota, this Court is of the
view that it is just and fair to implead the applicant Ningthoujam
Kiranjit Singh as fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021. If
the applicant Ningthoujam Kiranjit Singh is impleaded as party
respondent in the writ petition, no prejudice would be caused to
the writ petitioners. Therefore, for proper adjudication of the writ
petition, the applicant Ningthoujam Kiranjit Singh is ordered to be
impleaded as fourth respondent in the writ petition.
43. In the result:
(i) MC(WP(C)) Nos.319 of 2021 and 57 of
2022 in W.P.(C) No.690 of 2021 and MC
(WP(C)) No.208 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.625
of 2021 are allowed.
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 32
(ii) The interim order dated 11.10.2021 passed
in W.P.(C) No.690 of 2021, which was
extended from time to time and, the interim
order dated 20.09.2021 passed in W.P.(C)
No.625 of 2021 and the order dated
29.12.2021 passed in MC (WP(C)) No.318
of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021, shall
stand vacated.
(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to
declare the result of the DPC held on
26.11.2021 in respect of 15% out-of-turn
promotion quota to the post of Jemadar
within a period of seven days from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) The declaration of result of the DPC in
respect of 15% out-of-turn promotion
quota to the post of Jemadar and the
consequential appointment orders, if any,
are subject to the result of the writ
petitions.
(v) MC (WP(C)) No.376 of 2022 in W.P.(C)
No.625 of 2021 is allowed. The applicant
Ningthoujam Kiranjit Singh is permitted to
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
P a g e | 33
be impleaded as respondent No.4 in
W.P.(C) No.625 of 2021.
(vi) It is made clear that the views expressed
by this Court in this order are only prima
facieviews and the same cannot be taken
as final opinion of this Court.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
MC(WP(C)) No. 319 of 2021 & MC(WP(C)) No. 57 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 690 of 2021) and
MC(WP(C)) No. 376 of 2022 & MC(WP(C)) No. 208 of 2023 (Ref:- WP(C)) No. 625 of 2021)
