Manipur High Court
Heigrujam Pinky Devi vs State Of Manipur Represented By The on 21 March, 2024
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.624 of 2023
Heigrujam Pinky Devi, aged about 38 years
d/o H.Dilip Kumar, w/o Birajit Singh Oinam of
Singjamei Oinam Thingel, PO & PS
Singjamei of Imphal West District, Manipur
795008, now working as Fishery Inspector
in the Fishery Department.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur represented by the
Secretary, Fishery, Government of Manipur,
Old Secretariat Complex, Imphal 795001.
2. Director, Fisheries, Government of
Manipur, Lemphelpat.
3. Secretary, MPSC, North A.O.C.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioner: Mr.A.Romenkumar, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.R.K.Banna, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Devananda, Addl. AG with
Ms.Jyotsna, Advocate &
Ms.Momota Devi Oinam, Adv
Date of Hearing: 09.11.2023.
Date of Judgment: 21.03.2024
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] By the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying
for a direction to the respondents to include her name in
recommending the eligible candidates for holding Review DPC for
promotion to the next higher rank of Fishery Officer. It is stated that
the proposal for Review DPC made by the respondent No.1 is
contrary to the judgment and order dated 3.2.2023 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in WA No.111 of 2022, WA No.112 of
2022 and WA No.115 of 2022.
[2] The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was
appointed on regular basis to the post of Fishery Inspector, in the
Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Manipur in order of merit
w.e.f. 1.12.2016 vide order dated 1.12.2016. After successful
completion of One Year Post Graduate Diploma in Inland Fisheries
and Aquaculture Management (PGDIFI & AM) from May 2019 to
April 2020 [the course duration was extended due to Pandemic,
COVID 19], the petitioner is eligible for consideration for promotion
to the post of Fishery Officer as stipulated by the Fishery
Department, Manipur (Fishery Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1996
(RR). It is stated that as per the RR, the petitioner has already
completed three years regular service and has successfully passed
and possessed Diploma, i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Inland
Fisheries and Aquaculture Management.
[3] On 4.9.2019, the Director, Fisheries notified the
combined final inter-se seniority list of the Fishery Inspector, Fishery
Instructors, Fishery Extension Assistants as on 31.8.2019. The name
of the petitioner is shown at serial number 14.
[4] In the common Judgment and Order delivered by the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur in WA No.111
of 2022, WA No.112 of 2022, WA No.115 of 2022, WA No.115 of
2022 on 3.3.2023, it is clearly mentioned that "Note - appended to
the Tabular Statement in the Recruitment Rules provides that where
a person is considered for appointment, all persons possessing
requisite qualification and who are senior to him in the grade shall
also be considered irrespective of whether or not they fulfil the
requirement as to minimum qualifying service prescribed for the
purpose of promotion."
[5] In para 19 of the above common judgment, it is
observed as "That apart, there may have others who possess the
requisite qualification but did not put in the prescribed length of
service but would still have to be included in the list of eligible
Officers by virtue of Note 1 in the RR. Therefore, the DPC
proceedings held on 16.11.2020 require to be reviewed.
[6] In para 20 it is noted as "The Fishery Department,
Government of Manipur shall communicate the list of eligible officers
in the feeder categories to be considered by the Review DPC within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "The
said list shall be drawn up in accordance with the recruitment rules,
keeping in mind the observations made herein above and shall
include Gunabati Kangabam, Loveson Golmei and Lairenlakpam
Lindai Chanu, as they are deemed to have completed the Diploma
course within time despite the fact that the Diploma Certificates
were issued to them thereafter." From the above directions it is now
crystal clear that Gunabati Kangabam who is at Sl.No.18, Loveson
Golmei at Sl.No.34 in the Seniority List are to be recommended for
consideration for promotion although the petitioner who is at
Sl.No.14 senior to above persons are not included on the ground
that her name is not reflected in the judgment.
[7] The petitioner submitted a representation to the
respondents on 10.02.2023 for including her name for consideration
in the Review DPC as directed by the Division Bench, but no positive
step has been taken up by the respondents on the ground that the
name of the petitioner is not reflected in the judgment. It is further
to submit that since the Hon'ble High Court directed the name of
Gunabati Kangabam in the list for consideration at Revised DPC who
is at Sl.No.18 of the Inter-se Seniority List, it is not mandatorily
incumbent that the name of the petitioner who is at Sl.No.14 in the
Inter-se seniority list of the candidate should also be included in the
eligible list of candidates for Review DPC.
[8] In compliance with the directives of the Hon'ble High
Court, the Director, Fisheries on 18.8.2023 submitted a proposal for
holding review DPC in which the name of the petitioner was not
included as evident from the proposal concerning the "Information
about the integrity of eligible offices and as such the impugned
proposal of 18.08.2023 [Annexure A-7 (Colly)] sent by the Director
of Fisheries to the Secretary (Fishery), Govt. of Manipur. It is prayed
for immediate interference from this Court by passing an
appropriate interim order for the ends of justice.
[9] The petitioner, having no alternative remedy, has
approached this Court for grant of relief of directing the respondents
to include the name of the petitioner in the list of candidates for
review DPC being senior and possessing requisite qualification and
to quash and set aside the proposal for holding Review DPC of
18.08.2023 being violative of RR of Fishery Officer and judgment &
order of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court.
[10] Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed affidavit in opposition. It
is pointed out that the petitioner has concealed material facts of
filing MC(WA) No. 120 of 2023 [Ref: WA Nos. 111 of 2022, 112 of
2022 & 115 of 2022 before the Division Bench with the same prayer
as in the present writ petition. The application was withdrawn on
14.9.2023, but the present writ petition was filed 8.9.2023 without
disclosing pendency of misc. application before the Division Bench.
Hence, the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean
hands and deserves to be dismissed on this point alone. In the
affidavit in opposition filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that the
petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer
as she has not obtained the Diploma Course/one year certificate
Course in the year 2019-2020, and she passed her Diploma Course
only on 20.09.2021. It is stated that the prayer sought in the writ
petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the
Certificate of the Court was issued to the petitioner only after
passing of the Diploma Course, as such the petitioner passed her
Diploma Course only on 20.09.2021 and hence, the petitioner's
Diploma Course certificate cannot be considered for the vacancies
for the year 2019 to 2020.
[11] In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is
stated that on 11.09.2023 while the writ petition was taken up,
clarification about the certificate of successfully passing the one year
Post Graduate Diploma in Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture was in
the course of hearing. Thereafter, it was further ascertained that
"the insertion of words in the certificate that is" "despite the fact
that the course duration was extended due to the pandemic, COVID
19 which was inevitable" was only to convey the reason for issuing
the "Successfully Passed Certificate" late although the said course
of May 2019 to April 2020 has already completed before pandemic.
The authority has issued certificate dated 13.09.2023 which is
annexed as Annexure A-8, which indicates that the petitioner has
successfully completed and passed the one year Post Graduate
Diploma in Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture of May 2019 to April
2020 and is eligible for consideration for promotion to the next
higher rank of Fishery Officer.
[12] In the rejoinder affidavit, petitioner has stated that an
application dated 8.9.2023 was submitted to the Registrar (Judl) for
withdrawal of misc. application MC No. 120 of 2023 with copies to
other counsel appearing for the parties and thereafter the present
writ petition was filed on 8.9.2023 itself. It is stated that there is no
concealment of fact. It is denied that the petitioner is not eligible for
promotion. It is pointed out that as held by the Division Bench in
terms of Note 1 appended to RR provides that where a person is
considered for such appointment, all persons possessing the
requisite qualification and who are senior to him in the grade shall
also be considered irrespective of whether or not they fulfil
requirement as to minimum qualifying service prescribed for the
purpose of promotion. It is reiterated that the petitioner passed the
Diploma course for the year May 2019 to April 2020 and as such she
is eligible as per RR.
[13] Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG for State
respondents and Ms. Momota for MPSC.
[14] Mr. A Romenkumar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed 3 years of
regular service in the feeder cadre of Fishery Inspector and has
completed the diploma course for the May 2019 to April 2020 and
as such she has all the requisite qualifications as per RR. Moreover,
her junior at serial No. 18 of the common final seniority list was
considered for the review DPC while the petitioner at serial No. 14
was ignored. It is submitted that in terms of Note 1 appended to the
RR, the petitioner ought to be considered for the review DPC as her
junior has been recommended for consideration. Reliance is place
on the judgments reported as (i) Ganapath Singh Gangaram
Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University: (2014) 3 SCC 767 - The
academic issues must be left to be decided by the expert body and
the court cannot act as an appellate authority.; (ii) Mamta Sharma
v. Central Board of Secondary Education: (2022) 1 SCC 368-
Autonomous Boards are entitled to evolve their own schemes
independently.; (iii) R B Desai v. S K Khanolker: (1997) 7 SCC
54- In case of promotion, the seniority shall prevails, unless the
rules excludes weightage to the seniority. ; and (iv) Maibhai
Hongchu v. State of Manipur: (2020) 1 NEJ 166 (MAN)- In
Review DPC, all eligible candidates should be considered. It is
prayed that the respondents be directed to include the name of the
petitioner for consideration in the review DPC as directed by Division
Bench as her junior has been recommended.
[15] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG for the State
respondents submits that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact
of filing of multiple cases before different benches praying for the
same and the writ petition is to be dismissed for not coming with
clean hands as held in the judgments reported as (2007) 8 SCC
449 and (2008) 1 SCC 560.
[16] On merit, it is stated that the petitioner prays for
considering her for the vacancy arose in the year 2019-2020.
Learned Addl. AG draws the attention of this Court to the Office
Memorandum dated 15.5.2014 issued by the Department of
Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division),
Government of Manipur which stipulates the consolidated
instructions for DPC. Para 4.2 prescribes that the vacancies for DPC
should be calculated as financial year-wise, unless the relevant RR
specifies otherwise. It is pointed out that the vacancy should be
calculated from April of previous year to March of current year. The
RR is silent about the year of calculation of vacancies. It is clarified
that for the year 2019-2020, ie, from 1st April 2019 to 31st March
2020, the person should possess the eligible criteria between this
period for considering against the vacancies arisen during this
period.
[17] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG has pointed out
that as per Annexure A-3 (Colly) produced by the petitioner, she
successfully completed One Year Post Graduate Diploma from May
2019 to April 2020 in 'Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture
Management' from ICAR-CIFE, Kolkotta 0n 20.9.2021 as per her
marksheet. In the certificate dated 28.8.2023 issued by ICAR-CIFE,
Kolkotta, it is stated that the duration of the course was extended
due to covid-19 pandemic. In another certificate dated 13.9.2023
[Annexure A-8] issued by ICAR-CIFE, Kolkotta, the words, ie,
extension of course due to pandemic have been dropped and it has
simply stated that the petitioner passed one year PG Diploma in
Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture from May 2019 to April 2020.
Learned Addl. AG explains that on co-joint reading of OM dated
15.5.2014 and Annexures A-3 & A-8, the petitioner should pass the
PG Diploma in Fisheries as per RR within the period from 1st April,
2019 to 31st March 2020. But she passed the examination on
20.9.2021 as per Annexure A-3 and/or in April 2020 as per Annexure
A-8. In both cases, the petitioner did not possess the PG Diploma
with the period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st March 2020. Learned
Addl. AG emphasizes that she was not rightly considered for the
review DPC for the vacancy arose in the year 2019-2020. In the
Note for Review DPC dated 18.8.2023 [Annexure A-7 @Page 70], it
is recorded in remarks column with respect to the petitioner that
"Not eligible at the time of original DPC for not possessing the
requisite diploma or certificate as prescribed in criteria 1 and 2 of
the existing RR. It is submitted that the petitioner has not challenged
the remarks made against her and hence she is not eligible for the
vacancy arose in the year 2019-2020 for not possessing the
essential qualification. Reference is made to the decisions reported
as (i) (1991) Suppl 2 SCC 432 and (ii) (2007) 10 SCC 260 to
buttress the principle that the eligibility criteria should be as on the
last date of filing of application form or as stipulated by rules. It is
prayed that the writ petition be devoid of any merit and is liable to
be rejected with cost.
[18] Mrs. O. Momota, learned counsel for MPSC has
adopted the submissions of learned Addl. AG and stated that the
petitioner is not in the list of eligible candidates for the Review DPC.
[19] This Court case has considered the rival submissions
of the parties made at bar, the materials on record and case laws
cited.
[20] This Court is not inclined to delve on the question of
suppression of material facts and proposes to discuss the merit of
the case. The RR provides that the post of Fishery Officer is by
promotion from- (1) Fishery Inspector and Fishery Extension
Assistant/Fishery Instructor possessing Diploma with 3 years regular
service in the respective grades; (2) Fishery Inspector and Fishery
Extension Assistant/Fishery Instructor possessing 1 year Certificate
in the Fishery Science from a recognised Inland Fisheries obtained
from a Centre recognised CIFE with 5 years of regular service in
their respective grades; (3) Research Assistant possessing
Diploma/Post Graduate in Zoology/Chemistry with 12 months
training from CIFE, Barrackpore Unit with 3 years regular service in
the grade; (4) Other Fishery Inspector/Fishery Extension
Assistant/Fishery Instructor who are not Science Graduate
possessing Fisheries Training of not less than 9 months course from
any recognised Institute with 10 years regular service in their
respective grades. If the petitioner completed the Diploma between
the period from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020 as per OM dated
15.5.2014, she would be eligible for considering against the
vacancies for the year 2019-2020.
[21] Admittedly, the petitioner completed the Diploma in
Fishery for the course May 2019 to April 2020 on 20.9.2021, as the
course was extended due to pandemic. Later on, the Institute
clarified that she completed the course of May 2019 to April 2020.
In any case, the petitioner completed the Diploma in April 2020.
However, as per OM dated 15.5.2014 and for the vacancies arising
during the period from 2019 to 2020, the petitioner should possess
the eligibility criteria between the period from 1st April 2019 to 31st
March 2020. Since the petitioner completed the Diploma in April
2020 as per Annexure A-8, she is not eligible for the vacancy arose
in the year 2019-2020. This Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner was rightly not sent for considering in the Review DPC.
However, it is clarified that the petitioner will be eligible for
subsequent vacancies in the post Fishery Officer.
[22] With these observations, the writ petition is disposed
of. No cost.
`
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Priyojit
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN
TELEN KOM
Date: 2024.03.22
KOM 10:17:07 +05'30'
