Sh. F.Lalhmachhuana and 122 Ors. Vs State of Mizoram and 23 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/24

¶2

GAHC030004562024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/71/2024

¶5

Sh. F.Lalhmachhuana and 122 Ors. S/o Zongura, Havildar, PTS, R/o Armed Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram

¶6

2: Lalramhluna S/o Laltanpuia Havildar 1st Bn MAP R/o Armed Veng Aizawl Mizoram 3: Lalnuntluanga S/o Ngurthanmawia Havildar 5th IR BN R/o Armed Veng South Aizawl Mizoram 4: Vanlalthuama S/o Lalrawna Sailo (L) Havildar 2nd BN MAP R/o Lunglei Rahsiveng Mizoram 5: Lalnunfela S/o Chalthuama Navildar 3rd BN MAP R/o Bawngkawn

¶7

Page No.# 2/24

¶8

Aizawl Mizora VERSUS State of Mizoram and 23 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl 2:The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department Mizoram Aizawl 3:The Director General of Police Mizoram Aizawl 4:The Inspector General of Police (Range) Mizoram Aizawl 5:The SPIO and Assistant Inspector General of Police (Hqrs.) Mizoram Aizawl 6:The Superintendent of Police Champhai District Champhai 7:Sh Pradip Kr Borman Sub-Inspector of Police (AB) 3rd IR Bn. 8:Sh Lalrinkima Sub-Inspector of Police (AB) 3rd IR Bn

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1 - 6

¶11

Page No.# 3/24

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

¶13

JUDGEMENT

¶14

Date : 08.09.2025

¶15

Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 7 to 24.

¶16

2. The instant writ petition is a challenge to the order dated 29.02.2024 by which the respondent Nos. 7 to 24 were promoted from the rank of Havildar to the rank of Sub-Inspector of police (AB), which according to the petitioners was done arbitrarily and not as per the provisions of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005.

¶17

3. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed in the Police Department under the Government of Mizoram and are holding the post of Havildar for the Armed Branch of the said department. They were among the group of 215 candidates who participated in the departmental test of Havildar for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector (AB) conducted at 3^rd MAP parade ground No. 29^th January, 2024 to 5^th February, 2024, wherein the private respondent Nos. 7 to 24 were promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector of police

¶18

Page No.# 4/24

¶19

(AB).

¶20

4. Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appointment of the private respondents was done arbitrarily and not according to the prescribed procedure. He submitted that the composition of the Departmental Promotion Committee which was notified on 06.11.2023, was not as per the provisions of rule 397(2)(b) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. The learned counsel submitted that as per rule 397(2)(b) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, in the composition of the members of Departmental Promotion Committee, the two Commandants who are included as the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee, are to be nominated by the Director General of Police. However, in the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the two Commandants have been nominated by the Director General of Police.

¶21

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the Standing Order dated 22.11.2021 provides for the promotion of Havildar to the rank of Sub-Inspector (AB) and Clause 8 of the Standing Order states that - the test will be conducted by the Test Board appointed by the Director General of Police, which will make objective assessment of all the candidates based on their performance in the

¶22

Page No.# 5/24

¶23

Tests and submit list to the DGP for consideration of promotion in order of merit by the DPC duly constituted by the Govt. of Mizoram vide No. 32012/1/2011P&AR(GSW) dt. 7.7.2020. However, in the instant case, the notification dated 05.12.2023, which is the notification of the constitution of the Test Board, was issued by the AIG (Headquarters) and not the Director General of Police.

¶24

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the Promotion Order dated 29.02.2024, promoting the private respondent Nos. 7 to 24 is also not in accordance with the prescribes Rules whereby the process of equity and fairness was not followed. The learned counsel submitted that on perusal of the impugned promotion order it was issued by the Assistant IGP, who is not the authorized person as per Rule 397(2)(f) of the Mizoram Police Manual wherein, as per the rules, it is the Commandant who is authorized to promote the candidates.

¶25

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners had procured information through RTI regarding the overall result of the departmental test of Havildar for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police (AB). However, on perusal of the information, it was found that the overall result is the typed out marks procured by the candidates and not the

¶26

Page No.# 6/24

¶27

original hand-written marks obtained by the candidates. He further submitted that on perusal of the results, there are a number of the selected candidates whose marks have not been shown and therefore, there is no transparency in the selection process.

¶28

The learned counsel further submitted that this court, vide its order dated 12.03.2025 and 23.04.2025 had called for the marks obtained by the candidates to ascertain whether the marks given was clear and without prejudice. Thereafter, the Government Advocate had filed the additional affidavit dated 27.06.2025, wherein the procedure followed for giving the marks was highlighted. The learned counsel submitted that from the documents produced, it is clear that the original handwritten score sheet as submitted to the Chairman, DPC, is not available for perusal.

¶29

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners being, unhappy with the said results had submitted their representation to the Mizoram Armed Police Association (MAPA). The General Secretary, Mizoram Armed Police Association (MAPA) had forwarded the grievances of the petitioners regarding the unfairness of the departmental test, claiming that 6 (six) selected candidates were not fit for selection/promotion and prayed for the re-test and

¶30

Page No.# 7/24

¶31

re-consideration of the candidates for promotion to the Sub-Inspector. However,

¶32

no such steps were taken by the respondents.

¶33

9. The learned counsel submitted that there was also a video recording of the performance of the candidates and therefore, petitioners had made another representation on 03.06.2024, requesting to review the video coverage, which was again not done so. The learned counsel submitted that in the additional affidavit filed by the State respondents, it was also mentioned that the video coverage was used to ensure transparency and to serve as a supporting record. However, no such video recording was provided to the petitioners. The learned counsel thus submitted that because of the unfairness and non-transparency in the manner in which the private respondents were promoted to the post of SubInspector, he prayed that this court may issue an order to re-consider the promotion of the respondents by giving a fair chance to the petitioners to be considered based on their performance.

¶34

10. The learned counsel also submitted that there are contradictions in the additional affidavit filed by the State respondents and the counter-affidavit previously filed. He submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed on 18.09.2024, it was mentioned that the Practical Test Board submitted the Computer typed

¶35

Page No.# 8/24

¶36

marks obtained by the candidates to the Departmental Promotion Committee, wherein the Departmental Promotion Committee compiled it and prepared the overall results and then submitted their recommendation of selected list for approval to the DGP. However, in the additional affidavit filed by the State respondents, it was mentioned that the score sheet containing the marks scored by the candidates was submitted to the Chairman Test Board on the day of the examination itself and that the marks were compiled by the Test Board and submitted to the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is also mentioned that it is the Test Board who submitted the overall result to the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Departmental Promotion Committee examined the overall result and then submitted its recommendation for promotion to the DGP for approval.

¶37

The learned counsel thus submitted that the prescribed law/rules of the Mizoram Police Manual (MPM), 2005 and the guidelines issued subsequently were not followed in the instant case. He submitted that where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, following a particular procedure, it should have been done in the said manner, following the procedure prescribed by law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Cherukuri Mani Vs. The

¶38

Page No.# 9/24

¶39

Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. , reported in (2015) 13 SCC 722 (para 15).

¶40

11. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, on the other hand, submitted that with regards to the information received by the petitioners through RTI of the marks scored by the candidates, the marks scored by some of the candidates have not been shown, since the said candidates were not willing to disclose the marks scored by them, which is as per Section 11 of the Right to Information Act. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the names of the selected candidates were as per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which was then sent to the Director General of Police for approval. Thus, the promotion order which arranged in order of merit was duly approved by the Director General of Police and there is no unfairness or arbitrariness in the whole promotion process.

¶41

The learned Government Advocate also submitted that though Rule 397(2) (g) of the Mizoram Police Manual provides that promotion orders are to be issued by the Commandants, however, this was found to be impractical, since the inter-se-seniority of Sub-Inspector (AB) are maintained at the Police

¶42

Page No.# 10/24

¶43

Headquarters. She submitted that if the Commandants issued the order of promotion separately, it would cause problem with regard to the order of merit which will affect their seniority. Therefore, to centralized the whole process and in the interest of their services, the promotion order was issued by the AIG (Headquarters). She further submitted that the AIG (Headquarters) is an equivalent rank of Commandant and therefore, the AIGP was also the appointing authority, and he has been duly authorized to issue the instant promotion order. The centralization of the promotion order had been practiced since long in order to maintain service matters and seniority properly and for the betterment of the department and also in the interest of all the police personnel. She therefore submitted that there is no violation of Rule 397(2)(g) of the Police Manual, 2005.

¶44

12. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that on the perusal of the standing order dated 22.11.2021, which is regarding the promotion of Havildar to the rank of SI (AB), the assessment of the performances of the Havildars in the departmental test for promotion to SI (AB) is to be conducted for various subjects such as “Personal turn out”, “Proficiency in drill”, “Command and control”, “Weapons in(theory and practical)”, “Field craft & map reading”. She also submitted that there were also various other criteria for giving marks

¶45

Page No.# 11/24

¶46

which has been laid out in detail in the standing order. She submits that the candidates whose performance was assessed as per the different tests are the one who were selected and the petitioners challenging the competency of some of the selected candidates only based on their field performance is not appropriate, since they are found to be fit in the other test as per the standing order.

¶47

She submitted that the selection was based on merit and suitability of the candidates and there is nothing which points out towards the biasness or unfairness of the selection done by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

¶48

13. The learned Government Advocate has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.P. Nayyar , reported in (2014) 14 SCC 370 (para 11, 13 & 14), wherein it was held that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya & Ors. , reported in (2018) 15 SCC 796 (para 17, 20), wherein the Apex Court had observed that the Selection Committee is the expert in the field for the appointment and the court cannot examine the decision of the Selection Committee who are experts in the field unless clear malice with malafide intention is made out. The learned

¶49

Page No.# 12/24

¶50

counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Punjab State

¶51

Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited & Anr. Vs. Balbir

¶52

Kumar Walia & Ors. , reported in (2021) 8 SCC 784 (paras 43, 46 Sub para 28, 31). She submitted that the petitioners have not been able to make out as to what loss have been violated in the instant selection process but has simply made a wide allegation regarding the fairness of the selection.

¶53

14. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 7 to 24 submitted that the promotion order of the private respondents is dated 29.02.2024 and the private respondents have been holding the post of SubInspector for a period of more than 1 year and therefore, it would be unfair and not in the interest of justice if their promotion order should be quashed or set aside at this belated date/stage.

¶54

He submitted that the private respondents were promoted on the basis of merit and their practical test. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have not challenged the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee though the petitioners have alleged that the Departmental Promotion Committee was unfair.

¶55

15. The learned counsel also submits that the issue regarding the original

¶56

Page No.# 13/24

¶57

marks to be produced for examination by the petitioners has been clearly decided by the Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sudhi & Ors. Vs. State of J&K &

¶58

Ors. , reported in (2023) Lifelaw (SC) 253 (para 14).

¶59

16. The learned counsel further submitted that the point whether the Addl. IGP or the Commandant is to issue their promotion order is not in violation of any of the Rules, since the AIGP and the Commandant are of the same rank and the term Commandant can be considered only as a ceremonial designation. He further submitted that the Government Advocate has already explained the convenience of having a common promotion order instead of the Commandants of their respective battalions issuing the promotion order.

¶60

17. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation made by the petitioner that the two Commandants, who are made members of the Departmental Promotion Committee have not been approved by the Director General of Police is a wild allegation with no substance. He submitted that it is for the petitioner to prove that the appointment of the two Commandants as members of the Departmental Promotion Committee does not have the approval of the Director General of Police (DGP).

¶61

He also submitted that the petitioners have not been able to prove of there

¶62

Page No.# 14/24

¶63

being any malafide in the appointment of the two Commandants as members of the Departmental Promotion Committee nor has it been proved that there is any malafide in the process of selection of the candidates to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (AB).

¶64

In support of his submission the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. N. Chandrase kharan & Ors. , reported in (1998) 3 SCC 694 (para 14) and Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. Vs. Anil Joshi & Ors. , reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 (para 18, 20& 21)

¶65

18. The learned counsel also submits that a perusal of the writ petition shows that there is no specific violation of the legal rights of the petitioners and that there is no requirement for review of the overall result of the departmental test for Havildar for the promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector (AB).

¶66

19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and I have also perused the documents on record.

¶67

20. It is seen that the petitioners have challenged the promotion of the private

¶68

respondent Nos. 7 to 24 vide order dated 29.02.2024 from the post of Havildar

¶69

Page No.# 15/24

¶70

to the post of Sub Inspector (AB), by submitting that the process of selection was not fair and done arbitrarily by not following the due process of law and the provisions of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. The petitioners have challenged the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) by stating that as per rule 397(2)(b) of the Mizoram Police Manual, the two Commandants who are members of the Departmental Promotion Committee are to be nominated by the Director General of Police. However, there is no evidence to show that the two Commandants who are members of the Departmental Promotion Committee were nominated by the Director General of Police. This court has, however, perused the copy of the office notings of the concerned file brought on record. On perusal of the office notings, it is seen that the file for the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee was place before Director General of Police and duly approved by him. Thus, unless there is evidence to the contrary, it cannot be simply presumed that two Commandants were not nominated by the Director General of as per rule 397(2)(b) of the Mizoram Police Manual. The petitioners have not claimed that the two Commandants were nominated by some other authority or how the appointment of the said two Commandants as members of the Departmental Promotion Committee had prejudiced the petitioners. It is also noted that it is not the prayer of the petitioners for the cancellation of the Departmental

¶71

Page No.# 16/24

¶72

Promotion Committee or for constitution of a new Departmental Promotion

¶73

Committee.

¶74

21. This court has also considered the claim that the Test Board was not appointed by the DGP in terms with para 8 of the Standing Order dated 22.11.2021. A perusal of the copy of the office file regarding the appointment of the members of the Test Board shows that the file was forwarded for approval and signature of the Director General of Police and accordingly, the Director General of Police had signed its approval on 09.11.2023. In view of the above, it is seen that the members of the Test Board were appointed with the knowledge and the approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee and therefore, it cannot be held that there was a violation of rule 8 of the Standing Order dated 22.11.2021, even though, the Notification dated 05.12.2023, notifying the members of the practical Test Board was issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Headquarters/AIGP).

¶75

22. This court also finds that though the petitioners are aggrieved by nonproduction of the original hand written marks of the private respondentsin the RTI reply, this court finds that the names of the candidates and the marks scored by them are listed out in order of merit and the names of all the private

¶76

Page No.# 17/24

¶77

respondents are placed above the names of the petitioners. The list also included the names of the private respondents who have not allowed their marks to be disclosed under section 11 of the RTI Act. This court finds that the non-disclosure of the marks secured by some of the private respondents cannot be a reason to vitiate the entire selection process unless there was some specific allegation against the private respondents which require their marks to be disclosed.

¶78

23. The Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi Vs. State of J&K, (supra) made the following observation regarding Selection process for public employment : Interference by courtswherein the Apex court held :-

¶79

“31. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for courts to substitute their judgment for that of a Selection Committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a Selection Board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law.

¶80

Thus, courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine

¶81

Page No.# 18/24

¶82

whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the Selection Board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their postgraduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20; (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water.”

¶83

24. It is also seen that the petitioners had filed their representations to the General Secretary, Mizoram Armed Police Association (MAPA), voicing their grievances by submitting that some of the private respondents were deemed to be incompetent, since they were not proficiency enough in the handling of the armed guns and that some of the respondents appear to know beforehand that they would be selected. This court, however finds that the selection of the private respondents was not based only on the practical test but different criteriawas listed for consideration of their promotion. A perusal of the Standing Order dated 22.11.2021, shows that test were conducted from the following

¶84

Page No.# 19/24

¶85

seats and marks allotted accordingly.

¶86

1.	Personal Turn – out	10 marks
2.	Proficiencyin Drill	20 marks
3.	Command and Control	15 marks
4.	Weapons(Theoryand Practical)	20 marks
5.	Field Craft and MapReading	15 marks
	Total	80 marks

¶87

It is also seen that in addition to the above marks the service record within

¶88

the last 5 years was also to be considered carrying marks as indicated:-

¶89

1.	Rewards 1(one)mark for	each reward. Maximum 5 marks
2.	Punishment 1(one) mark to Maximum 5 ma	be deducted for each minor punishment. rks.
3.	Bonus marks will begiven for the fo	llowingMedal/Awards etc. :-
	(i)President’s Police Medal For Gallantry	5 marks
	(ii)President’s Police Medal For Distinguish Service	4 marks
	(iii)President’s Police Medal for Meritorious Service	3 marks
	(iv)AnyGovernor’s Medal	2 marks
	(v)G.S. Marks	2(two)marks each. Maximum 6 marks
	(vi)DGP’s Commendation Disc	1 mark
	(vii)Specialized Course more than 3(three)months	2 marks

¶90

25. From the above it is seen that the selection of the candidates for

¶91

promotion from Havildar to Sub-Inspector of Police (AB) is considered taking

¶92

into consideration the various criteria such as of the practical (past and present)

¶93

Page No.# 20/24

¶94

performance, written exams and service record. This court thus finds that the opinion/assessment made by the petitioners concerning the competency/fitness of the private respondents, is not done as per the above criteria of the Standing Orders and cannot be a ground for setting aside the findings of the Departmental Promotion Committee who are the expert in the field. Likewise, the availability of the video coverage mentioned by the petitioners, would not cover all the criteria required to be considered as highlighted above.

¶95

26. It is seen that the Apex Court in Union Public Service Commission Vs.

¶96

M. SathiyaPriya&Ors. (Supra) had held that para 17 and 20 as follows:-

¶97

“17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of UPSC and is duly represented by the officers of the Central Government and the State Government who have expertise in the matter. In our considered opinion, when a High-Level Committee or an expert body has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is not open to CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to

¶98

Page No.# 21/24

¶99

interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee. The courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters.

¶100

This Court has repeatedly observed and concluded that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority or an umpire to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like a court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only, and the courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of a candidate; nor is it the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. Since the Selection Committee constituted by UPSC is manned by experts in the field, we have to trust their assessment unless itisactuated with malice or bristles with mala fides or arbitrariness.”

¶101

27. This court has also noted that the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors.

¶102

Vs. S.P. Nayyar (Supra) has held at para 43, 46 Sub para11, 13 & 14 as follows:-

¶103

“11. It is settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶104

Page No.# 22/24

¶105

India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the merit on its own on perusal of the service record of one or the other employee.

¶106

The bias and mala fide acts can be adjudged only on the basis of evidence. The assessment of character roll by one or the other officer, giving a general grade such as “Good” cannot be the sole ground to hold that the officer was biased against the person whose character roll is assessed. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that Appellant 3, E.N. Ram Mohan was biased against the respondent. Merely because he assessed the ACR of the respondent as “Good” as against assessment of “Very Good” made by IO it cannot be said that he was biased against the respondent.

¶107

The Departmental Promotion Committee consists of a Chairman and the members. Even if bias is alleged against the Chairperson, it cannot be presumed that all the members of the Committee were biased. No ground has been made out by the respondent to show as to why the assessment made by the DPC is not to be accepted. The High Court failed to notice the aforesaid fact and wrongly discarded the assessment made by the DPC.”

¶108

28. It is also seen that the petitioners have challenged the promotion order dated 29.02.2024, by submitting that the order was made by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Headquarters/AIGP), whereas the promotion order

¶109

Page No.# 23/24

¶110

was to be made by the Commandant as per rule 397(2)(f) of the Mizoram Police

¶111

Manual. This court has, however, perused the explanation given by the learned Government Advocate, who has explained that though as per rule 397(2)(g) of the Mizoram Police Manual promotion orders were to be issued by the Commandants, however, this provision was found impracticable since the interse-seniority of Sub-Inspector (AB) are maintained to be Headquarters. The Commandants, therefore, if issued order of promotion were to issue separately, it would cause problems regarding the orders of merit, which would in turn affect their seniority. This court finds the explanation reasonable especially when it is seen that the names selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee was sent to the Director General of Police for approval and the promotion order was also accordingly arranged as per merit of candidates. This court thus also finds that the slight variation in the counter affidavit filed by the state respondents and the additional affidavit file subsequently would not make any difference in the result of the performance of the candidates for their selection from the post of Havildar to the post of Sub Inspector (AB).

¶112

29. In view of the above observation and findings of the Apex Court and the reasoning highlighted in the above paragraphs, this court finds that the petitioners had failed to provide sufficient cause for interference with the

¶113

Page No.# 24/24

¶114

promotion order dated 29.02.2024 promoting the private respondents to the

¶115

rank of Sub-Inspector of Police (AB). Accordingly, the Writ Petition 71 of 2024 stands dismissed and disposed of.

¶116

No cost.

¶117

JUDGE

¶118

Comparing Assistant

Sh. F.Lalhmachhuana and 122 Ors. v. State of Mizoram and 23 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. F.Lalhmachhuana and 122 Ors. v. State of Mizoram and 23 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Biakthansangi Vs Smt. Hautluangpuii and 2 Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sh Lalhmangaiha and Anr.

Sh. P.C. Lalthlamuana Vs Sh. Lalramhmachhuana and 7 Ors.

Mrs. Lalrozami Vs The State of Mizoram r/b. the Principal secretary, Finance Department and 5 Ors.

Smt. Malsawmkimi Vs The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors.

Sh. Lalawmpuia and 7 Ors. Vs State of Mizoram and 5 Ors.