Y. Munindro Mangang, Vs the State of Manipur and 40 Ors.

THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND 40 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. / COMMISSIONER / SECY. (WORKS), GOVT. OF MANIPUR, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, BABUPARA, P.O. AND P.S. IMPHAL , DIST. IMPHAL WEST, DIST. MANIPUR 795001

¶10

2:THE DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS

¶11

THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER / SECRETARY (DP) GOVT. OF MANIPUR NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING BABUPARA P.O. AND PS. IMPHAL DIST. IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR 795001

¶12

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶13

PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. KHOYATHONG THANGAL BAZAR P.O. AND P.S. IMPHAL DIST. IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR 795001

¶14

4:THE MANIPUR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

¶15

THROUGH THE SECY. NORTH AOC

¶16

Page No.# 2/9

¶17

P.O. AND P.S. IMPHAL DIST. IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR 795001

¶18

5:CHONGTHAM BISHWACHANDRA SINGH MANIPUR

¶19

6:DR. NGAGOM SENIOR

¶20

MANIPUR

¶21

7:RUBEE KONGBRAILATPAM

¶22

MANIPUR

¶23

8:CHABUNGBAM UTTAM SINGH

¶24

MANIPUR

¶25

9:K. LOKHO MANIPUR

¶26

10:AJMIDA SAHANI MANIPUR

¶27

11:YUMNAM ROBIN

¶28

MANIPUR

¶29

12:SHONGZAMI KHAPUDANG

¶30

MANIPUR

¶31

13:KH. IBOPISHAK SINGH

¶32

MANIPUR

¶33

14:INDRAKUMAR SINGH MANIPUR

¶34

15:Y. ANILKUMAR SINGH

¶35

MANIPUR

¶36

16:L. ARUN KUMAR MEITEI MANIPUR

¶37

17:N. SADANANDA SINGH

Page No.# 3/9

MANIPUR

18:K. DEBEN SINGH

MANIPUR

19:H. BHOGINDRO SINGH

MANIPUR

20:N. SANTABIR SINGH

MANIPUR

21:T. JOSEPH KHENKHANMANG MANIPUR

22:MD. RAHIMUDDIN

MANIPUR

23:W. ROBERTSON ANAL

MANIPUR

24:N. AMUBA SINGH

MANIPUR

25:M. INAOBI SINGH

MANIPUR

26:TH. RATAN MEITEI

MANIPUR

27:CH. HARESHWAR SINGH MANIPUR

¶58

28:K. NORJIT SHARMA MANIPUR

¶59

29:K. THANGKHOMANG GANGLTE MANIPUR

¶60

30:TH BRAJAKISHORE SINGH

Page No.# 4/9

MANIPUR

31:TH. KOMOL SINGH

MANIPUR

32:S. PRAKASH SINGH

MANIPUR

33:Y. AJIT KUMAR SINGH

¶68

MANIPUR

¶69

34:R.K. LANSANA SINGH

MANIPUR

35:R. CHUNGAILUNGPOU

MANIPUR

36:N. RABI SINGH

MANIPUR

37:N IMOCHA SINGH MANIPUR 38:M THANGPEI MANIPUR

¶76

39:N. JAMANDAR SINGH

¶77

MANIPUR

¶78

40:LEIVON NEILENTHANG KOM

¶79

MANIPUR

¶80

41:JOYSON RALENG

¶81

NOTICE UPON RESONDENT NOS 5 TO 41 MAY BE SERVED THROUGH THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD MANIPUR I.E. RESPONDENT NO.

¶82

Page No.# 5/9

¶83

For the appellant/petitioner(s): Mr. A. Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. O. Momota Devi, Sr. Advocate

¶84

Mr. W. Ngangom, Advocate Mr. N. Anix Singh, Advocate Mr. Stephen P. Advocate

¶85

– B E F O R E –

¶86

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶87

06.05.2026

¶88

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶89

We have heard Mr. A. Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. O. Momota Devi, learned senior Advocate for respondent No. 4; Mr. N. Anix Singh, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Stephen P, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 5, 8 and 9.

¶90

The dispute in the present appeal is with respect to the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), Public Works Department, Manipur. The appellant was initially promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 29.12.2016. Later, the Government of Manipur issued an O.M. dated 10.09.2020 clarifying that the crucial date for determining eligibility

¶91

for promotion would be the 1^st April of the vacancy year, if the recruitment rules are silent.

¶92

The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that for the 2019-2020 vacancy year, the crucial date would, thus, be 01.04.2020.

¶93

As per the Recruitment Rules dated 20.10.2016, a candidate was required to have 17 years of regular service as Section Officer/Assistant Engineer (combined), with at least 3 years’ service experience on the post of Assistant Engineer.

¶94

Page No.# 6/9

¶95

The appellant was appointed as a Section Officer in 1987 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2016. Thus, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being considered for promotion before 01.04.2020.

¶96

The grievance of the appellant, however, is that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was held on 12.01.2022 for filling up 34 posts of Executive Engineer for the vacancy year 2019-2020. The aforenoted DPC considered the candidatures of the direct recruit Assistant Engineers of 2014 batch even though they had not completed the required 6 years of qualifying service as on 01.04.2020; and they were recommended for promotion.

¶97

According to the appellant, the Assistant Engineers of 2014 batch would have been qualified for being considered from 01.04.2021 only, and not for the vacancies of 2019-2020.

¶98

The appellant approached the High Court of Manipur by filing WP(C) No. 386/2022, seeking quashing of the DPC proceedings; the recommendation and appointment of the private respondents. However, the challenge made by the appellant to the promotion of the private respondents could not be sustained. The prayers made on behalf of the appellant for quashing of the DPC proceedings and the recommendation and appointment of the private respondents as also for a direction for his promotion against 2019-2020 vacancy, was rejected by the learned Single Judge primarily taking into account the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 31.08.2022, with retrospective effect from 12.01.2022, i.e. at par with the private respondents. The

¶99

Page No.# 7/9

¶100

recommendation for his promotion was, however, kept in sealed cover because of a vigilance case pending against the appellant.

¶101

The learned Single Judge has also observed, while disposing off the writ petition, that since the appellant had accepted the subsequent promotion order, he could not be permitted to challenge the same DPC proceedings which had benefitted him. Thus, on the ground of impermissibility of approbate and reprobate, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2024.

¶102

Hence, the writ appeal.

¶103

In order to overcome the objection of the learned Single Judge about the appellant being a beneficiary of the same DPC proceedings, in which he too was recommended against a post for the vacancy year 2019-2020, Mr. Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellant, after some arguments, ultimately limited his contentions to the extent of his seniority without questioning the eligibility of the private respondents in being considered by the same DPC.

¶104

We are afraid, the issue cannot be raised here in this appeal for the reason of the issue of inter se seniority also being governed by specific rules, and which was not the contention raised by the appellant in the writ petition, nor was it the subject-matter decided by the learned Single Judge.

¶105

Contesting the afore-noted arguments with respect to the ineligibility of the private respondents, Ms. Momota Devi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4, drew the attention of this Court to the O.M. dated 10^th September, 2020 referred to by the appellant, which clarifies that the

¶106

Page No.# 8/9

¶107

cut-off date would be the 1^st April of the vacancy year but only in the event of the recruitment rules being silent. The recruitment rules, Ms. Momota Devi contends, existed at the time of consideration of the private respondents as also the appellant, but with respect to the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works, the eligibility qualifications were prescribed without indicating any cut-off date. However, the O.M. dated 15.05.2014, issued by the Government of Manipur regarding instructions on DPC and related matters, provided that the crucial date for determining the eligibility criteria of officers for promotion would be as per the applicable recruitment rules of the service/post, and if the recruitment rules are silent, then the crucial date

¶108

for the afore-noted purpose would be 1^st October. With the aid and on the strength of the afore-noted instructions vide O.M. dated 15.05.2014, the private respondents were also considered as they had already obtained the eligibility qualification of the requisite number of years of service for a particular post.

¶109

The learned counsel representing the private respondent Nos. 5, 8 and 9 has adopted the arguments advanced by Ms. Momota Devi, learned senior counsel.

¶110

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no rule was by-passed in considering the private respondents against the posts for the vacancy year 2019-2020, for the reason that the private respondents, who are direct recruit Assistant Engineers of 2014 batch, had already completed the required 6 years qualifying service prior to the date when the DPC was convened for

¶111

Page No.# 9/9

¶112

considering their cases.

¶113

Even otherwise, we are left with no option but to put our imprimatur on the opinion of the learned Single Judge of the Manipur High Court of questioning the challenge of the appellant on the ground of impermissibility of approbate and reprobate, for the reason of the appellant being a beneficiary of the same DPC proceedings. With the appellant having been promoted with retrospective effect from 12.01.2022, at par with the private respondents, he ought not to have any grievance against the recommendation made in favour of, and promotion given to the private respondents. The inter se seniority between the private respondents and the appellant is a separate subject-matter, which ought not to detain us at the moment as it would be governed by the respective service rules, about which there is no reference in the impugned judgment.

¶114

For the afore-noted reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶115

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶116

Comparing Assistant

Y. Munindro Mangang, v. the State of Manipur and 40 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Munindro Mangang, v. the State of Manipur and 40 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Gurung Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

The State of Assam and 4 Ors. Vs Kawaimari Na Pamua Lp School Lakhimpur

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Smti Achala Goswami and 3 Ors.

Farhana Khanam Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Bhuban Chandra Roy and 40 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smti. Bharati Saikia and Anr. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.