Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 13 (MAN)

Aheibam Romel Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2013-09-24

A.M.SAPRE, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. – Heard Mr. A. Molhendro, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. H. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 5/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Jagat, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2013 passed in W.P(C) No. 91 of 2013 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the State respondents to convene DPC by forwarding the name of the petitioner for consideration of her case for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner, Smt. H. Nekishori Devi, had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition for quashing the Note of DPC for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET prepared by the Director, State Council of Education, Research & Training (SCERT) by which the name of the petitioner was excluded from the list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post Principal, DIET. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed as Theory Instructor/Lecturer in the SCERT Department w.e.f. 01.11.1990 vide order dated 21.6.1991 and still serving in the same capacity in the SCERT. According to her, she is the senior-most Theory Instructor/Lecturer having put in about 22 years of service in that capacity. According to her, in the tentative seniority list for the post of Theory Instructor/Lecturer published on 7.3.2005, the petitioner’s name appears at SI. No. 10 and the name of the private respondent appears at SI. No. 11. According to the petitioner, all the persons appearing from SI. No. 1 to 9 have either retired or been promoted to the higher post and as such, the petitioner is the seniormost Theory Instructor/Lecturer. 4. According to the recruitment rules for the post of Principal, DIET, the post of Principal, DIET is to be filled up by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The Recruitment Rules which were published in the year 1981 were superseded by another Recruitment Rules published in the year 2008. As per the said Recruitment Rules of 2008, the post of Principal, DIET is to be filled up by a Lecturer/Theory Instructor of DIET/SCERT with 5 years regular service as Lecturer/Theory Instructor as provided in Column No. 11 thereof which reads as follows:- In case of rectt. As per the said Recruitment Rules of 2008, the post of Principal, DIET is to be filled up by a Lecturer/Theory Instructor of DIET/SCERT with 5 years regular service as Lecturer/Theory Instructor as provided in Column No. 11 thereof which reads as follows:- In case of rectt. By promotion/deputation/transfer grade from with promotion/deputation/transfer to be made (11) PROMOTION: Lecturer/Theory Instructor of DIET/SCERT with 5(five) years regular service as Lecturer/Theory Instructor However, in the said Recruitment Rules of the said post of Principal, DIET, framed in 2008, it has been mentioned in column 8 therein that the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotees also. Column No. 8 of the Recruitment Rules framed in 2008 reads as follows:- Whether age and Educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotees. (8) Age: No. Edn. Qualification: Yes As regards the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits, it has been mentioned in Column No. 7 that one must possesses the following:- Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits (7) Essential 1. Good academic record with M.Ed./M.A. Education with 55% marks preferably with specialization in elementary education. Or Good academic record with Master’s Degree with 55% marks in the relevant school subject and Bachelor of Elementary Education. (B. EI.Edn.) or B. Ed. preferably with specialization in elementary education, (A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Master’s level for SC/ST category). 2. At least five years experiences of teaching in elementary Teacher education institution. DESIRABLE:- Knowledge of Manipur & Hindi Therefore, in view of the provisions in Column No. 8 read with Column No. 7, a Lecturer/Theory Instructor who has rendered 5 years of regular service has to possess the educational qualifications as prescribed for direct recruits for the purpose of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. 5. It seems that when the proposal for holding DPC for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET was made, a DPC Note was prepared. In the said DPC Note prepared by the Director, SCERT, it was observed that the petitioner did not possess the said educational requirements though had completed 5 years of regular service, and observed that the petitioner is not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. In the said DPC Note prepared by the Director, SCERT, it was observed that the petitioner did not possess the said educational requirements though had completed 5 years of regular service, and observed that the petitioner is not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. Being aggrieved by the said DPC Note ruling out the candidature of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the writ petition being W.P(C) No. 91 of 2013. 6. The writ petitioner took the plea before the learned Single Judge that the provisions under Column No. 7 cannot be made applicable while considering promotion as what is provided under Column No. 7 is meant for direct recruits only. Otherwise also, according to the petitioner, the petitioner, after entering service, had already undertaken Master of Arts in Education course having obtained 65% in the year 2012 and as such, even applying the said educational qualifications meant for direct recruitment for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, DIET also, the petitioner is eligible. Learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, held as follows:- “In my opinion, the contention of the learned senior counsel has considerable force. The eligibility criteria prescribed in column No. 11, namely, the candidate must have a qualification as Lecturer/Theory Instructor on DIET/SCERT with five years regular service as Lecturer/Theory Instructor cannot be read together within Column No. 7 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. In other words, the eligibility criteria prescribed in Column No. 7 will apply only for the direct recruitment and not for promotion which will be governed by the eligibility criteria prescribed in Column No. 1l. In my judgment, the qualifications prescribed in Column No. 7 and the qualifications prescribed in Column No. 1l will operate in (sic) different fields, namely the former for direct recruitment and the latter for promotion. In other words, Column No. 7 cannot be read into Column No. 11 for prescribing the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET and will confine itself to direct recruitment. This is evident from the note appearing just above column No. 7 which clearly mentioned “Educational & other qualifications required for “direct recruits” and not for promotion. In other words, Column No. 7 cannot be read into Column No. 11 for prescribing the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET and will confine itself to direct recruitment. This is evident from the note appearing just above column No. 7 which clearly mentioned “Educational & other qualifications required for “direct recruits” and not for promotion. The respondent No. 3 has apparently confused the purpose of Column No. 7 and Column No. 1l has in the process misconstrued these two provisions of the extent rules. Since the petitioner has completed five years of regular service as Lecturer/Theory Instructor, she is eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. This calls for the interference of this Court. (Italics mine) Resultantly, this writ petition succeeds. The state respondents shall now convene the DPC and forward the name of the petitioner to the DPC for consideration of her case for promotion to the post of the Principal, DIET in accordance with law without further loss of time. No costs.” 7. The learned Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition primarily taking the view that qualifications prescribed in Column No. 7 and qualifications prescribed in Column No. 11 will operate in different fields as qualifications mentioned in Column No. 7 is meant for the direct recruitment and the later for promotion and these cannot be read together as they are meant for different sources of recruitment. The learned Single Judge took the view that it was plainly evident from the fact that in Column No. 7 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal, DIET, it is specifically mentioned that these educational qualifications are required for direct recruits and accordingly, held that since the educational qualifications mentioned in Column No. 7 are meant for direct recruitment, the same cannot be made applicable in the case of promotion and as such, actions of the authorities in holding that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion is illegal and held the same to be bad in law and accordingly, interfered with such action of the authorities. The present appeal has been preferred by the private respondent No. 5 as the appellant. The present appeal has been preferred by the private respondent No. 5 as the appellant. According to the appellant, the reasoning and finding of the learned Single Judge is not correct in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has not considered properly the meaning and purport of Column No. 8 of the Recruitment Rules which has been reproduced earlier. 8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, since it has been specifically mentioned in Column No. 8 that the educational qualifications required for direct recruitment will also apply in case of promotees, it follows therefore that the educational qualifications mentioned in Column No. 7 has to be read along with the requirement as provided in Column No. 11 for the purpose of promotion. Accordingly, a person who is eligible for promotion under Column No. 11 has also to fulfill the educational qualifications provided under Column No. 7 in view of the specific provisions of Column No. 8 and accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with as the interpretation given is erroneous. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 5 herein, has, however, raised serious objection to the maintainability of the present appeal contending that the right of the appellant/private respondent No. 5 was not affected by the impugned judgment and since his right was not adversely affected by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, he has no locus standi to file the present appeal and in this connection, has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) SCC 465 . Further, learned counsel appearing for the respondent also has submitted that otherwise also since the present respondent (writ petitioner) had already completed M. A. in Education obtaining 65 % while in service, and the petitioner is eligible and hence, she cannot be debarred from considering for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. 10. Further, learned counsel appearing for the respondent also has submitted that otherwise also since the present respondent (writ petitioner) had already completed M. A. in Education obtaining 65 % while in service, and the petitioner is eligible and hence, she cannot be debarred from considering for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. 10. As regards the contention of the respondent No. 5 that the present appeal is not maintainable cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the present appellant was impleaded by the petitioner as a private respondent No. 5 in the writ petition and since the petitioner had herself made the present appellant as a party in the writ petition knowingly and voluntarily, the question of nonsuiting the present appeal on the ground that the appellant has no locus standi to file the appeal cannot be accepted. In view of the facts of the case present, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 11. However, coming to the merit of the case, though we concur with the conclusion and direction issued by the learned Single Judge directing the State respondents to convene a DPC by including the name of the petitioner for consideration for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET, we are unable to agree with the reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment in arriving at such a conclusion. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the Column No. 7 is applicable only for the direct recruitment and Column No. 11 for promotion and as these provisions are exclusive of each other and meant for different streams of recruitment, the educational qualifications mentioned in Column No. 7 of the Recruitment Rules meant for direct recruitment cannot be read into the eligibility requirement mentioned in Column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for promotion. This, in our view, is not the correct approach, as the specific provision provided in Column No. 8 of the Recruitment Rules as quoted above could not be ignored. The said Column No. 8 clearly mentions that as regards the age prescribed for direct recruitment, the same will not be applicable in the case of promotion. However, Column No. 8 also provides that the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will be made applicable in me case of promotees also. The said Column No. 8 clearly mentions that as regards the age prescribed for direct recruitment, the same will not be applicable in the case of promotion. However, Column No. 8 also provides that the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will be made applicable in me case of promotees also. It is well settled principle of statutory interpretation that provisions of statutes have to be understood by giving a plain meaning to the words employed unless such interpretation leads to absurdity. In other words, the expression provided in a statute has to be given its plain meaning and such specific provision in any statute must be given effect to and cannot be ignored. In the present case, there is a specific provision in Column No. 8 of the Recruitment Rules that educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruit will apply in the case of promotees and such specific provision in Column No. 8 in the Recruitment Rules could not be ignored and has to be given effect in its plain meaning. In that event, the promotees who will be considered for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET as provided under Column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules have to possess the educational qualifications which is prescribed for the direct recruit also. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also of the view that while interpreting the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal, DIET, the entire provisions have to be read together and the said provisions under Column Nos. 7 and 11 cannot be read in isolation with Column No. 8 which is a part of the Recruitment Rules and since Column No. 8 specifically provides that educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruit will also be applicable for the promotees, the said educational qualifications have to be possessed by any person claiming promotion to the post of Principal, DIET. Having said so, we have to now examine whether the writ petitioner possesses the said educational qualifications as prescribed for direct recruits. The petitioner has claimed that she had obtained M.A. in Education securing 65% after entering service and as such presently, she also possesses the qualifications as mentioned in Column No. 7 of the Recruitment Rules. Having said so, we have to now examine whether the writ petitioner possesses the said educational qualifications as prescribed for direct recruits. The petitioner has claimed that she had obtained M.A. in Education securing 65% after entering service and as such presently, she also possesses the qualifications as mentioned in Column No. 7 of the Recruitment Rules. In that event, we are of the view that since the writ petitioner claims to possess the said qualification, she would be also entitled to be considered for promotion to the post Principal, DIET. However, since it involves verification of the necessary certificate/document, the authority concerned will verify the claim of the petitioner based on such documents/certificates. If the claim of the petitioner that she possesses the necessary qualification is found to be true after necessary verification, the writ petitioner would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET and she cannot be debarred from consideration for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET on that account. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and in the result, the writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. __________