Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4 (MAN)

NG. Maimu Singh v. State of Manipur And Ors.

2013-06-04

A.M.SAPRE, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, CJ.- Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Debendra Singh, learned State counsel for State respondents and Mr. A. Mohendro Singh, learned counsel appearing for private respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the Rules framed on 14.2.1994 called The Agriculture/Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department, Manipur (Additional Directors of Agriculture/Horticulture & Soil Conservation and other posts with an identical scale of pay and similar duties (known as the cadre of Additional Director)), Recruitment Rules,1994’ (for short hereinafter called for brevity -"The Rules 1994") and also the promotion order of the respondent no.4 dated 2.9.2003. 3. Facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition need mention in brief as under: 3.1. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as "Chemist" in the Department of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur on 27.2.1982. After some time, on 31.3.2000, he was promoted to the post of Food Technologist working in the factory called "Fruit Preservation Factory". He was then (vide order dated 20.7.2006) promoted to the post of Chief Food Technologist. However, on 26.3.2009, the Respondent No.4 who was working as Deputy Director was promoted to the post of Joint Director. The writ petitioner, then felt aggrieved of the promotion given to Respondent No.4, filed this writ petition and challenged the constitutional validity of the Rules, 1994 as also the promotion order of respondent no.4 on the post of Joint Director. 3.2. The challenge is made essentially on the ground that the Rules of 1994 do not provide for any chance for being considered to the post of Joint Director whereas it provides such chance to those who holds the post of Deputy Director - such as the respondent No.4 herein. It is contended that the post held by the writ petitioner and the one held by the respondent No.4 are more or less similar in all respects with no disparity between the both and hence exclusion of the post held by the writ petitioner for being considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director and making it non promotional makes the impugned Rules unreasonable, arbitrary and bad. It is contended that Rule cannot be made to confine the benefit of such promotion only to those holding the post of Deputy Director. It is contended that Rule cannot be made to confine the benefit of such promotion only to those holding the post of Deputy Director. It is contended that since the promotional avenue is always considered in the nature of incentive to employees irrespective of the cadre and hence if such incentive is withdrawn or/and nor provided to an employee unless there are justifiable causes for such exclusion, it would be against the spirit of service jurisprudence and would make the Rules bad in law. 4. The stand of the respondent is that firstly the writ petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches because it seeks to challenge the Rules of 1994 almost after 15 years of its enactment. Secondly this is not a case, where promotional avenues have not provided to the petitioner but on the other hand and even according to him, it would go to show that the writ petitioner did enjoy the promotional benefits thrice in his carrier from the date of his joining till date. Thirdly there are many dissimilarities between the post held by the writ petitioner and the one held by the respondent No.4 and hence due to these dissimilarities, the promotional avenue for the post in question is confined to one cadre held by Respondent No.4 excluding other. In other words, it is the case of Respondent No.4 that both the posts in question are not at par with each other for their consideration for the posts and hence only those who are in the channel of Respondent No.4 can be considered for the next promotion to the post of Joint Director. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction at this stage to the respondent no. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction at this stage to the respondent no. 1 to re-examine the issue raised in this writ petition afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (1996) 3 SCC 709 ; AIR 2002 SC 2111; (2007) 6 SCC 805 ; 1988 (Supp) SCC 519 and AIR 1997 SC 3662 relied by the respondents and in 7970 (SLR) SC 768; 1975 (3) SCC 76 ; 1999 (7) SCC 209 ; AIR 1989 SC 72 ; SCC (Suppl) 1988; AIR 2004 SC (para 6; page 1250 & 1251); 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 688; AIR 1974 SC 259 ; 1996 (2) GUT 424; 1996 (3) GLR 262; 1998 (1) GLT267 and 2005 (Suppl.) GLT 46. 6. In our view, this exercise at the first instance has got to be done at the level of the State on administrative side to find out as to whether the grievance urged by the writ petitioner has any merit and if so whether rule require any amendment for providing promotional avenues to persons coming from other cadres and if not then why and on what basis. The issue on judicial side can be decided at a later stage. 7. True it is that it is for the State to decide as to on what criteria the promotional avenues should be provided from a particular cadre/s, yet such criteria need to satisfy as far as possible keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in aforesaid cited cases. 8. We, therefore, at this stage refrain from undertaking this exercise on our judicial side and without expressing any opinion on either side of the case dispose of the writ petition and direct the respondent No.l to re-examine the issue raised in the writ petition in the light of our observations made above and accordingly direct the respondent no.l to take the decision under communication to the parties to enable them to raise their grievance, if occasion so arises in appropriate forum. It be done within six months. No costs. ______________