Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 10 (MAN)

Sharmila Naorem v. State of Manipur

2015-01-19

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. A. Jagatchandra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Mr. Md. Jalaluddin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. Ch. Momon, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8 respectively. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 02.03.2009 and 28.02.2009 by which the respondent No. 4 and another were appointed as Project Officers on contract basis and the respondent No. 5 promoted to the post of Project Officer respectively in the District Rural Development Agency, Imphal West. 3. The facts in brief and main contentions of the petitioner may be stated as follows. An advertisement was issued on 14.12.2007 for appointment to several posts including three posts of Project Officers for the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Imphal West under the Rural Development Department (Monitoring Cell), Government of Manipur. As per the said advertisement, the following educational qualifications and requirement of age were prescribed for the posts of Project Officers as below: 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Project Officer and had taken part in the recruitment process, and result thereof was declared by a notification dated 19.4.2008 in which the petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, the Selection Committee held its meeting on 30.6.2008 and 5.7.2008, in which the candidates were interviewed. The petitioner submits that when the result of the interview was not declared for a long time, the petitioner and another candidate approached the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by filing a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 850 of 2008, which was disposed of by the Court on 26.11.2008 directing the respondent authorities to announce the result of the interview on or before 25.12.2008. Thereafter, belatedly the authorities announced the result of the interview and issued the appointment order in favour of respondent No. 4 and another Scheduled Tribe candidate who were engaged provisionally as Project Officers on contract basis and on payment of consolidated pay vide order dated 2nd March, 2009 (Annexure-A/9) which has been challenged in this writ petition. Thereafter, belatedly the authorities announced the result of the interview and issued the appointment order in favour of respondent No. 4 and another Scheduled Tribe candidate who were engaged provisionally as Project Officers on contract basis and on payment of consolidated pay vide order dated 2nd March, 2009 (Annexure-A/9) which has been challenged in this writ petition. It has been also submitted by the petitioner that, in fact, the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee and was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the select list. However, to her surprise, the petitioner has not been appointed but the respondent No. 4 and other ST candidate as Project Officers as stated above. Another order was also issued on 28.02.2009 (Annexure-A/11) by which the respondent No. 5 was given appointment as Project Officer by promotion on temporary basis with immediate effect and until further orders, which is also under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the initial advertisement dated 14.12.2007 had specifically mentioned 3 posts of Project Officers for appointment, out of which one was to be filled up from amongst the Scheduled Tribe candidates and remaining two from the General category candidates. However, when the appointment order was issued on 02.03.2009, only two persons including one scheduled tribe candidate were given appointment and instead of filling up the remaining one post of Project Officer from amongst the unreserved candidates, the authorities filled up the said post by promoting the respondent No. 5. According to the petitioner, the appointment to the remaining one post of Project Officer by promotion is not permissible in as much as the authorities could not have changed or reduced the number of 3 (three) advertised posts of Project Officers to 2(two) by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & ors. reported in : (2011) 12 SCC 85 . Secondly, it has been submitted by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the relevant guidelines relating to District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) issued by the competent authority, there is no provision for promotion and accordingly, the promotion of the respondent No. 5 is impermissible. reported in : (2011) 12 SCC 85 . Secondly, it has been submitted by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the relevant guidelines relating to District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) issued by the competent authority, there is no provision for promotion and accordingly, the promotion of the respondent No. 5 is impermissible. It has been submitted that the promotion of the respondent No. 5 has been made without issuing any clarification or modification of the earlier advertisement dated 14.12.2007 which specifically mentioned for recruitment to 3(three) posts of Project Officers for Imphal West district. It has been contended that if one of the posts had to be reserved for promotion, the same could have been notified by the authorities concerned which was not done in the present case. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per norms, appointments have to be made by way of contract basis. However, the respondent No. 5 has been promoted on regular basis and given regular pay scale as is evident from the document annexed to letter dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure-A/10 to the writ petition) in which the respondent No. 5 is shown to have been given the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13,500/- whereas other incumbents to the post of Project Officers had been given the honorarium of fixed consolidated pay of Rs. 8000/-. It has been also submitted by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel that as per advertisement dated 14.12.2007, the post of Project Officer has to be held by a person having Post Graduate degree. However, the respondent No. 5 does not possess that requisite educational qualifications apart from the fact that there is no provision for promotion. It has been also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents it has been stated that there were vacant posts of Project Officers in the Rural Development Department and as a general practice/norm, one post of Project Officer was filled up from the Asstt. Project Officer on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee which was so done by promoting the respondent No. 5. Learned Senior counsel submits that, however, there is no such norm available in the guidelines. Project Officer on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee which was so done by promoting the respondent No. 5. Learned Senior counsel submits that, however, there is no such norm available in the guidelines. Lastly, according to the learned senior counsel, the appointment of the respondent No. 4 is also not sustainable in view of the fact that the respondent No. 4 was over-aged at the time of advertisement. As per the advertisement, the stipulated minimum age is 35 years which is relaxable by 5 years in respect of Scheduled Tribe and 3 years for OBC. Since the respondent No. 4 belongs to general category, he cannot be beyond 35 years at the time of advertisement/appointment. It has been submitted that since the respondent No. 4 was beyond 35 years of age at the time of advertisement, his appointment is in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and as such, not sustainable in law. 6. Per contra, Mr. R.S.Reisang, learned Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has submitted that as far as the age issue about the respondent No. 4 is concerned, age relaxation was granted by the members of the Selection Committee by referring to Para No. 4.4 of the Guidelines, which provides that in the selection of Project Directors and APOs, emphasis should be on selecting officers of young age, but should not be more than 40-45 years of age but in any case, not more than 50 years of age. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the State respondents have made changes in the method of recruitment from direct recruitment to promotion in the midst of the recruitment process, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents has submitted that, though there is no such explanation given in the affidavit-in-opposition, the Government has adopted both the methods of direct recruitment as well as promotion for making appointments to these posts on contractual basis/consolidated pay. 7. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, submits that respondent No. 5 has not been given promotion on regular basis as the promotion order itself speaks that the promotion order was on temporary basis and until further orders (Annexure-A/11 to the writ petition). Had it been a regular appointment, the appointment order would not have been issued in that manner. As regards, the change of pattern of recruitment process, Mr. Had it been a regular appointment, the appointment order would not have been issued in that manner. As regards, the change of pattern of recruitment process, Mr. Nirmolchand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that she has nothing to do with the change in the method but she cannot be made to suffer as she was duly recommended by a competent authority. It has been also submitted that on earlier occasions, the State respondents had filled up the vacant post of Project Officer by way of promotion and as such, it cannot be said that the authorities could not fill up the post of Project Officer by way of promotion. In this regard, Mr. Y. Nirmolchand has drawn attention of this Court to the orders dated 5.02.2004 and 29.4.2004 by which one Shri Y. Shyamkishore Singh and Shri L. Stephen Modar Maring had been promoted to the post of Project Officers on regular basis with higher pay scale than the respondent No. 5. Accordingly, it has been submitted that promotion of the respondent No. 5 is not by way of departure from the norm but merely a continuation of an earlier practice. It has been also submitted by Mr. Nirmolchand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 that the contention of the petitioner that as per the DPC held on 30.6.2008 and 5.7.2008, the petitioner has been placed at Sl. No. 1 on the recommendation of the Committee is false as specifically mentioned in para No. 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the State Government (respondent No. 1, 2 and 3) filed on 11.3.2010. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly & others, : (2010) 4 SCC 728 Mr. Nirmolchand has submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts and for filing fabricated documents. The Supreme Court held in para 20 of the Oswal Fats and Oils Limited (supra), as follows:- "20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person." It has been submitted that, even otherwise also, the amended guidelines of the DRDA provide that the posts of the Project Directors, Project Officers, APOs and all technical posts should be manned by officers with proven capability and motivation and since the respondent No. 5 had been already serving as an Assistant Project Officer, she had the requisite experience. It has been also further submitted that the DPC on the basis of which the respondent No. 5 has been promoted as Project Officer has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. 8. Mr. A. Jagatchandra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that as far as relaxation of age limit is concerned, all the parties including the petitioner have relied on the guidelines to be followed and since the guidelines provide for appointment up to the age of 50 years, no fault can be found for relaxation of age by the Selection Committee as well as by the appointing authority. The respondent No. 4 has also relied on the Office Memoranda dated 22.09.1998 and dated 16.07.1980, issued by the Government to claim age relaxation. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the respondent No. 4 possessed the desirable qualification which none of the candidates possessed and as such appointment of the respondent No. 4 cannot be faulted with. 9. This Court requisitioned the records relating to the appointment of the respondents and the State respondents have produced two files, one relating to the contractual appointments relating to the posts advertised including the respondent No. 4 and another relating to the promotion of the respondent No. 5. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. This Court requisitioned the records relating to the appointment of the respondents and the State respondents have produced two files, one relating to the contractual appointments relating to the posts advertised including the respondent No. 4 and another relating to the promotion of the respondent No. 5. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials on record. 11. From the submissions of the parties as mentioned above, the issues which arise for decision of this Court may be stated herein below: 1) Whether it was permissible for the Appointing Authority to appoint only 2 (two) out of the initial advertised 3 (three) posts of Project Officers, thereby reducing/changing the number of posts to be filled up? 2) Whether the Appointing Authorities could fill up one of the advertised posts by promotion? 3) As a corollary, whether the promotion of the respondent No. 5 is valid or not? 4) Whether the respondent No. 4 was age-barred at the time of advertisement/appointment? 12. As we proceed to examine the issues it may be appropriate to discuss about the staffing pattern of the DRDA under which the respondents were appointed/promoted. Admittedly, there was no uniform policy for engaging or recruiting the staff of DRDA. In many States, staffs were recruited both by direct recruitment or on deputation. In view of the above, the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, issued the guidelines, which while describing the role and functions of the DRDA, organisational structure of the DRDAs, etc, contained the personal policy of the DRDAs. In this regard, one may refer to the personal policy of the DRDA as contained in the aforesaid guidelines. These are reproduced herein below: "IV - Personnel Policy of the DRDAs 4.1 Currently, there is no uniform policy for engaging and/or recruiting the staff by the DRDA. In many States, there are staff both directly recruited as well as on deputation. It is essential that prudent personnel policies are followed if the DRDA are to be a professional agency or are to perform the tasks expected of them. The following principles are laid down which must necessarily be followed. 4.2 As a matter of policy, the DRDA should not have any permanent staff. Taking employees on deputation to the DRDA for specific periods has the advantage of better choice of staff, flexibility in staffing pattern and of motivating the staff. The following principles are laid down which must necessarily be followed. 4.2 As a matter of policy, the DRDA should not have any permanent staff. Taking employees on deputation to the DRDA for specific periods has the advantage of better choice of staff, flexibility in staffing pattern and of motivating the staff. The objective of strengthening of DRDAs is to provide them with certain professional capacity and have a flexible-staffing pattern. To start with, DRDAs shall no longer be allowed to make any direct recruitment. In respect of the Staff that is currently borne on the DRDA, the State Rural Development Department should immediately draw up a 3-5 year plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments. 4.3 The Project Directors, Project Officers, APOs and all technical posts are to be manned by officer with proven capability and motivation and are selected in an objective manner by specific Selection Committees. The Project Directors should be selected by a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary/Development Commissioner/Addl. Chief Secretary of the State and with the Secretary (RD) being the member convenor. Similarly, for officers at the level of APOs and other technical officers, there should be a selection Committee headed by Secretary (RD). For other staff too, other than ministerial and lower rank, the selection should be by an appropriate selection committee. 4.4 In the selection of Project Directors and APOs, emphasis should be on selecting officers of young age. Indicatively, the PDs and APO should not be more than 40-45 years of age, and in any case not more than 50 years of age. 4.5 Lack of sufficient length of tenure to the project personnel has been a worrisome factor in the implementation of that anti-poverty programmes. In order to avoid this risk, it is necessary to insist on a minimum tenure and also ensure its compliance. The Project Directors, APOs and other technical staff must have a minimum tenure of 2-3 years and only under exceptional circumstances can they be shifted that too after recording the specific reasons in writing. Any violation should mean suspension of funds to the concerned DRDA. 4.6 The Secretary, Rural Development of the state should be in overall charge of the Project Directors of DRDAs. Any violation should mean suspension of funds to the concerned DRDA. 4.6 The Secretary, Rural Development of the state should be in overall charge of the Project Directors of DRDAs. To start with, after selection the posting orders of Project Directors (the project officers, APOs) should be issued by the Secretary, Rural Development and not by any other department. The cadre controlling authority of the Project Directors/other officers may place the services of the concerned officers (after selection) at the disposal of the Rural Development Department for appointment to the concerned posts. The Secretary, Rural Development should actively associate himself/herself in the training requirements of Project Directors and other DRDA staff. 4.7 In order to make the DRDA a professional body, the officials and staff of DRDAs should be constantly trained in the general field of management of rural areas and poverty. The personnel to be posted to the DRDA should be given a pre-service training to orient them suitably to their tasks. 4.8 There should also be a system of an annual in-service training where the officers could be given the updates about the relevant fields and which would also afford them an opportunity of exchanging their experiences. 4.9 Suitable training programmes will be designed by the Ministry in consultation with professional institutes of the national importance. The State Government may also identify suitable state-level institutions in consultation with the Ministry of Rural Development." 13. The personnel policy of the DRDAs as quoted above, makes it evident that recruitment of the staff had not been uniformly adopted and there has been an element of flexibility in the recruitment process but as a matter of policy, it has been stipulated that the DRDAs should not have any permanent staff and the DRDAs have been advised to recruit the staffs by way of deputation and not by direct recruitment. In respect of the existing staff, the DRDAs have been advised to draw up a plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments. 14. In the present case, what has been observed is that the State respondents had made recruitment to various posts of Project Officers and APOs and other technical posts by direct recruitment on contract basis in the DRDAs of all the districts. 14. In the present case, what has been observed is that the State respondents had made recruitment to various posts of Project Officers and APOs and other technical posts by direct recruitment on contract basis in the DRDAs of all the districts. Though the guidelines provide for taking employees on deputation to DRDA and avoid direct recruitment, the same had not been adopted and the State authorities had resorted to the method of direct recruitment for appointment to the various posts by issuing the advertisement dated 14.12.2007. Considering the staffing policy of the DRDA as mentioned in the guidelines, the process of direct recruitment adopted by the Government is not in conformity with the said guidelines. However, this Court is of the view that the direct recruitment resorted to by the State Government cannot be said to be illegal and void on that count only, for, it is well settled that mere guidelines have no statutory force, and violation of such guidelines which have no statutory force would not entail any legal infirmity. In the present case, it is also not the case of the petitioner that the recruitment for the post of Project Officer and others can not be made by direct recruitment. It is the case of the petitioner that the Appointing Authority could not have reduced the number of advertised posts at the time of appointment. It has been submitted that if certain number of posts had been advertised, all the advertised posts ought to have been filled up. Thus, since three posts of Project Officers had been advertised, all these three ought to have been filled up by the appointing authority. In this regard, this Court has examined the records produced by the State authorities. Even though 3 (three) posts of Project Officers were initially advertised as per Notification dated 14.12.2007 for DRDA, Imphal West, from the records it is seen that the State Cabinet in their decision taken on 15.10.2007 had approved the engagement of only 2 (two) Project Officers in respect of Imphal West District. It is also seen from the records that in view of the above decision of the Cabinet, necessary financial requirements for recruitment to the approved posts had been worked out. It is also seen from the records that in view of the above decision of the Cabinet, necessary financial requirements for recruitment to the approved posts had been worked out. It is also on record that before the approval was given by the Cabinet, there was a recommendation made by the Committee of Officers under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur on 1.09.2007 for engagement of 33 (thirty-three) staffs on contract basis subject to approval of the State Cabinet in the DRDAs under the Department of Rural Development in which the Committee had recommended for recruitment to 3 (three) posts of Project Officers for Imphal West District. However, as mentioned above, in view of the subsequent decision taken by the Cabinet on 15.10.2007, the recommendation of the Committee of Officers could not have given effect to in toto. It seems that the advertisement dated 14.12.2007 was issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee of Officers as indicated in Note No. 99 of the file bearing No. 2/54/2005-RD(MC)Pt.II. But, at the time of appointment, only two(2) posts of Project Officers were filled up in terms of the cabinet decision of 15.10.2007, as also contended by the official respondents as well as respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 in their affidavits-in-opposition. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that appointment of only 2 (two) Project Officers in spite of advertising 3 (three) posts by the authorities had a valid reason, as the State Cabinet had given the approval for appointment of two(2) Project Officers in the case of the DRDA, Imphal West. 15. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Bedanga Talukdar (supra) to contend that reduction in the number of posts for appointment is not permissible. In the said case, the Supreme Court had held that the Selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure as stated in para 29 thereof: "29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." It has been contended by the petitioner when a particular schedule is mentioned in advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously followed and there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement which also includes the stipulated number of advertised posts unless such power is specifically reserved. Thus, according to the petitioner, filling up only two (2) posts of Project Officers amounts to deviation from the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which is not permissible in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. However, in the present case, it may be noted that the issue involved is not about the relaxation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement, but of the reduction in the number of posts at the time of appointment from the number of advertised posts. However, in the present case, it may be noted that the issue involved is not about the relaxation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement, but of the reduction in the number of posts at the time of appointment from the number of advertised posts. The law relied on by the petitioner does not support the contention of the petitioner that the appointing authority has to fill up all the posts advertised and cannot fill up posts less than the number of posts advertised and such reduction amounts to variation in the terms and conditions. It is now well settled that no candidate even if recommended or selected has any vested right to be appointed and if for any proper reason, appointment is not given, and such an action on the part of the appointing authority cannot be said to be violative of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. In the present case as already discussed above, the reduction in the number of appointments qua the number of advertised posts in their advertisement was due to the reason that though the advertisement dated 14.12.2007 was issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee of Officers made on 1.09.2007 which had proposed for filling up 3 (three) posts, the appointing authority made the appointment to 2 (two) posts only in terms of the Cabinet decision taken on 15.10.2007, which in any event would have an overriding effect as far as the decision to make appointment is concerned. Accordingly, this Court can not accept the contention raised by the petitioner that the authorities were bound to make appointment to all the 3 (three) advertised posts. The reduction in the number of appointment was due to a valid reason, which could not be faulted with by a candidate who does not have a vested right to be appointed. 16. As regards the objection raised against the appointment of the respondent No. 4 that he was age-barred, it is seen from the record that the respondent No. 4 had submitted an OBC certificate and as per rules, the OBCs are entitled to relaxation of age by 3 (three) years and as such, he will be entitled to 3 (three) more years than the general norm. Advertisement dated 14.12.2007 clearly mentions that the age for appointment to the post of PO will be 35 years and below which is relaxable by 5 years for ST and 3 years for OBC. Therefore, in this case, we have to examine as to whether respondent No. 4 had crossed the age limit as contended by the petitoner above. It has been stated by the respondent No. 4 that he is an OBC and as such, he will be entitled to 3 (three) years relaxation, in which event, he must be within 38 years of age when the notification dated 14.12.2007 was issued. From the records, it is seen that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.02.1967 as per the certificate annexed by the respondent No. 4. If the date of birth of the respondent No. 4 is 1.02.1967, obviously he had crossed 38 years of age at the time of issue of the advertisement on 14.12.2007 as the respondent No. 4 would have reached 38 years of age on 1.02.2005. In other words, at the time of advertisement he was already 40 years 10 months. Therefore, evidently, the respondent No. 4 cannot be appointed as Project Officer as he was age-barred when the advertisement was issued on 14.12.2007. The law is settled that in absence of any specific stipulated date, the date of issue of advertisement/last date of submission of application would be the reference point for deciding the age limit. The respondent No. 4 as well as the State respondents, however, have defended the appointment of the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the DRDA guidelines provide for appointment of staff within the range of 40-45 years and in any case not more than 50 years of age. In para 4.4 of the DRDA guidelines issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, 2008 it has been mentioned that in the selection of Project Directors and APOs, emphasis should be on selecting officers of young age and they should not be more than 40-45 years of age. Para 4.4 is reproduced herein below: "4.4 In the selection of Project Directors and APOs, emphasis should be on selecting officers of young age. Para 4.4 is reproduced herein below: "4.4 In the selection of Project Directors and APOs, emphasis should be on selecting officers of young age. Indicatively, the PDs and APOs should not be more than 40-45 years of age, and in any case not more than 50 years of age." The respondent No. 4 has also sought to justify his appointment on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 22nd September, 1998 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) (Annexure-X/4) in which it has been stated that the State Government had decided to adopt the Office Memorandum No. 43013/2/95-Estt(SCT) dated 25.01.1995 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, which provides for relaxation of upper age limit for Direct recruitment by 3 (three) years in respect of the candidates belonging to O.B.Cs. In view of the above office memorandum dated 22.09.1998 issued by the Government of Manipur, candidates belonging to OBC shall be entitled to 3 (three) years of relaxation. It may be noted that this relaxation by 3 (three) years has been already incorporated in the advertisement, and as such, benefit under the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.1998 has been given to the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid office memorandum, the respondent No. 4 has also relied on the Office Memorandum dated 16.7.1980 in which it has been mentioned that the question of relaxation of age for appointment of Muster Roll/Casual employees on regular basis as per age limit prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules under the Government of India had been considered and it was decided that such Muster Roll/Casual employees will be given the benefit of 1(one) year for every completed 3 (three) years of service for the purpose of determination of age limit at the time of regularization. 17. It is in this context, it has to be ascertained as to whether the Selection Committee was entitled to give relaxation of age in terms of the guidelines of DRDA as mentioned above and as per Office Memoranda cited above. As regards the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.1998 that benefit had been already granted as the 3 (three) years relaxation has been incorporated in the advertisement. As regards the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.1998 that benefit had been already granted as the 3 (three) years relaxation has been incorporated in the advertisement. As regards the benefit under office memorandum dated 16.07.1980, it is doubtful whether such benefit can be granted to the respondent No. 4 as the present case is not about regularization of the appointment of MR/Casual employee for whose benefit the said office memorandum was issued. The aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 16.07.1980 reads as follows: "No. 1/12/80-Rules/DP DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNEL DIVISION) OFFICE MEMORANDUM Dt./Imphal, the 16th July/80 1. The undersigned is directed to say that the question of relaxation of age for appointment of M.R./Casual employees on Regular basis as per age limit prescribed in the relevant R/R.s. under the Government of Manipur has been under consideration of this Government for some time past. Now, after the consideration of the various factors, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that such Muster Roll/Casual employees will be given the benefit of 1 (one) year for every completed 3 years (three) years of service for purpose of determination of age limit. 18 (eighteen) months and above will be counted as one complete slab in the case of those whose total period of Muster Roll/Casual employment is less than 3 years. 2. This office memorandum shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- (R.K. Robindro Singh) Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur. To:- (1) The Spl. Secretary of Governor, Raj-Bhavan, Imphal. (2) The Secretary to Chief Minister, Manipur, Imphal. (3) All. Pvt. Secretaries to Minsters/State Ministers, Government of Manipur. (4) The Pvt. Secretary to Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur. (5) All Commissioners, Government of Manipur. (6) All Secretaries, Government of Manipur. (7) All Heads Deptts./Officers, Government of Manipur. (8) All Sectt. Officers, Government of Manipur. (9) All Dy. Commissioners, Manipur. (10) All Chief Executive Officers to District Councils, Manipur. (11) Order Book. (12) Guard file." From the above, it is evident that the said Office Memorandum was issued in the context of regularization of Muster Roll/Casual employees who may have crossed the age limit at the time of regularization. There is nothing to indicate that this benefit will be given to all those who had served on Muster Roll/Casual employees at the time of fresh direct appointment. There is nothing to indicate that this benefit will be given to all those who had served on Muster Roll/Casual employees at the time of fresh direct appointment. It does not mention that the OM will be applicable for fresh direct recruitment as clearly mentioned in the OM dated 22.09.1998. It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court had held in State of Orissa Vs. Prasan Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 12 that provisions for age relaxation must receive strict compliance as observed in para 19 thereof: "19. Furthermore, a direction to grant relaxation in respect of the age must also receive strict compliance of other conditions specified therein. See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Sajal Kumar Roy : 2006 8 SCC 671 ." Therefore, the OM dated 16.07.1980 has to be strictly construed and not liberally so as to extend to all fresh/direct recruitments. Therefore, the petitioner can not be given the benefit under this OM inspite of having served on casual basis earlier in another institution/organisation. That leaves the applicability of the guidelines of the DRDA. Though the guidelines do not speak of any specific age limit but has only indicated merely a range from 40-50 years of age, it is to be noted that such variable age limit has not been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra) had clearly mentioned that the recruitment process has to be strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. It has been further stated that even if such power is reserved, it should be specifically provided in the relevant statutory rules. The Supreme Court further stipulated that even if such power is reserved and provided under the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement and such a power of relaxation has to be given due publicity so that all those candidates who are covered by the relaxed conditions would be afforded an equal opportunity to compete. According to the Supreme Court in the said case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra), relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the Supreme Court in the said case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra), relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the present case, even if it is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and the official respondents that the age could be relaxed up to 50 years as provided in the DRDA guidelines, such provision for relaxation was never mentioned in the advertisement. In other words, there was no due publication of such relaxation clause as regards the age of the candidates so that all those candidates who were more than 35/38/40 years as the case may be but within 50 years of age could have applied. Since, the advertisement clearly stipulated the age limit of 35 years, extendable by 3 (three) years in respect of OBC and 5 (five) years in respect of ST, it can not be contemplated that anyone beyond that age limit could still apply on the premise that the DRDA guidelines provide for appointment upto 50 years. Unless, such provision of the DRDA guidelines is clearly mentioned in the advertisement, it would be too presumptuous to assume that anybody who had crossed 35, 38 or 40 years as the case may be but may not have reached 50 years could apply. Therefore, this Court is of the view in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bedanga Talukdar (supra) as quoted above, that the respondent No. 4 was clearly age-barred having crossed 38 years of age at the time of issue of advertisement and as such he could not have given the appointment though recommended by the Selection Committee. This takes us to the next issue as to whether the appointment of the respondent No. 5 by promotion as a Project Officer was legally permissible or not. 18. In this regard, this Court has gone through the files relating to the appointment of the respondent No. 5 under File No. 1/20/99-DRDA(IW)/Pt. Perusal of the file, however, portrays does not a clear picture of the state of affairs in the DRDA as regards appointment. In the note sheet attached to the file there are only 6 (six) notings of which only 2 (two) are relevant. Perusal of the file, however, portrays does not a clear picture of the state of affairs in the DRDA as regards appointment. In the note sheet attached to the file there are only 6 (six) notings of which only 2 (two) are relevant. The first noting relates to the proposal for appointment of the respondent No. 5 who was working as an Assistant Project Officer for appointment as Project Officer for the purpose of implementation of NREGA. In the said proposal dated 12.03.2008, it was mentioned that the works under NREGA cannot be executed without proper staff and accordingly, as a temporary measure, proposed the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Project Officer. Thereafter, there was another proposal dated 2.06.2008, for constituting the Selection Committee for promotion/appointment of the POs and APOs under para 4.3 contained in the Personnel Policy of the DRDA guidelines as mentioned above. There is nothing in the noting in the file as to when the Selection Committee held its meeting and also whether the said recommendation of the Selection Committee had been approved by the competent authority, etc. The said file containing documents from page 1 to page 41, however, includes the proceeding of the promotion committee recommending the respondent No. 5 for appointment as Project Officer. The relevant portion of the said proceeding held on 21.08.2008 is reproduced herein below: "PROCEEDINGS OF SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR PROMOTION/WORKING AS PROJECT OFFICER/ASSTT. PROJECT OFFICER/ACCOUNTS OFFICER IN DRDA, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, HELD ON 21-08-2008 AT 11:00 A.M. AT THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER (RD & PR), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR WITH SHRI I.S. LAISHRAM, COMMISSIONER (RD & PR) INTHE CHAIR. MEMBERS PRESENT:- A meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 21-08-2008 at 11:00 a.m. for promotion as per Government of India norms of the following staffs of DRDA, Imphal West District. The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Director/DRDA(IW) placed the approved staffing pattern of DRDA and the vacancy positions of the posts of Project Officers, Asst. Project Officers and Accounts Officer before the DPC for consideration. 1. Project Officer:- One post of Project Officer is lying vacant in the DRDA, Imphal West as per staffing pattern prescribed in the Guideline of DRDA Administration. The Project Officer in the DRDA is to be manned by the Officer with proven capability and motivation as per Para 4.3 of the said Guideline. At present, Smt. M. Bhanubati Devi, Asst. 1. Project Officer:- One post of Project Officer is lying vacant in the DRDA, Imphal West as per staffing pattern prescribed in the Guideline of DRDA Administration. The Project Officer in the DRDA is to be manned by the Officer with proven capability and motivation as per Para 4.3 of the said Guideline. At present, Smt. M. Bhanubati Devi, Asst. Project Officer has been looking after the works of Project Officer in the DRDA w.e.f. 12/2/2008 against the existing vacancy without any extra remuneration. There is no regular Asst. Project Asst. Project Officer in the DRDA, Imphal West except Smt. M. Bhanubati Devi. The Selection Committee examined the seniority, eligibility, performance, integrity and ACR of Smt. M. Bhanubati Devi. After careful examination of her seniority, integrity and ACR etc of Smt. M. Bhanubati Devi, the Committee decided to recommend Smt. M. Bhanubati Devi for promotion to Project Officer against the existing vacancy in the DRDA, Imphal West as per norms of the Government of India. 2. Asst. Project Officer:.................................................................................................................................................................................. 3. Accounts Officer:-..................................................................................................................................................................................... Member Sd/- (A. Ibocha Singh) DC/Executive Director, DRDA, Imphal West. Member Sd/- (Y. Neta Singh) Joint Secretary(RD & PR) Government of Manipur Chairman Sd/- (I.S. Laishram) Commissioner (RD&PR) Government of Manipur." 19. From the aforesaid proceeding, it can be ascertained that the authorities stated that one post of Project Officer is lying vacant in the DRDA as per staffing pattern of the DRDA. However, this Court is not able to understand as to on what basis such statement has been made. It may be recalled that even though the Committee of Officers in their meeting held on 1.09.2007 had recommended for appointment of 3 (three) Project Officers for the DRDA, Imphal West, the State Cabinet, however, on consideration of the report of the Committee of Officers recommended for appointment to only 2 (two) posts of Project Officers. There is nothing on record to show of any other subsequent Cabinet decision or any other authority to show the proposal for appointment to one more post of Project Officer in addition to the two posts of Project Officers approved by the State Cabinet on 15.10.2007. There is no official noting or document to show that one more post of Project Officer other than the two already filled up by direct recruitment was lying vacant in the DRDA. There is no official noting or document to show that one more post of Project Officer other than the two already filled up by direct recruitment was lying vacant in the DRDA. The proceeding of the Selection Committee held on 21.08.2008, states that the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Director, DRDA (IW) had placed the approved staffing pattern of DRDA and vacancy position of the posts of Project Officer etc. However, there is nothing on record or in the file any such approved staffing pattern other than the Cabinet decision of 15.10.2007 which approved for filling up only 2 (two) posts of Project Officers. If the existence of 3 (three) posts of Project Officers in Imphal West as recommended by the Committee of Officers is to be treated as correct position as regards the number of posts contrary to the decision of the State Cabinet on 15.10.2007, there must have been a subsequent specific decision of the State Cabinet or any other competent authority of the State to clarify that there would be an additional post of Project Officer other than the two posts already approved by the State Cabinet. However, there is nothing on record to show that inspite of the Cabinet decision of 15.10.2007, the recommendation of the Committee of Officers made on 1.9.2007 stood and the actual vacancy position of Project Officer in DRDA, Imphal West was 3 (three). Even then also, a further policy decision was required to be taken by the competent authority that this additional one post of one of the 3 (three) advertised posts is not to be filled up by direct recruitment but by promotion. It has been contended by the respondent authorities as mentioned in para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3 on 11.3.2010 that at the time of advertisement on 14.12.2007 there were 3 (three) vacant posts of Project Officer (PO) in DRDA, Imphal West but in due course of time as a general practice/norm, 1(one) post of PO was filled up from Assistant Project Officer (APO) on the recommendation of the DPC in favour of the private respondent No. 5. However, there is nothing on record either in the file (No. 2/54/2005-RD(MC)Pt.II) relating to the appointment of respondent No. 4 and others or in the file (No. 1/20/99-DRDA(IW)/Pt.) relating to the promotion of respondent No. 5, about any decision taken by the competent authority for filling up 1(one) of the 3 (three) advertised posts of APO by promotion. A perusal of the file No. 2/54/2005-RD(MC)Pt.II relating to the appointments in 9 (nine) DRDAs in Manipur would indicate that all the vacancies in the 9 (nine) DRDAs had been sought to be filled up by direct recruitment on contractual basis for which the advertisement dated 14.12.2007 was issued. The perusal of the aforesaid file, more particularly, Note No. 46 and 48 would indicate that the Cabinet took the decision on 15.10.2007 approving the filling up of the posts including 2 (two) posts of Project Officers in the DRDA, Imphal West on contract basis after examining the proposal of the Committee of Officers dated 1.09.2007. In other words, when the Cabinet took the decision on 15.10.2007 for filling up of 2(two) posts of Project Officers in Imphal West, it took into consideration the recommendation of the Committee of Officers for appointment to 3 (three) Project Officers in DRDA, Imphal West. Thus, by implication the proposal to fill up 3(three) posts of Project Officers as recommended by the Committee of Officers was not accepted by the Cabinet. If that be so, a subsequent specific decision of the Government either by the Cabinet or by the competent authority was required to be taken to fill up 1 (one) more post of Project Officer and also as to how the same is to be filled up. However, there is nothing on record to show that either the Cabinet or the Committee of Officers or the competent authority had taken the decision to fill up 1 (one) more additional post of Project Officer by way of promotion and as such, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the official respondents in their affidavits-in-opposition is not based on any valid decision of the appropriate authority. 20. That apart, perusal of the File No. 1/20/99-DRDA(IW)/Pt. would show that promotion of respondent No. 5 as Project Officer was only in the context of implementing the provision of NREGA. 20. That apart, perusal of the File No. 1/20/99-DRDA(IW)/Pt. would show that promotion of respondent No. 5 as Project Officer was only in the context of implementing the provision of NREGA. The DC/Executive Director, DRDA, Imphal West in his letter dated 19.02.2008 which was reiterated in his subsequent letter dated 21.04.2008 addressed to the Commissioner (RD & PR), Government of Manipur had mentioned that NREGA being a new Act would attract penal provisions for non implementation of the provisions of the Act and only dedicated officials of quality in sufficient numbers may be able to implement the various activities of the scheme and existing personnel of office of DRDA and the offices of BDOs were already hard pressed with other duties and responsibilities in various activities and it may not be possible to complete the tasks/works relating to NREGA in time with the existing staff of DRDA and BDOs offices. Accordingly, the DC/Executive Director, DRDA, Imphal West requested for engagement of officials/personnel on contract basis for proper implementation of NREGA. It is not understood how such appointment of the respondent No. 5 as PO exclusively for the implementation of NREGA under the DRDA was permissible as the functions of the DRDA is not only to monitor implementation of NREGA but the different anti-poverty programmes in the District level under various centrally sponsored schemes. In any event, even if the authorities claim that as a general practice/norm, one post of the PO was to be filled up by promotion, there is no such indication in the DRDA guidelines for appointment of Project Officer on promotion. There is no indication of any such norm either in the DRDA guidelines or administrative instructions. Even if such appointment is to be made by promotion as claimed by the respondent authorities, it must follow certain norms for promotion. It is now well settled that for effecting promotion, the feeder posts must be specifically provided along with eligibility qualifications etc. It must be also indicated whether such promotion is to be made on the basis of "selection" or "non-selection" method. Various parameters of promotion have to be clearly indicated. These, obviously, have to be done by the rule making authority. The rule making authority has to clearly lay down the procedure and criteria for promotion which could not be decided by the Selection Committee. The Supreme Court in Dr. Various parameters of promotion have to be clearly indicated. These, obviously, have to be done by the rule making authority. The rule making authority has to clearly lay down the procedure and criteria for promotion which could not be decided by the Selection Committee. The Supreme Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others -Vs- State of Orissa and Others, : (1995) 6 SCC 1 held that suitability criteria can not be laid down by the Selection Committee unless specifically authorised under the Rules, as observed in para 30, 32, 33 as follows: "30. The proceedings indicate that since Rule 3 was silent as to the guidelines on the basis of which suitability of the candidate was to be adjudged, the members constituting the Selection Board, by a majority decision, resolved to determine the suitability on the basis of confidential character rolls of the candidates who were already employed as Homoeopathic Medical Officer. 31...................................................................................................................................................................... 32. In the instant case, the Government did neither issue any administrative instruction nor did it supply the omission with regard to the criteria on the basis of which suitability of the candidates was to be determined. The members of the Selection Board, of their own, decided to adopt the confidential character rolls of the candidates who were already employed as Homeopathic Medical Officers, as the basis for determining their suitability. 33. The members of the Selection Board or for that matter, any other Selection Committee, do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection unless they are authorised specifically in that regard by the Rules made under Article 309. It is basically the function of the rule-making authority to provide the basis for selection. This Court in State of A.P. v. V. Sadanandam observed as under: (SCC pp. 583-84, para 17) "We are now only left with the reasoning of the Tribunal that there is no justification for the continuance of the old rule and for personnel belonging to other zones being transferred on promotion to offices in other zones. In drawing such conclusions, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction. We need only point out that the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive. In drawing such conclusions, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction. We need only point out that the mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to a service should be made are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive. It is not for judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the executive." (emphasis supplied)" In the present case, the DRDA guidelines do not indicate any such criteria. No other guidelines or regulations or rules have been shown by the authorities as to how the post of Project Officer is to be filled up by promotion. The Selection Committee had devised the criteria on their own and treated only the APO to be the feeder post for promotion to the post of Project Officer, which in the opinion of the Court, is not permissible without any specific instructions or regulations or rules in that regard as held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu (supra). The Selection Committee had merely invoked the guidelines as contained in para 4.3 for promotion of the respondent No. 5 as Project Officer. Para 4.3 of the DRDA guidelines reads as follows:- "4.3 The Project Directors, Project Officers, APOs and all technical posts are to be manned by officer with proven capability and motivation and are selected in an objective manner by specific Selection Committees. The Project Directors should be selected by a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary/Development Commissioner/Addl. Chief Secretary of the State and with the Secretary (RD) being the member convenor. Similarly, for officers at the level of APOs and other technical officers, there should be a selection Committee headed by Secretary (RD). For other staff too, other than ministerial and lower rank, the selection should be by an appropriate selection committee." However, the aforesaid guidelines do not indicate as to the nature of feeder posts, qualifications etc. which are required to be considered for promotion and other criteria. It could not be obviously confined only to the post of Assistant Project Officer (APO) for the purpose of promotion to Project Officer unless the rules or guidelines specifically provide. which are required to be considered for promotion and other criteria. It could not be obviously confined only to the post of Assistant Project Officer (APO) for the purpose of promotion to Project Officer unless the rules or guidelines specifically provide. This Court is also of the view that para 4.3 is also to be read along with para 4.2 which provides for recruiting staffs on deputation quoted in para No. 12 of this judgment and deputation would also normally require a large field of choice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the choice of officers should have been extended to a larger field of choice for getting the officer with proven capability. Therefore, in absence of any specific rule in that regard, restricting the choice of the officers for promotion to only the post of APO, that too serving only in a particular district would be impermissible. 21. It may be stated that public employment has to be made as set out by the Constitution and laws made thereunder as held by the Supreme court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others -Vs.- Umadevi and Others, : (2006) 4 SCC 1 , it was held by the Supreme Court that our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that on behalf and observed that appointment, filling up of posts can be done in terms of the constitutional schemes. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court was making the observation in the light of making regular appointment and in the present case, even though it may be claimed the promotion of the respondent No. 5 was not on regular basis, nevertheless, in view of the fact that the State respondents had adopted the public advertisement and selection on merit for appointment to various posts indicating 2 (two) posts of Project Officer by following all the procedures in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, there is no reason why at the time of promotion of the respondent No. 5, the authorities should not have adhered to well laid down principles governing promotion. As discussed above, the promotion of the respondent No. 5 purportedly on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee was not based on any such principles. The promotion seems to have been made without following the well recognised principles governing promotion. As discussed above, the promotion of the respondent No. 5 purportedly on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee was not based on any such principles. The promotion seems to have been made without following the well recognised principles governing promotion. The Selection Committee devised its own criteria, methodology for promotion which is impermissible. It is also well settled that existence of recruitment rules is not sine quo non for making appointment. However, inspite of absence of such recruitment rules, certain well accepted fundamental principles must be followed. Therefore, if the authorities had adopted advertisement, written test and interview for making appointment to various posts in DRDA by direct recruitment, similar well accepted principles of promotion have to be followed which however, have to be laid down by the rule making authority and not by the Selection Committee. The promotion of the respondent No. 5 was in violation of the law laid down in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu (supra) as discussed above. Therefore, this Court considers these irregularities to be too fundamental to be ignored as mere irregularities, but vitally affect the validity of the promotion of the respondent No. 5 which are, incurable. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that the promotion of the respondent No. 5 as Project Officer in the manner done by the respondent authorities as discussed above is illegal and void ab initio and accordingly, the promotion order dated 28.02.2009 is liable to be quashed. 22. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that the present writ petition ought to be dismissed as the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Oswal Fats and Oils Limited (supra) it has been contended that the petitioner had filed fabricated document which is annexed as Annexure A/7 to the writ petition showing that she had been recommended for appointment as Project Officer by the Selection Committee. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Oswal Fats and Oils Limited (supra) it has been contended that the petitioner had filed fabricated document which is annexed as Annexure A/7 to the writ petition showing that she had been recommended for appointment as Project Officer by the Selection Committee. However, it is surprising to note that 2 (two) of the signatories in the allegedly fabricated document, namely, Shri Y. Neta Singh, who was working as Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur and Shri I.S. Laishram, Commissioner (Vety & A.H.) and former Commissioner (RD & PR), Government of Manipur who have been impleaded as respondents No. 6 and 7 respectively in this writ petition though had filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition had chosen to remain silent on this crucial document. They were the best persons who could have emphatically asserted that the said document was false as forged, which could have clinched the issue against the petitioner, which, however, has not been done, thus, clearly leaving a big question mark on the allegations of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as well as respondents No. 4 and 5. Therefore, as regards this issue, this Court would leave it to the appropriate authority to make necessary enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case as mentioned above, it may not be appropriate to dismiss the writ petition only on this allegation that the petitioner had filed a fabricated document as the said allegation requires to be verified in view of the studied silence maintained by the 2 (two) signatories who are impleaded as respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition. 23. In the result, for the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No. 4 vide order dated 2.3.2009 is set aside on the ground of being over aged and the petitioner who is next to the respondent No. 4 and ST candidate in order of merit in terms of the recommendation of the Selection Committee held on 30.6.2008 and 5.7.2008 would be entitled to be appointed to the post of Project Officer, which this Court directs the official respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to do so. As regards, the promotion order of respondent No. 5 dated 28.02.2009 is concerned, for the reasons discussed above, the same is declared void ab initio and is, accordingly, quashed.