Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 133 (MAN)

Prabin Mongjam v. State of Manipur

2022-07-20

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed to quash the notification dated 24.11.2021 qua the private respondents, as they are juniors to the petitioners and to direct the second respondent to include the petitioners in the 84th Batch of State Accounts Training as their right for promotion to the ensuing DPC for promotion of UDC is deprived of. 2. The case of the petitioners is that on the recommendation of Class III DPC, they have been appointed to the post of LDC/OACC on 7.11.2016 and in the list of appointment order, the names of the petitioners appear at Serial Nos.11, 8, 9, 24, 7 respectively, while the names of the private respondents appear at Serial Nos.15, 28, 34, 35, 13, 58 respectively. According to the petitioners, the seniority list of LDC/OACCO has been published by the Department of Water Resources on 21.3.2020 and, as such, the names of the petitioners found place at Serial Nos.54, 43, 52, 68, 51 respectively and that the private respondents names appear at Serial Nos.137, 138, 139, 140, 57, 59, 72, 79 respectively. 3. Further case of the petitioners is that passing of State Accounts Training is a pre-condition for promotion to the post of UDC from LDC and the same can be seen from the Recruitment Rules of UDC published in Gazette on 24.5.2016. As the petitioners are quite eligible and qualified for consideration for promotion to the post of UDC, the Department has already forwarded their names for State Accounts Training, 84th Batch on 12.10.2021, 2.11.2021 and 12.11.2021 respectively. The consideration was pursuant to the notification of the second respondent dated 8.10.2021. Further, the parent Department of the petitioners have also furnished the names of the petitioners along with others to the authority on 27.10.2021 for consideration of ensuing DPC for promotion to the post of UDCs. However, the office of the second respondent omitted the names of the petitioners in the selection list for State Accounts Training, 84th Batch, which is very much necessary for the petitioners, however, selected the private respondents who are juniors to them. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that all the eligible applicants could not be selected for 84th Batch as the State Academy of Training does not have the capacity to conduct training for 468 trainees. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that all the eligible applicants could not be selected for 84th Batch as the State Academy of Training does not have the capacity to conduct training for 468 trainees. The Scheme of Accounts Training notified by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Division) dated 17.3.2005 deals with selection of trainees does not list seniority as the sole criteria. The accounts training is required by Group-C employees in all Departments and posted in various districts. If seniority becomes the sole criteria, a situation may arise whereby a majority of trainees are from one Department or one District. 5. It is stated that the State Academy of Training is not privy to information regarding consideration of the petitioners for promotion to UDC and the Scheme of Accounts Training does not provide for special consideration for those applicants due to promotion. The classes for 84th Batch Accounts Training had commenced on 2.12.2021 and the first unit test for the said training had also been conducted on 29.12.2021. Hence, re-considering the nomination at this stage will defeat the purpose of the training as many important syllabus had already been covered. 6. It is further stated that the 85th Batch Accounts Training is likely to commence from June/July, 2022 and the petitioners may apply for inclusion as trainees when nominations are called for. For selection of 160 trainees from amongst 468 nominations, a Board of officials was duly constituted and the Board selected the trainees considering seniority as an important factor while also giving due weightage to allocation of seats amongst Departments and Districts. Out of 468 applicants, only 160 could be selected for 84th Batch State Accounts Training and if 308 applicants who could not be selected due to limitations of capacity claim violation of rights, Accounts Training cannot be conducted since the State Academy of Training does not have the capacity to train 468 trainees. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Assailing the impugned notification, Mrs. H. Bisheshwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the parent departments of the petitioners have recommended the names of the petitioners for State Accounts Training in 84th Batch, their juniors have been selected for the 84th Batch training. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Assailing the impugned notification, Mrs. H. Bisheshwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the parent departments of the petitioners have recommended the names of the petitioners for State Accounts Training in 84th Batch, their juniors have been selected for the 84th Batch training. According to the learned counsel, the private respondent are juniors to them and in fact in the appointment order as well as in the seniority list, the names of the private respondents appear below the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel urged that the petitioners are eligible and qualified for consideration for promotion to the post of UDC and for that only the department has forwarded their names for training. It is submitted that in similar situation, this Court in W.P.(C) No.34 of 2021 directed the State Academy of Training to allow the incumbents vide order dated 22.1.2021 in the last 83rd Batch and the petitioners case is covered by such order. 9. The learned counsel next submitted that the authority concerned has not selected the petitioners though their names have been recommended by their department to the best knowledge known to them. The aforesaid would constitute an arbitrary exercise done by the respondent authorities, which causes a great prejudice to the petitioners. Since the private respondents are juniors to the petitioners, the impugned notification in respect of them is liable to be quashed and at the same time, the second respondent be directed to include the petitioners in the 84th Batch of State Accounts Training as their right for promotion to the ensuing DPC for promotion of UDC is deprived. 10. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate submitted that though 468 staff members have been recommended for the 84th Batch Accounts Training, all the eligible applicants could not be selected for 84th Batch, as the State Academy of Training does not have the capacity to conduct the training for 468 trainees. He would submit that the State Academy of Training is not the authority for consideration of the petitioners for promotion to the cadre of UDC and it does not provide for special consideration for those applicants due to promotion. 11. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the classes for 84th Batch was commenced on 2.12.2021 and also the first unit test had been held. 11. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the classes for 84th Batch was commenced on 2.12.2021 and also the first unit test had been held. Thus, the question of re-considering the nomination of the petitioners at this stage will defeat the purpose of the training. However, the 85th Batch is likely to commence from July, 2022 and the petitioners can very well apply for inclusion as trainees when nominations are called for. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ. 12. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 13. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are seniors to the private respondents by appointment as well as in seniority as LDCs, the names of the petitioners have been omitted in the select list for State Academy of Training in the 84th Batch and that the State Academy of Training is very much essential for promotion to the post of UDCs and including the names of the private respondents in the select list for 84th Batch by omitting the petitioners is an arbitrary exercise and, hence, the impugned notification in respect of the private respondents is to be quashed. 14. As could be seen from the materials produced, on 8.10.2021, the Director General of State Academy of Training, Manipur, issued a notification informing all the Heads of Department that 6 months State Accounts Training (84th Batch) was scheduled to commence from 1st week of December, 2021 at the State Academy of Training, Takyelpat and any Group C employee who fulfills the eligibility criteria wishing to participate in the said training get himself/herself nominated by the concerned Head of Department/Head of Office in the prescribed form and the said nomination form should reach on or before 17.11.2021 to the Academy. Pursuant to the notification dated 8.10.2021, the Head of Offices nominated the petitioners and, accordingly, sent nomination forms to the Director General, State Academy of Training within the time stipulated in the notification. 15. Pursuant to the notification dated 8.10.2021, the Head of Offices nominated the petitioners and, accordingly, sent nomination forms to the Director General, State Academy of Training within the time stipulated in the notification. 15. The challenge to the impugned notification has been made mainly on the ground that the names found place in the impugned select list for training, particularly the private respondents herein, are juniors to the petitioners and same would be evident from the appointment order as well as the seniority list and that the non-selecting the petitioners in the 84th Batch Accounts Training has seriously affected their promotion to the post of UDCs. 16. It appears that the second respondent had issued the impugned notification dated 24.11.2021 selecting 160 candidates for undergoing the State Accounts Training (84th Batch) and announced that the training will commence from December, 2021. Accordingly, the training was commenced on 2.12.2021. In the impugned notification, the second respondent issued certain conditions which should be observed during the training period. 17. The learned Government Advocate contended that totally 468 candidates have been nominated, of which, 160 have been selected for training in the 84th Batch Accounts Training, leaving others, as the Academy does not have the capacity to conduct training for 468 trainees. This Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that training could be given more than 160 trainees. 18. The Scheme of Accounts Training issued by the State Academy of Training, Government of Manipur provides 'selection' clause, wherein it has been stated as under: 'Preliminary selection of trainees will be done by the State Academy of Training by inviting applications from the Asst./Clerks/Stenographers through the respective Heads of Offices well in advance after which final approval of the selection will be obtained from the Government of Manipur, A.R. Department. The selected trainees after their release should report to the Joint Director, State Academy of Training one day ahead of the date of commencement. The Head of Departments/Offices should release the selected trainees immediately in time to join training on receipt of the selection order. Selected trainee who reports after 7 days of the starting of the training will not be allowed to join the training. On joining the training, the trainee is required to submit one Bio-data in Form-II along with two latest passport size photographs. Selected trainee who reports after 7 days of the starting of the training will not be allowed to join the training. On joining the training, the trainee is required to submit one Bio-data in Form-II along with two latest passport size photographs. The trainees will be released from the afternoon of the following day of completion of the examination after submission of Assessment Report.' 19. Thus, the Scheme does not provide that those who have been nominated have to be selected for Accounts Training. On the other hand, a preliminary selection has been done by the Academy with final approval of the selection by the Administration Reforms Department, Government of Manipur. Admittedly, both the petitioners and the private respondents are working in the same Department of Water Resources. 20. On a perusal of the impugned notification, it is seen that the staff members of other Departments working in the capacity of JA, LDC, Data Assistant, Auditor, Accountant, UDC, JAA, Computer Operator have also been nominated for 84th Accounts Training. Except the petitioners, who are working in the WRD, the staff members working in the other departments have no grievance over the non-selection of 84th Accounts Training though their departments have nominated them. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that all the nominated staff members have to be selected for Accounts Training as such. 21. When W.P.(C) No.992 of 2021 came up for admission, this Court passed the following order: 'Heard Ms. H. Bisheswari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Issue notice, returnable within 3 (three) weeks. Mr.Y.Ashang, learned GA accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 & 3, hence, no formal notice is called for in respect of the said respondents. Petitioner is to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents No.4 to 7 by speed post within 1 (one) week. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are all eligible and qualified for undergoing 6 (six) months State Accounts Training and in fact their names has also been recommended by the concerned authorities for undergoing such training. However, the respondent No.2 did not included the petitioners in the list of Trainees without assigning any reason and on the other hand the respondents No.4 to 7, who are junior to the petitioners, have been included in a very arbitrary and discriminatory manner. However, the respondent No.2 did not included the petitioners in the list of Trainees without assigning any reason and on the other hand the respondents No.4 to 7, who are junior to the petitioners, have been included in a very arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The learned counsel also submitted that if the petitioners are not allowed to join the said State Accounts Training, the purpose of filing the present writ petition will be defeated. Mr.Y. Ashang, learned GA submitted that he needs to get instructions from the authorities as to the reason for not including the names of the petitioners for undergoing the said training. As prayed for, list this case again on 10.02.2022, on which date the learned Government Advocate is directed to place the necessary instructions for not allowing the petitioners to undergo the said training. In the meantime and as an interim measures, it is hereby directed that the respondent No.2 should allow the petitioners to join the said State Accounts Training, 84 Batch 2021 as soon as possible. It is, however, made clear that the training of the present petitioners will be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. A copy of this order be furnished to both the learned counsel appearing for the parties through their Whatsapp/e-mail.' 22. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the classes for 84th Batch had commenced on 2.12.2021 and the first unit test for the said training has also been conducted on 29.12.2021. Hence, re-considering the nomination at this stage will defeat the purpose of the training as many important syllabus had already been covered. This Court finds some force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate. 23. The factum of commencement of classes for 84th Batch has not been disputed by the petitioners. Though this Court by the interim order dated 10.1.2022 directed the second respondent to allow the petitioners to join the said State Accounts Training, 84th Batch, in view of the commencement of classes and also the Academy does not have the capacity to conduct training for more than 160, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.992 of 2021 have not joined the 84th State Accounts Training. Further, the duration for the 84th State Accounts Training came to be ended in June, 2022 and the 85th Batch Accounts Training will be commenced from July, 2022. Further, the duration for the 84th State Accounts Training came to be ended in June, 2022 and the 85th Batch Accounts Training will be commenced from July, 2022. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the petitioners can very well participate in the 85th Accounts Training and the official respondents ought to have nominated petitioners. 24. The selection of 160 trainees from amongst 468 nominations was done by the duly constituted Board by giving due weightage to allocation of seats amongst the Departments and Districts. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the right for consideration for promotion to the post of UDC is infringed by virtue of the exclusion of the names of the petitioners from the select list of Accounts Training, 84th Batch, cannot be countenanced. Further, the duly constituted Board of officials have selected the staff members of different Departments for the 84th Accounts Training taking into consideration of their eligibility and other things as per the Scheme. Since the private respondents are juniors to the petitioners in the appointment cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned notification. On the other hand, the impugned notification has been issued pursuant to the selection made by the duly constituted Board and upon taking note of the eligibility criteria as per the Scheme. Further, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the impugned notification as the same has been issued taking note of the Scheme for Accounts Training and also the eligibility. 25. Thus, this Court is of the view that the second respondent has not purposefully omitted to include the names of the petitioners in the select list for 84th Accounts Training. Further, the plea of the petitioners that despite their names have been forwarded, the authority concerned has not selected them to the best reason known to them while integrity certificates have already been furnished to the authority for ensuing DPC promotion to the post of UDC does not merit acceptance, as the State Academy Training is not the sole for consideration of the petitioners for promotion to UDC. That apart, the Scheme of Accounts Training also does not provide for special consideration for the applicants due to promotion. That apart, the Scheme of Accounts Training also does not provide for special consideration for the applicants due to promotion. Further, the benefit of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.34 of 2021 can be extended to the petitioners as they are similarly situated persons in the next commencement of programme. 26. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that no valid ground has been made to interfere with the impugned notification in respect of the private respondent. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are liable to be dismissed. 27. In the result, a) Both the writ petitions are dismissed. b) The official Respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to join in the 85th Batch of State Accounts Training.