Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 15 (MAN)

Laishram Priyokumar Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-02-01

M.V.MURALIDARAN, SANJAY KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition was filed by 28 persons holding the posts of Field Assistants or its equivalent in the Department of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur. Their prayer was to quash the impugned Recruitment Rule notified on 25/07/2012 for the post of Assistant Agriculture Office and also the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017 issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance), Govt. of Manipur, in relation to financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme. 2. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, would however state that they are not interested in pursuing their challenge to the Recruitment Rule notified on 25/07/2012 and would restrict their challenge only to the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017, whereby they were denied the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel, and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur, appearing for the State authorities. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Manipur Public Service Commission, would state that he has nothing to say in so far as the petitioners' challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017 is concerned. 4. All the petitioners entered service as Field Assistants or in its equivalent posts in the Department of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur, prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules in the year 2012. At that time, the Recruitment Rules of 1999 were in force and as per these Rules, promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer was to be made from the feeder categories of Field Assistants or its equivalent posts with the stipulated regular service in the grade concerned. It was provided that in the case of degree holders, the length of required service was 6(six) years and in the case of Diploma/Certification holders, the length of service required was 10(ten) years. Lastly, in the case of those who were not in possession of degrees, diplomas or certification, the required length of service was 15(fifteen) years. Therefore, all the petitioners were guaranteed a promotional avenue despite the fact that they were not degree holders. 5. Lastly, in the case of those who were not in possession of degrees, diplomas or certification, the required length of service was 15(fifteen) years. Therefore, all the petitioners were guaranteed a promotional avenue despite the fact that they were not degree holders. 5. While so, by way of the amended Recruitment Rule, notified on 25/07/2012, promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer was restricted to only those Field Assistants or equivalents who have a B.Sc.(Agriculture) or B.Sc.(Horticulture) degree from a recognized University with 3(three) years of regular service. In effect, the promotional avenue which was available to the petitioners was taken away from them abruptly. However, as the petitioners do not wish to challenge the amendment to the Recruitment Rule, we need not concern ourselves with this changed Rule. Their only grievance is with regard to denial of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme due to the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017. 6. Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017 was issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur, clarifying that fulfilment of the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules of the promotion post was a mandatory requirement for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. He further clarified that all normal promotional norms, including education qualification, specified in the relevant Recruitment Rules/Service Rules for regular promotion would be an essential requirement for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. In addition, he stipulated that no financial upgradation would be allowed if an employee failed to qualify in any departmental skill test prescribed for the purpose of regular promotion. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that they have all passed the Integrated Gram Seva Training Course, which is the departmental test prescribed. However, they would not be eligible for promotion in the light of the amended Rule which restricts such promotional avenue only to degree holders. In consequence, they are not eligible to avail the MACP Scheme also. 8. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel, would place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tripura and others v. K.K. Roy [ (2004) 9 SCC 65 . Therein, the Supreme Court was considering the case of a Law Officer-cum-Draftsman in the Directorate of Cooperation, Government of Tripura, which was a single cadre post with no promotional avenue. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel, would place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tripura and others v. K.K. Roy [ (2004) 9 SCC 65 . Therein, the Supreme Court was considering the case of a Law Officer-cum-Draftsman in the Directorate of Cooperation, Government of Tripura, which was a single cadre post with no promotional avenue. Despite the same, relying on its earlier decision in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt [ (1989) 4 SCC 635 ], the Supreme Court observed that promotion is a normal incidence of service and opportunity for advancement is the requirement for progress of any organization. The Supreme Court further observed that, despite this Constitutional obligation, the State could not take the stand that as the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment were accepted knowing fully well that there was no avenue for promotion, the principle of estoppel should be applied. Relief was accordingly granted in the form of financial upgradation. 9. In the case on hand, the petitioners stand on a far better footing. They were hitherto provided with a promotional avenue but the same was taken away suddenly by amending the Recruitment Rule. Their vested right of at least being considered for promotion was therefore drastically cut short by such amendment. Further, when financial upgradation is offered to those who put in the stipulated length of service without further promotions, it is not open to the State to take a blanket decision in that regard by insisting upon the Recruitment Rules for promotion being fully satisfied as a condition precedent. In the present case, there is no possibility of the petitioners satisfying the amended Recruitment Rule for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, as they are not degree holders. In view of this sudden change of the Recruitment Rule, the State cannot insist that the petitioners, who are of sufficiently advanced age, should go back to college to secure degrees at this late stage of their life. Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017 ought not to have been applied to all categories of employees without proper application of mind and more so, to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017 ought not to have been applied to all categories of employees without proper application of mind and more so, to the petitioners herein. Having already suffered extinguishment of their right to be considered for promotion, they cannot be saddled with the additional penalty of not having any financial upgradation throughout their careers despite the length of service that they put in. That would be nothing short of adding insult to injury. 10. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners and they would be entitled to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme on par with other State Government Employees, notwithstanding the fact that they do not satisfy the amended Recruitment Rule for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part, holding that the petitioners shall not be subjected to the rigours of the Office Memorandum dated 10/10/2017 issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance), Govt. of Manipur. They shall be entitled to the benefit of the MACP Scheme despite the fact that they do not possess the requisite degree qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, as per the amended Recruitment Rules. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners under the MACP Scheme for appropriate financial upgradation, as per their eligibility sans the degree qualification requirement. This exercise shall be concluded expeditiously and, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consequential monetary benefits shall be released to them within one month thereafter. 12. No order as to costs. 13. A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp to the learned counsel.