Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 99 (MAN)

Salam Gopen Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-06-06

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned seniority list of Jemadars of Manipur Police Department so far as declaring the fourth respondent as Scheduled Caste [SC] category, as the same is against the record. The petitioner also sought direction on the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Subedar in Manipur Police Department under SC category. 2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is that on the recommendation of Class-III DPC held on 7.11.2006, the petitioner and the fourth respondent were initially appointed as Jemadars in Manipur Police Department and the name of the petitioner is found in the order dated 18.12.2006 under the category of SC and the name of the fourth respondent is found in the said order under the category General. In the draft seniority of Jemadars of Manipur Police Department as on 1.6.2012, the name of the petitioner is found at Serial No.149 with indication that he belonged to SC category and the name of the fourth respondent is found at Serial No.111 with no indication of belonging to any category of ST/SC and, thus, he is a General category candidate. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that at the time of consideration for promotion to the higher post of Subedars, both the petitioner and the fourth respondent have become eligible for consideration. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, another list of Jemadar was found to have been circulated reflecting that the fourth respondent with JCO No.621 to have been belonged to SC category which is against the record, as could be seen from the initial appointment order dated 18.12.2006 and the draft seniority list dated 1.6.2012. Hence, the petitioner prayed for protecting his right and interest and such impugned seniority list sofar as declaring the fourth respondent as SC category candidate is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Denying the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the second respondent - Director General of Police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on checking of the service book of the fourth respondent, an entry has been made that he belongs to SC category. 5. 4. Denying the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the second respondent - Director General of Police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on checking of the service book of the fourth respondent, an entry has been made that he belongs to SC category. 5. The fourth respondent field affidavit-in-opposition stating that at the time of submission of application for filling up the post of Jemadars, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the fourth respondent was not able to submit the caste certificate, but with the permission of higher authorities, he has submitted his caste certificate and in column No.7(b), the fourth respondent entered as SC and may be due to late submission of the caste certificate, the authority might have reflected the fourth respondent's as General category in the order dated 18.12.2006. However, in the impugned seniority list, it has been rightly corrected and reflected the name of the fourth respondent as belonging to the category of SC and, as such, the authority in consideration of the fact that the fourth respondent is a SC candidate, initiated steps for promotion and there would not be any violation of rules or law. 6. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this Court passed an interim order on 19.12.2018 that in the event of the private respondent being considered as SC category, result shall not be declared till the next date and in case, being considered as General candidate, this order shall not have application. The fourth respondent filed M.C.(WP) No.37 of 2019 to vacate the said interim order dated 19.12.2018. 7. Assailing the impugned seniority list in respect of the fourth respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent has applied as a General candidate and was also appointed against the General category post at his initial entry in service. Thus, the fourth respondent has deemed to have waived his benefit of SC status. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that at no point of time, the fourth respondent has enclosed his SC certificate and he has also failed to submit his SC certificate at the time of submission of the Form and at the time of appointment. It was only at the time of police verification, the fourth respondent has disclosed that he belonged to SC category. 9. It was only at the time of police verification, the fourth respondent has disclosed that he belonged to SC category. 9. The learned counsel then submitted that the circulation of draft seniority list before the publication of the final seniority list was never made public nor chance for submission of objection was made available, inasmuch as the fourth respondent was reflected as SC illegally only to secure promotion thereby depriving the right of the petitioner for consideration for promotion. 10. According to the learned counsel, the fourth respondent himself admitted that he has not submitted his SC certificate at the time of his initial entry in service and hence, he has to be considered as General category candidate only. 11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that the entry found in his service records show that the fourth respondent belongs to SC category and relevant entry was also made only after verifying the SC certificate produced by the fourth respondent. Therefore, there is no question that the fourth respondent belongs to General category. 12. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the fourth respondent was not able to submit his caste certificate at the relevant point of time and at later point of time, with the permission of the authorities, he has submitted his caste certificate. He would submit that because of late submission of the caste certificate, the authority might have reflected the fourth respondent as General category in the appointment order dated 18.12.2006. However, after verifying the records, the authority has correctly reflected the fourth respondent as SC category. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that in the seniority list as on 1.1.2016, the fourth respondent's name appeared at Serial No.48 and the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No.85 by mentioning and reflecting the name of the fourth respondent as belonging to the category of SC and the respondent authority, in consideration of the fact that the fourth respondent belongs to SC category, has rightly initiated steps for promotion and, therefore, there is no violation in the impugned seniority list qua the caste of the fourth respondent as SC category. 14. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 15. 14. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The grievance of the petitioner is that the declaration of the fourth respondent as SC category in the impugned seniority list of Jemadars of Manipur Police Department has the effect of virtually denying the petitioner his entitled promotion as he is the first eligible SC category in terms of seniority list as on 1.6.2012 wherein the fourth respondent has been listed as General category candidate and that the act of concoction of the authority for favouring the fourth respondent in taking advantage for promotion would call for immediate interference from the end of this Court. 16. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned seniority list which has the effect of declaring the fourth respondent as SC category is against the record as indicated in the initial appointment order dated 18.12.2006 as well as draft seniority list dated 1.6.2012 and also ascertained by the RTI letter dated 27.11.2018 and that such illegal declaration would cause an irreparable loss to the petitioner, as the fourth respondent would be considered prior to the petitioner on the basis of the SC status. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to produce any materials to support his claim. On the other hand, the Head of the Police Department, namely, the Director General of Police filed affidavit stating that on checking the service book of the private respondent namely Naorem Pritamkumar Singh (JC 621), an entry is fouund that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) along with related documents. When the second respondent himself stated that only after verifying the caste certificate produced by the fourth respondent, it has been mentioned as he belongs to SC category, the burden is heavily on the petitioner to show that the fourth respondent belongs to General category and not SC category. As stated supra, to prove the claim of the petitioner that the fourth respondent belongs to General category, nothing has been produced. 18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the service book of the fourth respondent against the name of the candidate, the name of the fourth respondent is entered and in the bracket SC is indicated. 18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the service book of the fourth respondent against the name of the candidate, the name of the fourth respondent is entered and in the bracket SC is indicated. The ink of the pen entering the name and marking as SC are different and there is no place for indicating social status in the service entry, however, entry was made by some officials for reason best known to them. 19. Countering the said argument, the learned Government Advocate contended that the red marking SC in the service book in short form have been entered after producing SC certificate by the candidate and that marking with red ink is not manipulation by the officials to cover up the wrongful entry as red marking entry were also found in other pages of the service book. It is also the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the SC status of the fourth respondent has also been reflected in the same service book vide verification dated 28.12.2006. 20. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the fourth respondent's appointment under the SC quota. But he has challenged only the seniority list of Jemadars [Annexure-3] insofar as the fourth respondent. Thus, the very filing of the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 21. On a perusal of the application of the fourth respondent submitted for filling up the post of Jemadars in Manipur Police Department filed along with the affidavit of the fourth respondent, this Court finds that in Column 7(b), it has been written as 'Yes I am an SC'. The further perusal of the caste certificate enclosed along with the affidavit of the fourth respondent, it is seen that the fourth respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the caste certificate of the fourth respondent dated 17.6.2006 that the fourth respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is to be pointed out that no one other than the petitioner has challenged the community of the fourth respondent. 22. When the draft seniority list before publishing the impugned seniority list dated 1.1.2016 was circulated, objections were called for from among the persons mentioned therein. But no complaint regarding the fourth respondent belonging to SC category had been received and as such, the impugned final seniority list dated 1.1.2016 was published. 23. 22. When the draft seniority list before publishing the impugned seniority list dated 1.1.2016 was circulated, objections were called for from among the persons mentioned therein. But no complaint regarding the fourth respondent belonging to SC category had been received and as such, the impugned final seniority list dated 1.1.2016 was published. 23. According to the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, no objection to the draft seniority list has been filed by the petitioner against the fourth respondent being reflected as SC and only at a belated stage when the authority initiated process for promotion, the petitioner, in order to secure promotion by any means has resorted to file the present writ petition, thereby harming the legitimate right of the fourth respondent being promoted. This Court finds some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. No material has been produced by the petitioner to show that he has filed objection to the draft seniority list. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the fourth respondent, in order to secure promotion by any means, the petitioner has resorted to file the instant writ petition that too at a belated stage. Such a method adopted by the petitioner is unsustainable in the eye of law. 24. The petitioner has also filed additional affidavit stating that two Xerox SC certificates of the private respondent were found to be stapled in the service book. One certificate was issued in 2006 and another was issued in 2018 and nowhere indicated about the entry of the SC certificates in the service book, inasmuch as no other documents are found in the service book thereby clearly indicating that the insertion of the SC certificate is nothing but illegal and hence, seniority list prepared by considering the private respondent as SC is wholly illegal. Since the SC status of the fourth respondent has also been reflected in the same service book of the fourth respondent vide verification dated 28.12.2006, there is no question of any manipulation in the SC certificate as alleged by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has no right to question the promotion of the fourth respondent without challenging the original/initial appointment of the petitioner under the SC category. 25. In fact, the petitioner has no right to question the promotion of the fourth respondent without challenging the original/initial appointment of the petitioner under the SC category. 25. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the respondent authorities have rightly published the impugned seniority list by mentioning the name of the fourth respondent as SC category. This Court also finds no infirmity in the seniority list insofar as the fourth respondent is concerned. 26. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. M.C.(WP) No.37 of 2019 filed by the fourth respondent is allowed and the interim order dated 19.12.2018 passed in the writ petition stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.