View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR:
TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2008
THE STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR.
…………Appellant
-Versus-
1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGOMBAM BROJENDRO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) N. GOLAPCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAS DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OLD, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 2 of 30
10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 12. SMT. GUNIJA DEVI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ODL, D/O. LATE S. LALBABU SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 13. SHRI R.K. DORENCHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) R.K. MANGISANA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KWAKEITHEL BAZAR, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 14. SHRI Kh. MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, RESIDENT OF CHINGMEIRONG IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 15. SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. ………Respondents
WRIT APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2011
SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHUREI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.
…………Appellant
-Versus-
1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGOMBAM BROJENDRO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) N. GOLAPCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 3 of 30
4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAS DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OLD, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. ………Respondents
WRIT APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2009
12. SMT. GUNIJA DEVI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ODL, D/O. LATE S. LALBABU SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.
…………Appellant
-Versus-
1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 4 of 30
2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGOMBAM BROJENDRO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (LATE) N. GOLAPCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAS DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OLD, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OLD, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 12. THE STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR, IMPHAL. 13. SHRI R.K. DORENCHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) R.K. MANGISANA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KWAKEITHEL BAZAR, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 5 of 30
14. SHRI KH. MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, RESIDENT OF CHINGMEIRONG IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 15. SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OLD, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. ………Respondents
WRIT APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2011
1. SHRI R.K. DORENCHAND SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD, S/O. (L) R.K. MANGISANA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KWAKEITHEL BAZAR, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI KH. MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OLD, RESIDENT OF CHINGMEIRONG IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR.2.
…………Appellant
-Versus-
1. SHRI KHUMANTHEM JUGESHWAR SINGH, S/O. (LATE) KH. GOURACHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF AWANG KHUMAN MAMANG LEIKAI, P.O. LANGJING, P.S. PATSOI POLICE STATION, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 2. SHRI MAYENGBAM BIREN SINGH, S/O. M. MANI SINGH, PATSOI PART-IV, P.O. LANGJING P.S. PATSOI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 3. SHRI NINGTHOUJAM BROJENDRO SINGH, S/O. (LATE) N. GULAPCHAND SINGH, OF KHAGEMPALLI HUIDROM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 4. SHRI SOIBAM JAINTKUMAR SINGH, S/O. (L) S. KULO SINGH, RESIDENT OF SINGJAMEI THONGAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 5. SHRI GURUMAYUM INDRAMOHON SHARMA, S/O. G. SANIHAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF LAIRIKYENGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 6. SHRI YENSEMBAM ISWARCHANDRA SINGH, S/O. Y BIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF SUGNU BAZAR, P.O. & P.S. SUGNU, THOUBAL DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 7. Dr. SAPAM NIMAICHAND SINGH, S/O. (L) S. MANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI CHINGANGBAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 6 of 30
8. SHRI THOUNAOJAM GYANESWAR SINGH, S/O. (L) TH. GOKULCHAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF URIPOK SINAM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL & P.S. LAMPHEL, IMPHAL EST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 9. SHRI GURUMAYUM SHANTIKUMAR SHARMA, KHAGEMPALLI PANKHA, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 10. SHRI AYEKPAM MUKTA SINGH, S/O. LATE A. THAMBOU SINGH, RESIDENT OF HEINGANG MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. MANTRIPUKHRI, P.S. HEINGANG, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. 11. SHRI KOIJAM RAGHUMANI SINGH, S/O. SHRI K. KOIRENG SINGH, KYAMGEI MAYAI LEIKAI, P.O. CANCHIPUR, P.S. SINGJAMEI, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR.
Principal Respondents. 12. THE STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR, IMPHAL. 13. SMT. S. GUNIJA DEVI, D/O. (L) S. LALBABU SINGH OF SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR AT PRESENT SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. 14. SHRI PHEIROIJAM RAJENDRA SINGH, S/O. SHRI PH. KULLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF KHURAI KONGPAL, P.O. IMPHAL, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR SERVING AS AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MANIPUR. ………Proforma Respondents
BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL
For the Appellants : Mr. DK Misra, Senior Advocate.
Mr. N Bipin, Advocate. Ms. S Jahan, Advocate. Mr. R. Mangsatabam, Advocate Mr. Th. James Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. N Dutta, Senior Advocate.
Mr. R Piba, Advocate. Mr. A Mohendra Singh, Adcoate.
Date of Hearing : 19.07.2011, 27.07.2011, 16.08.2011, 17.08.2011 & 19.08.2011.
Date of Judgment : 01.09.2011.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 7 of 30
Judgment And Order AMITAVA ROY , J
These appeals project a challenge to the judgment and order
dated 17.11.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 55/2008 instituted by the
respondent Nos. 1 to 11 in WA No. 447/2008. By the decision impugned,
the learned Single Judge sustained the assailment of the orders dated
22.06.1999, 30.10.1999 and 04.11.1999 of the concerned State authority
regularizing the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 in the writ proceeding in the
post of Agriculture Officer of the Department of Agriculture, Manipur
w.e.f. 05.11.1988. The seniority list dated 27.11.1999 enlisting the
parties and arraying them on the basis of such regularization has been
consequentially interfered with. The order dated 08.02.1996, whereby,
the respondent No. 2 in the writ proceeding had been regularized as
Agriculture Officer w.e.f. 29.12.1980, though not impeached, the
corrigendum dated 09.02.1996 determining her position in the seniority
list of Agriculture Officers, however, has been quashed.
02. We have heard Mr. DK Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. S
Jahan, Advocate for the appellant in WA No. 155/2011, Mr. N Bipin,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants in WA No. 157/2011, Mr. N
Dutta, Senior Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in WP(C) No.
55/2008, Mr. R Piba, learned counsel for the private respondents in WA
No. 155/2011 (petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, & 9 in the writ proceeding)
and Mr. A Mohendra, Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents
in WA No. 155/2011 (petitioners No. 5, 8, 10 & 11 in the writ
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 8 of 30
proceeding). Heard Mr. BP Sahoo, learned counsel for the applicants in
MC No. 995/2011 in WA No. 477/2008.
03. The pleaded versions do not record any major dissension on
the essential facts constituting the background of the lis. As the decision
oppugned is common and the legal propositions in the admitted factual
backdrop pervade the gossamer of the appeals, this single adjudicative
pursuit would adequately address the same. The parties at the initiation
of the legal encounter with WP(C) No. 55/2000 were lodged as
Agriculture Officers in the Department of Agriculture, Manipur.
04. For the sake of convenience, they would be referred to as per
their orientations in the writ petition. The petitioners had averred that
they were first appointed as Assistant Agriculture officers (AAO) or
equivalent on ad-hoc basis on the following dates: -
09.08.1977 Petitioner No. 4
11.08.1977 Petitioner No. 3
06.10.1978 Petitioner No. 9
12.10.1978 Petitioner No. 8
17.10.1978 Petitioner No. 6
13.11.1978 Petitioner No. 2
18.11.1978 Petitioner No. 10
17.07.1979 Petitioner Nos. 1, 5, 7 & 11.
While they were serving as such, they were promoted to the
next higher post of Agriculture Officer (as AO) or equivalent on ad-hoc
basis on different dates, i.e 03.01.1981, 09.11.1981, 02.02.1981 and
03.02.1981.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 9 of 30
05. The respondent No. 2 was similarly appointed as AAO on ad-
hoc basis on 09.08.1977 and on the recommendation of the Manipur
Public Service Commission (for short hereafter referred to as the
Commission) was appointed as such on regular basis w.e.f. 24.05.1980.
The petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were, thereafter,
by the notification dated 02.08.1981 recommended to be appointed to
the post of AAO and equivalent. They were placed in the list of the
recommendees as hereunder: -
NAME Sl. No.
Shri RK Darendchand
Respondent No. 3
2
Shri Shri Khaidem Mohendra Singh
Respondent No. 4
7
Shri Khumanthem Jugeshora singh
Petitioner No. 1
25
Shri Pheiroijam Rajendra Singh
Respondent No. 5
31
Shri Nayanglambam Biren Singh
Petitioner No. 2
36
Ningthoujam Brojendra Singh
Petitioner No. 3
38
Shri Soibam Jaintkumar Singh
Petitioner No. 4
84
Shri Gurumayum Indramohon Sharma
Petitioner No. 5
86
Shri Yensenbam Ishwarchandra Singh
Petitioner No. 6
94
Shri Sapam Nimaichand Singh
Petitioner No. 7
96
Shri Th. Gyaneswar Singh
Petitioner No. 8
110
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 10 of 30
These recommendees were, subsequent thereto, appointed as
AAO vide order dated 02.07.1982 of the Secretary (Agri.) to the
Government of Manipur and were placed in the same order interse
therein. The Government of Manipur, vide the order dated 25.08.1982
fixed the inter-se seniority of the AAO or its equivalent appointed on
regular basis. In the final seniority list of the Assistant Agriculture Officer
in the Department of Agriculture/Horticulture & Soil conservation,
Manipur that was circulated by the order dated 14.01.1986 of the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Agri.), Government of Manipur, the
petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were positioned as
hereunder: -
Respondent No. 2 Sl. No. 93
Respondent No. 3 Sl. No. 102
Respondent No. 4 Sl. No. 106
Respondent No. 5 Sl. No. 130
Petitioner No. 1 Sl. No. 124
Petitioner no. 2 Sl. No. 135
Petitioner No. 3 Sl. No. 137
Petitioner No. 4 Sl. No. 182
Petitioner No. 5 Sl. No. 184
Petitioner No. 6 Sl. No. 192
Petitioner No. 7 Sl. No. 194
Petitioner No. 8 Sl. No. 208
06. Noticeably, till that stage, the petitioner Nos. 9, 10 & 11 did
not figure in the scene concerning the parties, as they were regularised
as AAO only by order dated 23.08.1986 much thereafter. Significantly,
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 11 of 30
the interse seniority of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and respondent Nos. 2
to 5 as portrayed by the seniority list dated 14.01.1986 was accepted by
all concerned.
07. Pending the process of regular appointment of the parties as
AAO, as alluded hereinabove as and claimed by the petitioners, they were
promoted as Agriculture Officer on ad-hoc basis on the following dates: -
SL. NO. NAME DATES
1. Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 & 9 03.01.1981
2. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 8 01.08.2001
3. Petitioner Nos. 1, 6, 7 & 11 02.02.1981
4. Petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 10 03.02.1981
Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 were also promoted as Agriculture
Officer on ad-hoc basis as hereinbelow: -
SL. NO. NAME DATES
1. Respondent No. 2 29.12.1980
2. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 31.12.1983
3. Respondent No. 5 13.10.1987
08. As it would be apparent from hereinabove, the respondent
Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were promoted as Agriculture Officer on ad-hoc basis after
the petitioners. Significantly, all these developments burgeoned in the
teeth of the Agriculture, Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department,
Manipur (I) Agriculture Officers/Senior Technical Asstt./Subject matter
Specialist posts with an identical scale of pay and similar duties and (2)
Assistant Agriculture Officer and with an identical scale of pay and similar
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 12 of 30
duties Recruitment Rules, 1980 (for short hereafter also referred to as
the Rules) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and
published in the issue dated 18.06.1980 of the Manipur Gazette. The
Rules proclaimed to regulate the method of recruitment to the post of
Agriculture Officer/Technical Assistant/Subject Matter Specialist etc. The
post of Agriculture Officer and those equivalent thereto were projected
thereby to be selection posts to be filled up by direct recruitment (40%)
and promotion (60%). The conditions of eligibility including the academic
qualification and the qualifying length of service of the incumbent in the
feeder post of Assistant Agriculture Officer were also recited therein.
09. As the promotions to the post of Agriculture Officer on ad-hoc
basis of the parties as referred to hereinabove were, admittedly, not in
accordance with the prescriptions of these Rules, the Government of
Manipur in the Agriculture Department, by order dated 05.11.1988
regularized the ad-hoc appointment of 35 Nos. AO and other incumbents
holding equivalent post w.e.f. 24.05.1986 pursuant to a policy for
regularization of ad-hoc appointments embodied in the office
memorandum dated 31.05.1986 of the Department of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur. In
terms of the said office memorandum, ad-hoc appointees appointed upto
31.12.1984 against the vacancies under the direct recruitment quota
under Class-I & II posts could be regularized w.e.f. 24.05.1986, if they
complied with the other conditions therefor as mentioned therein. By the
order dated 05.11.1988, the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner Nos. 1
to 11 as Agriculture Officer/equivalent was thus regularized w.e.f.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 13 of 30
24.05.1986. It was, however, clarified that their seniority would be fixed
later on.
10. Stirred up by this retrospective regularization of the adhoc
promotion of the petitioners as AO, 7 (seven) Agriculture Officer, out of
whom 5 (five) had been regularised as such w.e.f. 28.10.1988, instituted
CR No. 76/1992, questioning the validity of the order dated 05.11.1988.
They claimed to have been appointed as AAO by way of direct
recruitment on ad-hoc basis and, thereafter, promoted as AO on ad-hoc
basis, following which the regularization as above had followed. They
complained that the petitioners had been promoted as AO on ad-hoc basis
by intruding into the quota of direct recruitment and if their (writ
petitioners in CR No. 76/1992) retrospective regularization, as such, was
sustained, they would illegally score a march over them. The present
petitioners also related their pending grievance in CR No. 131/1989 and
CR No. 698/1989 with this challenge and joined the fray. A Division Bench
of this Court, by judgment and order dated 27.04.1992 disposed of the
aforementioned proceedings with the following observations: -
“24. Now coming to the case on hand, the respondents
were promoted on ad-hoc basis in the year 1981 against
the quota of direct recruitment and the petitioners were
appointed on ad-hoc basis in the years 1979 and 1980.
The policy of the Government of Manipur for
regularization with effect from 24.05.1986 relates to ad-
hoc appointees against the direct recruitment quota. This
being the position, the respondents who were promoted
in the quota of direct recruits cannot be regularised under
the policy as well as quota rules. But, the 33 respondents
have been holding the posts for more than 11 years and
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 14 of 30
once they were regularised rightly or wrongly under
order dated 05.11.1988 and if they are to be reverted to
AAOs it would be not only unjust and inequitable, but
also would disturb other AAOs who had been appointed
to the vacant posts caused on promotion of the 33
respondents, and as such, their services are to be
secured by regularizing their employment. This can only
be done by relaxing the provisions relating to quota rules,
which is permissible under the Recruitment Rules
referred to above, by treating the quota of direct recruits
as promotional posts for the following reasons. The
promotees cannot be treated as direct recruits where the
recruitment is from two sources to a service in view of the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Badami’s Case (AIR
1980 SC 1561) as well as Sonal’s case (AIR 1987 SC
2389), where it has been held that where the recruitment
is from two sources to a service, the quota rules have to
be strictly enforced and it is not open to the authorities to
meddle with on the ground of administrative exigencies.
Promotees occupying direct recruit quota cannot claim
any right to hold any promotional post. That apart, if the
33 respondents who were ad-hoc promotees are
regularised treating them direct recruits w.e.f.
24.05.1986, it would affect the seniority of the petitioners
– 1 to 5 who were appointed earlier then the 33
respondents and who had been regularised in their
lawful quota in the same cadre or grade in the year
1988. Therefore, to give such a benefit to the 33
respondents would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution as all the promotees in the same cadre or
grade would not be treated equally.
25. The next question which arises for
consideration in from which date and year the 33
respondents are to be regularised. The petitioners – 1 to
5, who were appointed earlier than the 33 respondents,
were regularised w.e.f. 28.10.1988. The Government took
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 15 of 30
the decision to regularise the 33 respondents on
05.11.1988, rightly or wrongly. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that if the 33 respondents are regularized w.e.f.
05.11.1988 it would meet the ends of justice.”
11. Their Lordships therefore returned a finding that the present
petitioners, who were promoted against the quota of direct recruits,
could not be regularized under the policy as well as the quota rules.
Besides, if they were regularized treating them as direct recruits w.e.f.
24.05.1986, it would affect the seniority of the writ petitioners No. 1 to 5
in CR No.76/1992, who had been appointed earlier to them and
regularized in their lawful quota in the same cadre or grade in the year
1988. Their Lordships, however, noticing that the present petitioners had
been holding the post for more than 11 years by then, and that it would
not only be unjust and inequitable to revert them to the post of AAO, but
also that the same would disturb the other AAOs who had been appointed
to the resultant vacant post, sought to ease the stalemate by concluding
that if the present writ petitioners and other beneficiaries of the order
dated 05.11.1988 were regularized with effect from that date i.e.
05.11.1988, it would meet the ends of justice as the petitioner Nos. 1 to
5 in CR No. 76/1992 had been regularised w.e.f. 28.10.1988. The parties
are not at issue that the petitioners as a consequence stood regularised
as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988.
12. While the matter rested at that, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4
were regularised as AO w.e.f. 19.02.1993 by order dated 12.03.1993 of
the Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, Agriculture
Department. The respondent No. 2 having along with three others
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 16 of 30
approached this Court with CR No. 1069/1993, she, in terms of the
judgment and order dated 05.07.1994 passed therein, was regularized as
AO with effect from the date of her initial ad-hoc appointment, as such,
i.e. 29.12.1980 vide order dated 08.02.1996 of the Under Secretary,
Government of Manipur, in the Horticulture and Soil Conservation
Department. The respondent No. 5, subsequent thereto, by order dated
05.01.1999 of the Deputy Secretary (Agri.), Government of Manipur was
appointed as Agriculture Officer on the recommendation of the DPC in
consultation with the Commission w.e.f. 04.01.1999.
13. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with their belated regularization
and that too on and from the dates posterior to that of the petitioners,
the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 instituted WP(C) No. 241/1999, WP(C)
No.1111/1999 and WP(C) No.1145/1999, respectively, seeking judicial
intervention for redress. Prior thereto, they had teamed up with
respondent No. 2 to initiate CR No. 1385/1992, CR No. 1399/1992 and CR
No. 446/1997, which stood disposed of on 18.02.1999, leaving them at
liberty to file appropriate representations before the concerned State
authority to be disposed of keeping in view of the judgment and order
dated 27.04.1992, passed in CR Nos. 131/1989, 693/1989 and CR No.
76/1992. WP(C) Nos. 1111/1999, 1145/1999 and 241/1999 were similarly
disposed of on different dates substantially in the same lines.
14. Orders dated 04.11.1999, 30.10.1999 and 22.06.1999 as
impugned in WP(C) No.55/2008 followed, regularizing the respondent
Nos. 5, 4 and the respondent No. 3 as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988 for the
purpose of seniority. By notification dated 27.11.1999, the seniority list
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 17 of 30
of Agriculture Officers and all posts equivalent thereto in the Agriculture
Department of the State was published, in which the parties were placed
as hereunder: -
Respondent No. 2 Sl. No. 20
Respondent No. 3 Sl. No. 22
Respondent No. 4 Sl. No. 23
Petitioner No. 1 Sl. No. 24
Respondent No. 5 Sl. No. 25
Petitioner No. 2 Sl. No. 26
Petitioner No. 3 Sl. No. 27
Petitioner No. 4 Sl. No. 28
Petitioner No. 5 Sl. No. 29
Petitioner No. 6 Sl. No. 30
Petitioner No. 7 Sl. No. 31
Petitioner No. 8 Sl. No. 32
Petitioner No. 9 Sl. No. 33
Petitioner No. 10 Sl. No. 34
Petitioner No. 11 Sl. No. 35
Evidently, thus following the above factual interventions, in
essence, the interse seniority of the parties as AAO was restored in the
post of AO. As it indicated hereinabove, the petitioners’ remonstrance is
mounted against the orders dated 22.06.1999, 30.10.1999, 04.11.1999
regularizing the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988, the
corrigendum dated 09.02.1996 identifying the placement of the
respondent No. 2 in the seniority list of AO following her regularization as
such, by the order dated 08.02.1996 w.e.f. 29.12.1980 as well as the
seniority list dated 27.11.1999. The order dated 08.02.1996 qua the
respondent No. 2 was not assailed in particular.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 18 of 30
15. The learned Single Judge, maintained the impugnment and
annulled the orders and the seniority list as above with a direction to
prepare a fresh seniority list in the light of the determination so made.
Relying, inter alia, on the judgment and order dated 21.05.2008, in
WP(C) No.540/2000 (Shri Th. Ranbir Singh Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur & Ors.) and 24.06.2008 in WA No. 65/2008 between the same
parties as well as various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it
was held that seniority of an incumbent in an earlier cadre on promotion
was not of any determinative significance and further the retrospective
regularization by the Government in absence of any specific
empowerment to that effect is non est in law.
16. Mr. Misra, has argued that as admittedly, the ad-hoc
promotions to the post of AO, a selection post, were not in accordance
with the Rules then in force, the inter-se seniority of the concerned
incumbents in the earlier grade does not loose its import. He has urged
that the authorities relied upon by the learned Single Judge are
distinguishable on facts, the promotions as AO on ah-hoc basis not having
been made on a comparative evaluation of the merit and suitability of
the candidates. According to him, having regard to the nature of the
promotions made, the restoration of the inter-se seniority of the parties
as AAO on the regularization of the promotion as AO is legally
permissible. Mr. Misra referred to the Rules to indicate that the post of
AO was a selection post and drew our attention to the memorandum of
appeal of the State to reveal that the promotions of the parties as AO on
ad-hoc basis had not been in compliance of the Rules. The learned Senior
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 19 of 30
Counsel urged that a plain perusal of the operative portion of the
judgment and order dated 27.04.1992 would unambiguously demonstrate
that thereby, this Court did not direct regularization of the ad-hoc
promotion of the petitioners to be effective from 05.11.1988 and the
arrangement was wrought only to relieve them of the otherwise apparent
yet iniquitous consequences looming large in the face of the
impermissibility of their adjustment as promotees against direct
recruitment portions. Mr. Misra has contended that as this consideration
of the Court had weighed with the Government to deal with the
representations of the private respondents as well to secure their
seniority as AO, the impugned interference was uncalled for. Referring to
the Catch Up Rule dilated upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajit Singh &
Ors. (II) Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 209 as well as Article 16 (4) A
of the Constitution of India, Mr. Misra, has insisted that in the attendant
facts and circumstances, the restoration of seniority of the respondents
in the post of AAO as AO cannot be faulted with. He placed reliance on
the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Mysore Vs. C.R. Sheshadri & Ors.,
(1974) 4 SCC 308, Devendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (1997) 4
SCC 422, State of Maysore & Ors. Vs. Syed Mahmood & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 1113,
Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 368 and N. Suresh
Nathan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 692.
17. Mr. Dutta, in addition to the general ratification of the
propositions proffered on behalf of the State insisted that in any view of
the matter as the respondent No. 5 is the only incumbent among the
sparring parties to have been appointed as AAO on the recommendation
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 20 of 30
of the Commission, the order of his regularization as AO and his seniority
position in the impugned select list dated 27.11.1999 is unassailable.
Contending that the promotions of the petitioners as AO on ad-hoc basis,
had been in violation of the Rules, they not having been appointed as
AAO as respondent No. 5, the learned Senior counsel has urged that they
(petitioners) by no means can claim superior seniority over him on the
basis of the judgment and order dated 27.04.1992, which merely
delivered them on equitable considerations. He underlined that in any
view of the matter, the respondent No. 2 is senior most amongst the
parties and that her regularization as AO w.e.f. 29.11.1980, vide order
dated 08.02.1996 having been effected in terms of the judgment and
order dated 05.07.1994, passed in CR No. 1069/1993, the impugned
judgment and order vis-a-vis her is unsustainable in law and on facts. The
learned Senior counsel pointed out as well that the respondent Nos. 2, 3,
4 & 5 were not parties in the earlier process of determination culminating
in the judgment and order dated 27.04.1992.
18. Mr. Piba, while endorsing the decision impugned in the
present appeals, has heavily relied on the office memorandum dated
09.10.1992 (Annexure A/30 to the writ petition) to contend that the
retrospective regularization of the respondent No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 as AO being
in contravention thereof, they are not entitled to any consequential
benefit of seniority as sought for. He maintained that as the
regularization of the writ petitioners as AO w.e.f. 05.11.1988 has
remained unchallenged, the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, in view of their
ad-hoc promotions thereto after them (writ petitioners) cannot be placed
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 21 of 30
at par on seniority favouring them with retrospective regularization. Mr.
Piba, has alleged selective treatment by the Government by applying two
varying yardsticks to confer unwarranted benefits on the respondent
Nos.2 to 5. The learned counsel argued against the application of Catch
Up Rules and referred to the decisions of this Court in WP(C) No.540/2000
and WA No. 65/2008 to urge that on the principle scripted by a co-
ordinate bench of this Court on the same issue, the present appeals ought
to be dismissed. Mr. Piba relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr.
JS Chhabra Vs. State of MP & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 203 to underline that the
office memorandum dated 09.10.1992 was binding on the Government.
19. Mr. Mohendra, while reaffirming the charge led by Mr. Piba,
pleaded that retrospective regularization, though for the purpose of
financial benefits is conceivable, but for seniority it is an antithesis to the
fundamental precepts of service jurisprudence and that the decision
impugned is beyond reproach. He pressed into service the decision of the
Apex Court in RK Mobisana Singh Vs. KH Temba Singh & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 747
to emphatically repudiated the permissibility of retrospective
regularization.
20. Mr. Sahoo, while expressing his general agreement with the
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, has sought for vacation
of the interim restraint laid by this Court in the instant appeal. Referring
to the averments made Misc. Case No. 995/2011 in WA No. 477/2008, the
learned counsel has insisted that the status quo order dated 07.01.2009
ought to be vacated.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 22 of 30
21. We have extended our anxious consideration to the rival
pleadings and the contentious submissions emanating therefrom. The
factual backdrop is borne out by the records and therefore does not
admit of any dispute. Admittedly, the private respondents except the
Respondent No.5 were senior to the petitioners as A.A.O, the Respondent
No.5 being so, except qua petitioner No.1 who was senior to him in that
capacity. The records testify that the petitioners were promoted as A.O.
on ad-hoc basis earlier than the Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. The
Respondent No.2 was so promoted with effect from 29.12.1980 before all
of them. Admittedly, these promotions were without reference to the
Rules, which enjoin that the post of Agriculturel Officer is a selection
post to be filled up from the feeder post of Assistant Agriculturel Officer
and equivalent thereto. That the promotion to the post of Agricultural
Officer was not in compliance of the Rules, has been admitted by the
State of Manipur in its appeal memorandum in Writ Appeal No.477/2008.
The petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and the Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 however,
had been appointed as A.A.O. on due recommendation of the Commission
accorded vide notification dated 2.8.1981. The petitioner Nos. 9,10, and
11 as referred to hereinabove were regularized in the same capacity by
order dated 23.8.1986. After the promotion of the petitioners as AO on
ad-hoc basis they were sought to be regularized with effect from
24.5.1986 inconformity with the State policy to that effect. This was by
order dated 5.11.1988, the subject matter of challenge in Civil Rule
No.77/1992 which stood disposed along with Civil Rule No.131/1989 and
Civil Rule No.698/1989 by judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 whereby
this Court though was of the view that the regularization of the
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 23 of 30
promotion of the petitioners as A.O. against the direct recruit quota
could not be countenanced, noticing that they had been serving in the
same capacity for several years, permitted, in order to avoid serious
prejudice, their regularization with effect from 5.11.88 to meet the ends
of justice. Noticeably, this determination of this Court though does not
imply validation of the promotion of the petitioners as A.O. on ad-hoc
basis, the resultant seniority on their regularization with effect from
5.11.88 is an undeniable consequence. Neither this decision of this Court
nor the impact thereof has been questioned thereafter in any proceeding
and thus has attained finality. Having regard to the dates of ad-hoc
promotion of the petitioners as A.O., their regularization with effect from
5.11.1988, the above background notwithstanding, cannot be said to be
with retrospective effect. Significantly, neither the ad-hoc promotion of
the petitioners as A.O. had been assailed by the respondents for being
antecedent to theirs, nor the regularization of their promotion with
effect from 5.11.88 as referred to above, has been questioned at any
point of time.
22. The order dated 12.3.1993 of the Additional Chief Secretary
to the Govt. of Manipur regularizing the ad-hoc promotion of the
Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 as A.O. with effect from 19.2.1993 clearly
demonstrates that the same was under the guidelines issued by the
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel
Division), Manipur vide O.M. No.12/13/92-AO/DP (Pt), dated 9.10.1992.
The O.M. dated 9.10.92 embodied the government policy for
regularization of ad-hoc appointments/promotions of the incumbents who
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 24 of 30
had been continuously serving for a period of five years as on 1.9.92
against clear vacancies subject to the norms as contained therein. Clause
4 of this O.M. recited that the regularization of such ad-hoc/officiating
employees will be one time measure and should be completed on or
before 31.3.93 and that no retrospective effect would be “allowed”. It
further stipulated that the cases, which cannot be completed on or
before 31.3.93, would be considered according to the normal procedure.
The regularization of the ad-hoc promotion of the Respondent Nos.2, 3
and 4 as A.O. was therefore consciously made with effect from 19.2.93 in
keeping with the letter and spirit of the prevailing State policy pertaining
to such regularization of ad-hoc appointment/promotion. Though by
order dated 5.1.99 of the Deputy Secretary (Agri), Government of
Manipur, the Respondent No. 5 along with others were promoted as
Agriculture Officer with effect from 4.1.99, his seniority in that post thus
cannot relate back to any date prior thereto.
22A. Spurred by the dates of the regularization of their ad-hoc
promotion as A.O. and seeking a common relief for retrospective
regularization of their ad-hoc promotion as A.O. on and from the dates
of their initial appointment as such, the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5
instituted series of writ proceedings individually as well as with others
being Civil Rule No.1385/1992, Civil Rule No.1399/1992, Civil Rule
No.446/1997, Civil Rule No.1069/1993, WP(C) No.241/1999, WP(C)
No.1111/1999 and WP(C) No.1145/1999. In Civil Rule No.1069/1993 filed
by the Respondent No.2 along with three others, a Single Bench of this
Court by order dated 5.7.1994 directed the State respondents to
regularize their appointments/promotions with retrospective effect from
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 25 of 30
the date of their appointment as A.O. on ad-hoc/officiating basis. This
direction was issued having regard to the identical orders recorded to
have been passed in Civil Rule No.112/93 and Civil Rule No.117/1992.
23. A Single Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated
18.2.99 disposed of Civil Rule No.1385/92, Civil Rule No.1399/92 and Civil
Rule No.446/97 requiring the petitioners therein to submit
representation(s) before the concerned State authorities who were
directed to consider and examine the same keeping in view inter alia the
decision dated 27.4.92 of this Court in Civil Rule No.698/89, Civil Rule
No.76/92 and Civil Rule No.131/99. By various orders being dated
23.3.99, 27.8.99 and 6.9.99, WP(C) No.241/99, WP(C) No.1111/99 and
WP(C) No.1145/99 were similarly disposed of permitting the petitioners
therein to submit representation(s) before the concerned State authority
for scrutiny and disposal.
24. It was thereafter that by the order dated 8.2.96 the ad-hoc
promotion of the Respondent No.2, in proclaimed compliance of the
judgment and order dated 5.7.94 passed in Civil Rule No.1069/1993 was
regularized with effect from her initial date of appointment i.e.
29.12.80. Similarly, by orders dated 22.6.99, 30.10.99 and 4.11.99, the
ad-hoc promotion of the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for the purpose of
seniority thereat were regularized with effect from 5.11.1988 in the
stated compliance of the orders passed in the aforementioned writ
petitions as well the judgment and order dated 27.4.1992 in Civil Rule
No.131/1989, Civil Rule No.698/93 and Civil Rule No.76/1992. The
Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 having been regularized as A.O. as such,
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 26 of 30
the impugned seniority list dated 27.11.1999 was published in which the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were showed to be senior to all the
petitioners and the Respondent No.5 over the petitioner Nos. 2 to 11.
25. At the first place, except in Civil Rule No.1069/93, in none of
the orders passed in other writ petitions, this Court did direct or intend
the retrospective regularization of the adhoc promotion of the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 on and from the dates of their initial
appointment as such. The reliance on the judgment and order dated
27.4.92 is also misplaced having regard to the framework of the pleadings
and the issues addressed therein. The Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5
were not even parties to those writ proceedings. Patently, the orders
dated 8.2.96, 22.6.99, 30.10.99 and 4.11.99 regularize the ad-hoc
promotions of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as A.O. with
retrospective effect i.e. 05.11.1988 qua the OM dated 09.10.1992. The
appellants have sought to justify this action by relating it to the superior
seniority of the Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 over the petitioners as
A.A.O. and the ad-hoc promotion dehors the Rules. They in essence
plead that as the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioners who were junior to
the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as A.O. had been without reference to
the Rules, the same amounts to unexplained and unjustified exclusion of
the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 from a similar consideration for
promotion at the relevant point of time and thus applying the Catch Up
Rules in the context of Rule 16 (4 A) of the Constitution of India as
propounded in Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) (Supra), the regularization of their
(Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5) ad-hoc promotion with effect from 5.11.88
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 27 of 30
and the restoration of their earlier seniority in the feeder post of
A.A.O. is valid.
26. This assertion though attractive at the first blush on closer
appraisal lacks persuasion. The O.M. dated 9.10.92 applied consciously by
the State authorities to regularize the ad-hoc promotion of the
Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 vide order dated 12.3.93 does not admit of
any retrospectivity. The order dated 5.2.99 pertaining to the promotion
of 50 Agricultural Officers with effect from 4.1.99 also does not endorse
the claim of respondent No. 5 for regularization of his ad-hoc promotion
as such with effect from 5.11.88.
The basis of such ad-hoc promotions of the petitioners and the
Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 dehors the Rules is undisclosed. As referred
to hereinabove, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 though senior to the
petitioners (Respondent No.5 being only senior to the petitioner Nos. 2 to
11) as A.A.O. they, (Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) had not assailed their
earlier ad-hoc promotion as A.O. prior to them (Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4
and 5). They, (Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) did not question as well the
regularization of the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioners with effect from
5.11.88. The background in which this relief was granted to the
petitioners ought not to be opened at this distant point of time to divest
them thereof. The materials on record do not substantiate with
unequivocal clarity and unimpeachable preponderance that the
petitioners had been granted ad-hoc promotion as A.O. prior to the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 by overlooking them or being impelled by
extraneous and collateral considerations.
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 28 of 30
27. Viewed thus, neither the Catch Up Rule nor the precedential
precept of consideration of a bypassed senior for promotion with effect
from the date of that of his junior in service is of any definitive bearing
or significance in the present factual setting. The decisions of the Apex
Court in the State of Mysore & Anr. vs. Syed Mahmood & Ors. (Supra), Devendra
Prasad Sharma (Supra), State of Mysore Vs. C.R. Sheshadri and Ors. ( Supra), Ajit
Singh and Ors. (II) (Supra) as well as S. Suresh Nathan and Ors. (Supra) are,
thus, of no avail to the appellants.
28. The Apex Court in R.K. Mobisana Singh (Supra), while
enunciating that seniority in service though not a fundamental right, but
a civil right, authoritatively propounded that though retrospective
regularization could confer other service benefits on the officer
concerned, the same cannot be held to be of any assistance for reckoning
seniority with retrospective effect.
The following extract from the decision of the Apex Court in
R.K. Mobisana Singh (Supra) is apposite: -
“42. It was obligatory on the part of the official
respondents to take into consideration that the
retrospective regularization could be granted only when
there exists such a rule. If the Rules were not followed at
the time of grant of promotion, question of grant of
regularization with retrospective effect would not arise.
Retrospective regularization, whether in terms of the
directions of the High Court or otherwise, thus, although
could confer other service benefits on the officer
concerned, but the same cannot be held to be of any
assistance for reckoning seniority with retrospective
effect.”
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 29 of 30
29. Retrospective regularization in absence of any provision to
that effect in the relevant Rules, apart from being discountenanced in
emphatic terms, the Apex Court elucidated that though on a direction to
that effect by the High Court or otherwise, other service benefits could
be conferred, the same cannot be counted for reckoning seniority with
retrospective effect. In the teeth of such unequivocal postulation of the
Apex Court on the limitations of retrospective regularization, the
assertion to the contrary projected by the appellants do not commend for
acceptance. Not only the O.M. dated 9.10.1992 engrafting the
government policy of regularization of ad-hoc appointment and
promotion invoked at the relevant point of time prohibited in clear
terms retrospective effect of such relief, this Court’s decisions referred
to in the impugned orders dated 22.6.99, 30.10. 99 and 4.11.99 did
neither direct nor intend such retrospective regularization of the ad-hoc
promotion of the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as A.O. in disregard to the
said policy. Even otherwise, in the face of the above verdict of the Apex
Court such retrospective regularization cannot be reckoned for the
purpose of seniority of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5. The omission to
challenge the order dated 08.02.1996 granting retrospective
regularization of the promotion of the respondent No. 2 with effect from
29.12.1980 is of no decisive consequence in her favour in the present
facts and circumstances.
30. We are in agreement with the ultimate conclusions recorded
in the judgment and order dated 21.5.2008 passed in WP( C) No.540/2000,
Shri Th. Ranbir Singh vs. State of Manipur instituted by two Agriculturel
WA NO. 477/2008, WA NO. 155/2011
WA NO. 157/2011, WA NO. 5/2009
Page 30 of 30
Officer of the same department claiming seniority over the petitioners
and others on the ground that they were senior as A.A.O. The contextual
facts are strikingly similar and the grievance expressed is identical. The
decision rendered in WP(C) No.540/2000 has since been affirmed by
judgment and order dated 24.6.2008 in Writ Appeal No.65/2008, a
determination which we hereby endorse. We have also perused the
impugned judgment and order rendered in WP(C) No.55/2008 and lend
our concurrence to the eventual conclusions reached.
31. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, no interference with
the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2008 passed in WP (C)
No.55/2000 is warranted. The appeals lack in substance and are
dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Biplab/
Recommended