WP(C)/898/2018 of SHRI KHARIBAM HITLER SINGH Vs STATE OF MANIPUR on 20 December 2019

1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner (Forests & Environment), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal, 795001. Secretary/Commissioner (Forests & Environment), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal, 795001.

2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal, 795001. Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal, 795001.

3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Manipur, Imphal, 795001. of Manipur, Imphal, 795001.

4. The Manipur Public Service Commission represented by the Secretary, MPSC, Imphal, 795001. the Secretary, MPSC, Imphal, 795001.

5. Yumlembam Gojendro Singh, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Y. Gouramani Singh, resident of Khurai Ahongei Ayangpalli Road, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795005. Late Y. Gouramani Singh, resident of Khurai Ahongei Ayangpalli Road, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795005.

6. Keisam Shital Meitei, aged about 59 years, S/o Late K. Mani Singh, resident of Soibam Leikai Khanglabung Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001. Mani Singh, resident of Soibam Leikai Khanglabung Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

7. Thangjam Bimolchandra Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Th. Tomcha Singh, resident of Singjamei Sougrakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001. S/o Late Th. Tomcha Singh, resident of Singjamei Sougrakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001.

8. Laikhuram Manglem Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Late L. Ganga Singh, resident of Sawombung Mamang Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795010. Late L. Ganga Singh, resident of Sawombung Mamang Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795010.

9. Chakpram Brajamani Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Ch. Chaoba Singh, resident of Soibam Leikai Khanglabung Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001. Late Ch. Chaoba Singh, resident of Soibam Leikai Khanglabung Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

10. Chingangbam Ibomcha Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Ch. Parijat Singh, resident of Moirangkampu Khewa Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795005. Late Ch. Parijat Singh, resident of Moirangkampu Khewa Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795005.

11. Laishram Ranjit Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o Late L. Birahari Singh, resident of Wangkhei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795005. Birahari Singh, resident of Wangkhei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795005.

12. Chandam Biren Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Ch. Yaima Singh, resident of Heinoubok, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, 795134. Ch. Yaima Singh, resident of Heinoubok, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur, 795134.

13. Tonsing Thangchinlian, aged about 57 years, S/o T. Ginzathang, resident of Nehrumarg Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur, 795128. Ginzathang, resident of Nehrumarg Churachandpur, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur, 795128.

14. T. Sheilam Haokip, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Semjathang, resident of K. Salbung Village, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur, 795128.Semjathang, resident of K. Salbung Village, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur, 795128.

…. Respondents

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the petitioner

For the respondents

: Mr. A. Bimol, Sr. Advocate : Mr. T. Momo, Advocate Mr. K. Deepak, Advocate JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV)

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings of the review Departmental Promotion Committee (in short “review DPC”) meeting held on 7.7.2018 in connection with the promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II and the Government Order dated 02.12.2013 appointing on promotion 10 Range Forest Officers to Manipur Forest Service Grade-II as the same is violative of the provisions of the Manipur Forest Service Rules and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II by holding a review DPC strictly in terms of Rule 5(i)(c) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and to appoint the petitioner to the said post with effect from 02.12.2013 in case if the petitioner is selected and recommended by the Review DPC.

2. Brief facts are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as Ranger in Manipur Forest Department on regular basis with effect from 03.5.1989 and for the past 30 years, he was working as such without getting any promotion. In 2005, while the petitioner was serving as Forest Ranger/Range Forest Officer, the Government of Manipur accorded sanction to the deputation of the petitioner to undergo XXVII Post Graduate Diploma Course in Wild Life Management at Wild Life Institute of India, Dehradun and the petitioner has successfully completed the said Course.

2.1. In the seniority list published on 18.12.2008, petitioner's name appeared at Serial No.41 and his next promotional post is Manipur Forest Service Grade-II/Assistant Conservator of Forest. As per the amended provisions of Rule 5(i)(B) and (C) of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 2010, 50% of the authorised permanent strength of the Manipur Forest Services Grade-II is to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% to be filled up by promotion.

2.2. Range Forest Officers with Diploma in Forestry/Wild Life from any recognised State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute of India with 4 years regular service in the grade are to be considered first, failing which, Ranger Forest Officers with certificate in Forestry/Wild Life from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute of India with 5 years regular service in the Grade are to be considered in second, failing which, Range Forest Officers without Diploma/Certificate in Forestry/Wild Life who have put in 7 years regular service in the Grade are to be considered last.

2.3. When 10 posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II/Asst. Conservator of Forest became vacant during 2010-2013 and while MFS Rules, 2010 was in force, the third respondent made a requisition dated 30.7.2013 for recommendation of suitable and qualified candidates for giving promotion to the aforesaid 10 posts. While making the said requisition, the Administrative Department falsely informed the DPC that none of the Range Forest Officer in the Department possessed Diploma/Certificate in Forestry or Wild Life from a recognised State Forest Service College or Wild Life Institute prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules.

Conclusion

2.4. On 31.10.2013, a Class-I DPC meeting with Manipur Public Service Commission was held in connection with appointment by promotion to the aforesaid 10 vacant posts. After knowing the fact that his name was not considered despite having rendered more than 4 years regular service in the Grade of Range Forest Officer and also possessing Post Graduate Diploma in Wild Life Management, on 7.11.2013; the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents through his counsel seeking to consider him for promotion and also requested to withhold the result of the DPC and to hold a review DPC.

2.5. On the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC held on 31.10.2013, the State Government issued an order dated 2.12.2013 appointing the private respondents 5 to 14 on promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. Aggrieved by the same, on 13.12.2013, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the second respondent requesting to review the impugned order dated 2.12.2013 by holding a review DPC. 1he representation of the petitioner was acted upon and the third respondent has given his comments to the representation of the petitioner to the second respondent vide letter dated 8.8.2014 that the case of the petitioner was not considered in the DPC meeting held on 31.10.2013 for promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II despite the petitioner having been eligible and entitled to be considered as per the first criteria of rule 5(i)(C).

2.6. When the State Government failed to consider the representation of the petitioner and failed to take necessary follow up action, the petitioner has field W.P.(C) No.83 of 2015 assailing the DPC meeting held on 31.10.2013 and the order dated 02.12.2013 promoting the 10 recommended candidates. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 14.9.2016 directing that a review DPC be held by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of the order for appointment of Range Forest Officers against ten vacant posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in accordance with the relevant rules and that in the review DPC, all the eligible persons including the writ petitioner shall be considered by the respondents. Since the State Government wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court, the petitioner has Filed Contempt Case No.62 of 2017.

2.7. When the State Government are contemplating to hold the review DPC to the 10 posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in terms of the provisions of MFS (2[nd] amendment) Rules, 2013 and not under the provision of Manipur Forest Services (1[st] amendment) Rules, 2010 adopted earlier by the DPC in its meeting held on 31.10.2013, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.34 of 2018. During the pendency of the said writ petition, a review DPC meeting was held on 7.7.2018 to review the proceedings of the earlier DPC meeting held on 31.10.2013 in connection with appointment by promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II/Asst. Conservator of Forest in the Department of Forest, Manipur.

2.8. It is averred that in the impugned proceedings of the review DPC meeting though it was recorded that the petitioner is eligible for consideration under the first criterion of eligibility, he cannot be recommended, as he is beyond the normal zone of consideration for promotion and thus, he was not recommended for promotion by the said review DPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner though a Range Forest Officer had undergone the said XXVII Post Graduate Diploma Course in Wild Life Management, a course in which only Assistant Conservator of Forests and above rank officers are eligible to undergo. Range Forest Officers are not eligible to undergo the said course. It is stated that Rule 2(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 does not mention the part of the rule to be followed while filling up the 50% vacant post by promotion. The review DPC meeting dated 7.7.2018 was held in compliance with the order of the High Court dated 6.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.900 of 2013 and the order dated 14.9.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.83 of 2015. Since the petitioner was beyond the normal zone of consideration, he was not recommended. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Respondent No.4/MPSC filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that only by following the relevant principles, DPC dated 31.10.2013 was conducted. In compliance with the order dated 8.6.2018 in Contempt Case No.124 of 2016, the fourth respondent fixed a review DPC on 6.6.2018 for the purpose of reviewing the DPC held on 31.10.2013. It is stated that on 6.7.2018, the fourth respondent addressed a letter to the Special Secretary (DP) requesting to furnish the original certificates of the Diploma in Forestry or Wild Life in respect of the petitioner and one L.Biramangol Singh. Considering the expediency of compliance to the contempt order dated 06.06.2018 and various directions of this Court, a review DPC was held oh 7.7.2018 to review the DPC held on 31.10.2013. It is stated that the review DPC held on 7.7.2018 was in compliance with the various orders of this Court and that the Committee followed all the relevant procedure and Recruitment Rules. There was no unequal treatment and illegality committed to the petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Respondent Nos.7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner who was a Range Forest Officer is the below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forest and as such the petitioner, who went for the training course did so by concealing correct facts in a fraudulent manner and as such, the said training certificate obtained by the petitioner without fulfilling the minimum eligibility for undergoing the said training is non-est in the eye of laws. It is stated that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in terms of the relevant applicable 2[nd] Amended MFS Rules, 2013, which was in force, when the said impugned DPC proceedings were held. It is also stated that the review DPC s has correctly come to the conclusion that the petitioner falls beyond the normal zone of consideration for promotion as per MFS Amendment Rules, 2013. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Assailing the impugned review DPC meeting held on 7.7.2018 whereby the petitioner was not recommended on the ground that he is beyond the normal zone of consideration for promotion, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 5(i)(C) of Manipur Forest Services (Amended) Rules, 2010, the Range Forest Officers with Diploma in Forestry/Wild Life from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute of India recognised by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest who have put in 4 years regular service in the Grade of Range Forest Officer including those period spent on training on the Diploma course are to be considered First. If the DPC had considered the cases of Range Forest Officers with Diploma in Forestry, the petitioner will be very much within the zone of consideration and in fact, the petitioner had rendered about 30 years regular service in the Grade of Range Forest Officer.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the acts of the respondents in clubbing the case of the petitioner together with the cases of other Range Forest Officers who do not possess Diploma in Forestry/Wild Life and treating the petitioner to be outside the zone of consideration for promotion is contrary to provisions of Manipur Forest Services Rules as amended in 2010 and such acts of the official respondents are liable to be quashed, as being ilIegal and ultra vires of the relevant rules.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that treating the petitioner equally with other Range Forest Officers without Diploma in Forestry/Wild Life is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even though the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in terms of the First criteria/method of selection as provided under rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services Rules as amended in 2010, the respondents have failed to consider and recommend his name for such promotion only on the basis of wrong concept of applying the principle .of zone of consideration.

9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived of his fundamental right to be considered for such promotion and the proceedings of the review DPC meeting held on 7.7.2018 in connection with the promotion to the 10 posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II as well as Manipur Government Order dated 02.12.2013 promoting the private respondents to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II is ultra vires rule 5(i)(C) of Manipur Forest Services Rules as amended in 2010 and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the official respondents contended that the Course undergone by the petitioner is a Course to be undergone by the Assistant Conservator of Forests and above the rank officers and that the Range Forest Officers are not eligible to undergo the Diploma Course. He would submit that in the DPC proceedings, all the eligible candidates including the petitioner who is eligible for consideration under the first criteria of eligibility was considered in compliance of the High Court's order, but the petitioner could not be recommended as he was beyond the normal zone of consideration for promotion.

11. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the review DPC held on 7.7.2018 was in compliance with the various orders of this Court and that the Committee had followed all the relevant procedure and Recruitment Rules. He further submitted that there was no unequal treatment alleged by the petitioner and no illegality was committed to the petitioner.

12. The learned counsel for the private respondents argued that the Course certificate obtained by the petitioner is without fulfilling the minimum eligibility for undergoing the training and by playing fraud, he has obtained the said certificate. In fact, the

Diploma Certificate obtained by the petitioner has not been considered in the review DPC meeting held on 7.7.2018. He would submit that the review DPC has correctly come to the conclusion that the petitioner falls beyond the normal zone of consideration for promotion as per Manipur Forest Services Amendment Rules, 2013.

13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

14. The grievance .of the petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of Ranger in the Manipur Forest Department on regular basis on 3.5.1989 and has been serving as Forest Ranger for the past 30 years without any promotion. Pursuant to the order of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Manipur, dated 14.7.2005, the petitioner underwent XXVII Post Graduate Diploma Course in Wild Life Management on deputation.

15. The Diploma Course certificate possessed by the petitioner has been disputed by the respondents contending that only the Assistant Conservator of Forests and above the rank officers are eligible to undergo such training and the petitioner, who is a Range Forest Officer is not eligible to undergo the said Course. In support, the respondents have produced a letter addressed by the Director Wildlife Institute of India to the Special Secretary (Forests & Environment), Government of Manipur. On a perusal of the same, I find that the said letter is not pertaining to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has successfully completed the Course and he has been issued with Course certificate by the Institute itself. The petitioner has produced the letter dated 14.7.2005 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Manipur, deputing the petitioner along with on L.Biramangol Singh to undergo Post Graduate Diploma Course in Wild Life Management at Wild Life Institute of India, Dehradun commencing from 1.9.2005 to 31.5.2006. After undergoing training, the petitioner was issued with Course certificate and the same has been annexed to the writ petition. On a perusal of the said certificate, it is seen that the petitioner had undergone the Wild Life Management Course.

16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Diploma Course in Wildlife management is meant for the Forest Officers of the rank of ACF/DCF and equivalent officers. The petitioner and another person, who are Ranger Forest Officers were recommended to undergo the Diploma Course in Wild Life Management even though they are Range Forest Officers, as they had secured Honours in certificate Course. The concerned officer had recommended them to equip with latest development in Wildlife Management in the country for managing many National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary in the State. The Dean of Wildlife Institute of India also communicated the eligibility of the two officers to undergo the Diploma Course and the State Government also agreed to the deputation of the petitioner and another officer and they had also duly passed the said Course. In view of the above, the respondent cannot contend that the petitioner has obtained the certificate by playing fraud at the distant point of time. In fact, the petitioner has undergone the said Diploma Course as per the directions of his higher officials.

17. The petitioner, who was serving as Forest Ranger/Range Forest Officer claimed promotion to the post of Forest Service Grade-II/Assistant Conservator of Forest. Rule 5(1)(b) of the Manipur Forest Service Rules, 1986, provides the method of recruitment to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II/Assistant Conservator of Forest as under:

“5. Method of Recruitment:

(1) Save as provided in rule 26, appointment to the Service after commencement of these rules shall be made by the following methods, namely:- (a) ...........

(b) (i) 40 percent of the substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorized strength of category-II of the Service shall be filed by promotion in the manner specified in Part-IV of these rules from amongst the officers who have put in 7 years regular service in the cadre of Ranger, and

(ii) The remaining such substantive vacancies in the category-II of the Service shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner specified in Part-V of these rules.”

18. The 1986 Rules was amended in 2010 and the Amendment rules, 2010 came into force with effect from 1.4.2010. Rule 5 was substituted as under :

“5(i) Save as provided in rule 26, appointment of the service after commencement of these rules shall be made by the following methods:

(A) Appointment to Grade-I/Selection Grade of the Service shall be made by promotion in the manner specified in Part-IV of these rules, (B) 50 percent of the authorized permanent strength of the service shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner specified in Part-V of these rules.

(C) 50 percent of the authorised permanent strength of the service shall be filled by promotion as below: Range Forest Officers with diploma in Forestry/Wild Life from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute of India recognised by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests who have put in 4 (four) years regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer including those periods spent on training on the Diploma course.

Failing which

Range Forest Officer with certificate in Forestry/Wild life from any State Forest Service College/Wild life Institute of India recognised by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests who have put in 5 (five) years regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer including those periods spent on training on the Certificate course.

Failing which

Range Forest Officer without Diploma/Certificate in Forestry/Wild life who have put in 7 (seven) years regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer.”

19. The petitioner claimed promotion in view of rule 5(i)(B) & (C) of the Amended rules 2010. When 10 posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II/Assistant Conservator of Forest became vacant during 2010-2013, the third respondent recommended 10 candidates for giving promotion and 'm the process, the Administrative Department informed the UPC that none of the Range Forest Officer possessed Diploma/Certificate in Forestry or Wild Life. On 31.10.2013, DPC was held in connection with the appointment by promotion to the said 10 vacant posts. In fact, on the crucial date, the petitioner was in possession of Diploma Course certificate in Forestry/Wild Life. When the petitioner came to know that he was not considered for promotion despite having rendered more than 4 years of regular service and possessing Post Graduate Diploma in Wife Life Management, he had submitted a representation seeking to consider his case and also sought to hold a review DPC. Thereafter, based on the recommendation made by the DPC held on 31.10.2013, the State Government issued an order dated 02.12.2013 appointing the private respondents 5 to 14 on promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II excluding the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said appointment order, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 13.12.2013 to the second respondent. Since the respondent State failed to, consider his representation, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.83 of 2015 challenging the proceedings of DPC meeting held on 31.10.2013 and also the appointment order dated 02.12.2013 promoting 10 recommended candidates.

20. By an order dated 14.09.2016, W.P.(C) No.83 of 2015 came to be disposed of by this Court and the order of this Court reads as follows:

“Heard Shri A.Bimol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri N.Ibotombi, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents and Shri H.S.Paonam, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the applicant as well as Shri R.S.Reisang, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the MPSC.

It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that the Government order dated 02.12.2013 which is impugned herein, has already been quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in another proceeding. However, Shri A.Bimol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there ware two interim orders dated 02.02.2015 and 02.03.2016 which have been passed by this court during the pendency of this writ petition and that this court may pass an order clarifying them.

It is then submitted by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties that the instant writ petition can be disposed of with a specific direction as regards the said two interim orders.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that a Review DPC be held by the respondents within a period of 2 (two) months from today for appointment of Range Forest Officers against 10 vacant posts of Manipur Forest Services in accordance with the relevant rules and in the Review DPC, all the eligible persons including the writ petitioner shall be considered by the respondents.”

21. When the State Government failed to comply with the directions of this Court, the petitioner has held Contempt Case No.62 of 2017 and according to the both parties, the said Contempt Case is still pending. In the meanwhile, the private respondents have med Review Petition being Review Petition No.19 of 2017 to review the order dated 14.9.2016 on the ground that a mistake was discovered by them that they are ineligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-Il and the petitioner has succeeded in obtaining the relief of declaring himself eligible for consideration in the review DPC. Holding that it is for the DPC to consider them on merit in accordance with law and the grievance of the review petitioners appears to be premature and it may arise only after the DPC being held and there is no error in the order dated 14.9.2016, this Court dismissed the Review Petition. The operative portion of the order in the Review Petition reads thus:

“7. In the present case, it may be noted that this Court has not decided the issue on merits. The writ petition has been disposed on only in terms of the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that the proceedings of the DPC and the appointment order have already been quashed and set aside by this Court, in another writ petition, with the direction that a review DPC be held by the State respondents. The review petitioners appear to have a grievance in respect of the expression “including the writ petitioner” made in the order. The said expression shall not be read in isolation. The sentence as a whole is to be read to understand the meaning of the order and moreover, the expression “including the writ petition” is qualified by the expressions “in accordance with law” and “considered by the respondents”. The order that the writ petitioner shall be considered along with the eligible persons, does not mean that the writ petitioner shall be recommended and appointed by the State respondents and it does mean only that he shall be considered in accordance with law. One aspect to be noted, is that the review petition is being filed by the review petitioners who were the private respondents in the writ petition and not by the State respondents who have been directed to hold the review DPC and they appear to have no grievance at all in considering the eligible persons including the writ petitioner in accordance with law. It is for the DPC to consider them on merit in accordance with law. The grievance of the review petitioners appears to be premature and it may arise only after the DPC being held and that too, if not held in accordance with law. There is no error in the order dated 14.09.2016 apparent on the face of record and as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove, it is well settled that the error apparent on the face of record should not be the one which has to be fished out and searched. The order that the principal respondent shall be considered along with the eligible persons in accordance with law, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. It is not a matter of fact but a matter of interpretation and therefore, if the review petitioners are aggrieved by the said order dated 14. 09.2016, it is open to them to prefer appear before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.

prefer appear before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.”

22. It is to be noted that when the Government was proceeding to conduct a review DPC for promotion to 10 vacant posts in terms of the provisions of Manipur Forest Services (2[nd]Amendment) Rules, 2013, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.34 of 2018 before this Court contending that the aforesaid 10 vacant posts arose prior to the enforcement of 2[nd] Amendment RuIes, 2013 and those vacancies should be filled up in accordance with the provisions of Manipur Forest Services (1[st] Amendment) Rules, 2010. Further, when the said writ petition was pending, review DPC meeting was held on 07.07.2018 to review the proceedings of the earlier DPC meeting held on 31.10.2013. By an order dated 17.01.2018, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that no DPC shall be held for appointment to the Range Forest Officer in respect of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II.

23. It is also to be noted that in another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.58 of 2018 filed by one Khoisnam Kuber Singh, this Court vide order dated 05.7.2018, directed not to declare the result of the DPC scheduled to be held on 06.7.2018 without the leave of this Court. Faced with the contempt proceedings in Contempt Case No.124 of 2016, the impugned Review DPC meeting came to be held on 07.07.2018, wherein the Committee has considered the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.900 of 2013 in compliance with the order of this Court dated 06.10.2015 as well as the present petitioner as per the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.83 of 2015.

24. While reviewing the DPC, the Committee held that for two vacancies occurring in 2010-11, the zone for consideration is 8 officers and after scrutiny, it had recommended (i) Y.Gojendro Singh and (ii) K.Shital Meetei for appointment by promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. For 2 vacant posts available in 2011-12, the zone for consideration is 8 officers and after examination, the Committee had recommended (i) Th.Bimoichandra Singh and (ii) L.Nanglem Singh for promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. For another 6 posts available in 2012-13, it has been stated that the normal zone of consideration is 16 and the extended zone for ST is 30. In the 25 meeting, the Committee had considered the petitioner and one L.Biramangol Singh, who are holding the Diploma certificate for consideration under the first criterion of eligibility, but they have not recommended as the said two officers are beyond the normal zone of consideration for promotion. This has been challenged by the petitioner by contending that as per Rule 5(i)(C) of the Amended Rules 2010, the Range Forest Officers with Diploma in Forestry/Wild Life from any State Forest Service College/Wild Life Institute of India recognised by the Government of India and have put in 4 years regular service in the Grade of Range Forest Officer are to be considered first. However, in the instant case, the said aspect has not been considered by the Committee in the review DPC held on 07.07.2018.

25. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the review DPC had considered the case of Range Forest Officer with Diploma in Forestry/Wild Life First as per Rule 5(i)(C) as Amended in 2010, the petitioner will come within the zone of consideration as he was possessing Diploma in Wild life and had also rendered 30 years of regular service in the grade of Range Forest Officer.

26. It is also clear that the respondents clubbed the case of the petitioner together with the cases of other Range Forest Officers,

who do not possess Diploma in Forestry/Wildlife and treated the petitioner outside the zone of consideration for promotion, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 5(i)(C) of Manipur Forest Service Rules as amended in 2010. Further, treating the petitioner equally with other Range Forest Officers without Diploma in Forestry/Wildlife is also in clear violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities have treated unequals as equals.

27. It is pertinent to note that all the 10 posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II became vacant prior to the enforcement of the Manipur Forest Services (2[nd] Amendment) Rules, 2013 and all the 10 vacant posts are to be filled up in terms of the provisions of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010.

28. The learned counsel for the private respondents contended that the recruitment to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II is to be made on the basis of the Manipur Forest Service Rules which was existing at the time of holding the DPC and in the present case, the amended Manipur Forest Service Rule, 2013 had come into force on 12.8.2013 and hence the said amended Rules, 2013 was in operation when the DPC dated 31.10.2013 and the review DPC dated 07.07.2018 were held.

29. Admittedly, the respondent authorities and the Committee have recommended the suitable candidates for filling up the 10 vacant posts in terms of the provisions of Manipur Forest Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010 in the earlier DPC held in 2013 as well as in the subsequent review DPC held in 2018 and the private respondents did not raise any objection at that point of time. Therefore, they are debarred from raising such objection at the distant point of time.

30. Considering the over all materials produced by both sides, it is clear that the petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to Manipur Forest Service Grade-II in terms of the first criteria as provided under Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services Rules as amended in 2010. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner has to be considered as per the provisions of Rule 5(i)(C) of Manipur Forest Services Rules as amended in 2010.

31. It is settled that where the law prescribed a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it should be done in the same manner following the provisions of law without deviating from the prescribed procedure. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the respondent authorities deviated from the prescribed procedure while considering and recommending for promotion to 10 posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II excluding the petitioner, who will be very much within the zone of consideration as provided under Rule 5(i)(C) of the Amended rules, 2010 inasmuch as he was possessing Diploma in Wildlife from Wildlife Institute of India.

32. It is reiterated that the petitioner is the officer in the grade of Range Forest Officer in the Manipur Forest Department and possessed Diploma in Forestry/Wildlife from a recognised Institute and having more than four years of regular service in the grade. Therefore, it is quite absurd to contend that the petitioner is not within the zone of consideration for promotion against 10 vacant posts of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for promotion has to be considered by the official respondents in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 by holding fresh review DPC and if the petitioner found to be eligible, appoint him to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. Such conducting of review DPC was provided in Clause 9.1 of the Official Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 of the Department of P&AR, Personnel Division, Government of Manipur, wherein it has been specifically stated that review DPC can be convened where eligible persons were omitted to be considered. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the claim of the petitioner for promotion has to be considered by the official respondents in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010 by holding another review DPC as the petitioner has made out a prima facie case.

33. In the result,

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The review DPC meeting held on 07.07.2018 in, connection with the promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II is set aside. connection with the promotion to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II is set aside.

(iii) The official respondents are directed to hold a fresh review DPC in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. review DPC in terms of Rule 5(i)(C) of the Manipur Forest Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iv) In the review DPC, all the eligible persons including the petitioner shall be considered by the official respondents. respondents.

(v) In case, the petitioner is selected and recommended by the review DPC, the official respondents are directed to appoint him to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II. recommended by the review DPC, the official respondents are directed to appoint him to the post of Manipur Forest Service Grade-II.

(vi) Since interim order not to promote the private respondents to the next higher post without leave of the Court is operating, the official respondents are directed to maintain the said interim order and subject to the out come of the review DPC to be held as per this order, give promotion to the eligible respondents to the next higher post without leave of the Court is operating, the official respondents are directed to maintain the said interim order and subject to the out come of the review DPC to be held as per this order, give promotion to the eligible persons.

(vii) No costs.

Sushil

FR/NFR

JUDGE

Digitally WAIKHsigned by WAIKHOM OM TONEN MEITEI TONEN Date: 2020.01.21 MEITEI16:43:57 +05'30'