STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. MAIPHAI HONGCHUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Manipur and the Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Manipur, are in appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 19/12/2019 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 253 of 2017.

(2.) Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate-General, Manipur, for the appellants; Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel, for respondents No. 1-4; and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned counsel, for respondents No. 5-9.

(3.) Respondents No. 1-4 are members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Manipur. They hold Diplomas in Civil Engineering and were appointed as Sec. Officers Grade-II in the Civil Engineering Service in the PWD, Government of Manipur, in September, 1987. They were promoted as Sec. Officers Grade-I in December, 1994. Their next promotional post is Assistant Engineer(AE)/Assistant Surveyor of Works(ASW) (Civil). As per the Manipur Civil Engineering Services (PWD) Rules, 2016, vacancies in the post of AE/ASW (Civil) have to be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 60:40. The promotional quota of 60% is subdivided into two categories: one, for Degree/AIME holders in Civil Engineering and the second, for those who hold Diplomas in Civil Engineering (3-years course) from recognized institutes. The seniority list of Sec. Officers Grade-I was notified on 30/4/2015. Respondents No. 1-4 figured therein at Sl. Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 221 respectively while respondents No. 5-9 stood at Sl. Nos. 170, 173, 174, 175 and 178 respectively. While so, respondents No. 1-4 claimed that they came to know of the Special DPC meeting held on 28/12/2016 on the strength of which, orders were issued on 16/3/2017 making 138 promotions to the posts of AE/ASW (Civil). They asserted that the Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1976 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1976'), was not implemented while effecting these promotions as only 22 candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes were promoted though 42 such candidates should have been promoted. They claimed that a number of Sec. Officers-I whose names were below their names in the seniority list were included in the orders of promotion. They then averred in specific terms that the proceedings of the DPC as well as the impugned order of promotion, as far as it related to respondents No. 3-7 in the writ petition, were liable to be set aside. On the strength of these pleadings, they prayed thus in the writ petition: -