E BHUBANESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether appointment, by way of promotion, to a selection post can only be made by adhering to the principle of merit or its ancillary principle, i.e. merit-cum-seniority or suitability, is the moot question that arises in the present appeal. The aforesaid question arises in the following facts: Under the Recruitment Rules in force in the State of Manipur governing appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), the post in question has been classified to be Class III (non-gazetted/non-ministerial). The Rules, however, give the post the status of a selection post, 50% of the posts in the cadre are to be filled up by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment. In so far as promotion is concerned 85% of the promotional quota is required to be filled up from serving Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Civil) who have satisfactorily completed the period of probation and have rendered 3 years of regular service in the feeder post. The candidates in the feeder post to be eligible for promotion are required to pass the pre-promotion selection test as prescribed. The remaining 15% of the promotional quota is to be filled up from serving Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) who have a record of conspicuous acts of gallantry in discharge of duties or who are outstanding sportsmen.

(2.) The duly constituted departmental promotion committee held its deliberation on 28.3.2003 for selection for promotion against 26 vacant posts of Sub-Inspector of Police. As it appears from the record of the proceedings of the said D.P.C., after consideration of the eligible candidates as per the zone of consideration, a select list of 26 persons, was [recommended. The proceedings of the D.P.C. ialso reveal that in finalizing the select list of 26 persons, primarily, the criteria of merit was adopted. The names of the 7 petitioners, who are the appellants before us, figured in the select list prepared in the deliberations of the D.P.C. held on 28.3.2003. Thereafter, in course of the process of approval of the list prepared by the D.P.C., a question was raised as to whether the executive instructions con- larned in paragraph 5.3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 would be applicable to the selection made and on an examination of the matter, the competent authority in the State Government took the stand that the se- lection in question should have been made by adhering to the norms contained paragraph 5.3.1 of the said Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. Accordingly, by an order dated 28.6.2003, the select list was sent back by the Government for re-submission after adhering to paragraph 5.3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. A consequential order by the Inspector General of Police dated 26.7.2003 for recasting the proceedings of the D.P.C. was also issued. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the D.P.C. was; reconvened and in its deliberation held on 7.8.2003, the D.P.C. finalized a fresh list of 26 persons for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) by adhering to the requirements contained in paragraph 5.3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. The names of the petitioner appellants not have ing figured in the said select list prepared by the D.P.C. on 7.8.2003. the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed contending, inter alia, that as the Recruitment Rules had classified the post in question, i.e., Sub-inspector of Police (Civil) to be a selection post, the selection must necessarily be governed by the application of the principle of merit. It is contended that by the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 a criteria of seniority-cum-merit has been prescribed. Paragraph 5.3.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 is, therefore, contended to be ultra vires the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and on that basis the action of preparation of the second select list datied 7.8.2003, excluding the names of the petitioners-appellants, is contended to be legally untenable.

(3.) The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that, as the Recruitment Rules did not lay down any the specific criteria of selection, having regard to the category of posts (Class-Ill) for which selection was required to be made, it was qpen for the Government to prescribe the requisite norms and criteria by an executive instruction. In the absence of any specific laid down norms in the Recruitment Rules in this regard, the claim raised with regard to the executive instructions being contrary to the statutory rules was found to be without any legal foundation. On the aforesaid basis, the learned Single Judge took the view that no illegality is dissemble in the direction issued for preparation of a fresh select list by adhering to paragraph 5.3.1 of the office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 and the action taken on that basis. The writ petition filed by the appellants having been consequently dismissed, the present writ appeal has been filed.