Y PUSPARANI DEVI Vs. K MEMTHOIBI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, impleaded as respondent No. 3, in the writ proceeding, being aggrieved by the annulment of her appointment as Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Craftsman Training, Manipur, is in appeal before us, assailing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge to the said effect.

(2.) We have heard Mr. N. Kerani Singh, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jallaluddin, learned State counsel for the official respondents and Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.

(3.) It is necessary to record in brief the pleaded stand of the parties. The respondent No. I/writ petitioner approached this Court, impugning the appointment of the appellant/ respondent No. 3, as Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Craftsman Training, Manipur by the order dated 09.07.1996, issued by the Secretary (Labour) to the Govt. of Manipur. According to her, at the relevant time, she was serving as the Head Clerk at the Industrial Training Institute, Imphal. The post of Accounts Officer had fallen vacant with effect from 31.12.1995, following the retirement of its erstwhile incumbent, whereafter, she was made to function as in-charge of the said post in addition to her normal duties. In terms of the Departments/Offices under the Government of the Manipur (Accounts Officers/Assistant Financial Advisor or equivalent), Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), Head Clerks and Office Superintendents were the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer. It is a selection post to be filled up only by promotion through a departmental promotion committee associated with the Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'). The Secretariat of the Labour Department through its communication dated 15.01.96, forwarded the relevant documents including Annual Confidential Reports of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 and the appellant for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 to the Commission, with a request to recommend the candidate for promotion to the vacant post of Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Craftsman Training, Manipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Directorate'). The respondent No. 1 /writ petitioner expressed apprehension about manipulation of the Annual Confidential Report by R.R. Jhulan Singh (respondent No. 6 in the writ petition), ex-Secretary of the Commission. According to her, on 27.01.96, a DPC was convened by the Commission for which it made its recommendations for the post of Accounts Officer in the Directorate, but the same was not acted upon, being in contravention of Government notification No. 17/2/90-DP, dated 01.06.1993. Thereafter, the Government by notification dated 09.02.1996, did away with the necessity of consultation with the Commission for promotion to Class-I and Class-II posts in cases, where requisition had been made to it, but not received on or before 25.01.1996 or where the vacancies were to be filled up by promotion during the next three months. By a separate order of the Governor dated 09.02.1996, departmental promotion committees for promotions in Class-I and Class-II posts were constituted. The post of Accounts Officer in the Directorate is a Class-II post. As the preparations for convening a fresh DPC was underway, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, came to learn that the Annual Confidential Report of the candidates for the post of Accounts Officer in the Directorate, proposed to be placed before the DPC, did not tally with the Xerox copies of the originals thereof, retained by the office of the department at the time of the earlier DPC. She alleged that though, the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the DPC, which eventually met on 20.06.1996, for assessing the candidates for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, the members thereof, decided to proceed in the matter on the basis of manipulated Annual Confidential Reports. Finally on the basis of the recommendations made by the DPC, the appellant/respondent No. 3, was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer. Apart from contending that the impugned promotion was based on a recommendation founded on manipulated ACRs, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner asserted that at all relevant times her service career being superior to that of the appellant/respondent No. 3, she had been arbitrarily discriminated against and denied her legitimate right of promotion.