R K TAMPHASANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed by Smt. R.K.Tamphasana Devi against the State of Manipur and 4 (four) others seeking a direction to quash the DPC proceedings dated 24.6.1996 and consequential promotion order dated 25.6.96, and also for a direction to consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector (Handloom). The petitioner joined seirvice in the Manipur Development Society (MDS) a Government of Manipur undertaking as Social Mobiliser on 24.11.87. A seniotrity list was published by the Manipur Development Society on 31.10.1991 in respect of Social Mobilisers wherein the name of the petitioner was shown iin SI. No. 38 and name of the respondents-4 and 5 were shown at SI. Nos.-- 40 and 42 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor (Handloom) on 2.2.1993. Along with the; petitioner five other persons were also promoted to the post of Supervisor (Handloom). According to merit the petitioner has been shown at SL. No.3 of the promotion order. The Manipur Development Society prepared a seniority list on 2) 1.1.96 in respect of the Supervisors (Handloom) and the petitioner was shown at SI. No. 3 and respondents - 4 and 5 were shown at SI. Nos.-4 and 5. The next higher post for; Supervisors (Handloom) is the post of Inspector (Handloom) and Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspector (Handloom) provide that the said post is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Supervisors (Handlbom) with three years service on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or by selection from amongst the social mobiliser with three years regular service on the basis of seniority cum-merit failing which by direct recruitment. The respondent No.2, Manipur Development Society hold a DPC on 24.6.96 for recommending eligible Supervisor (Handloom) for promotion to the four posts of Inspector (Handloom) on regular basis. It is, further, stated since the:petitioner is in serial No.3 of the seniority list published by the respondent No.2, her name should have been recommended for one of the four posts of Inspectors (Handloom). It is further, alleged that the DPC has committed an illegality by not recommending the name of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the respondents-4 and 5 who were junior to the petitioner in service have been illegally recommended and appointed in the post of Inspector (Handloom). The petitioner having felt aggrieved by the recommendation of the DPC and consequential promotion order of her juniors (respondents-4 and 5) in the post of Inspector (Handloom), the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 for staying the promotion order of respondents-4 and 5 and also to consider her case for promotion to the post of Inspector (Handloom). The representation of the petitioner has not been favourably considered by the respondent No.2. It is, further, stated in the petition that the post of Inspector (Handloom) is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Supervisors (Handloom) on the basis of seniority-cum- merit. The petitioner being senior to respondents-4 and 5 should have been promoted to the post of Inspector (Handloom). The petitioner during her service career has not received any communication in respect of any adverse entry in her ACRs and therefore there is no reason for respondent No.2 to supersede the petitioner by her juniors (respondent Nos.- 4 and 5). Since the petitiioner has been illegally superseded by her juniors she has filed the present application.

(2.) The respondent Nos.l, 2 and 3 have filed a joint counter affidavit wherein they have not denied the seniority position of the petitioner at SI. No.3 of the seniority list of Supervisors (Handloom). In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the case of the petitioner along with other eligible candidates who are within the zone of consideration were considered by the DPC in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and after assessment of ACRs, the DPC did not recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector (Handloom). The. representation filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Chairman, Manipur Development Society on 6.7.96 observing that there is no merit in the application of the petitioner. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that there is no adverse entry against the petitioner in her ACR, but the DPC considered the grading in the ACR of the eligible candidates, and after considering the gradings of the eligible candidates the DPC recommended the suitable candidates for promotion. Since the DPC did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion her juniors (respondents-4 and 5) were recommended for promotion to the post of Inspector (Handloom). Therefore, the petitioner should not have any grievance against the recommendation of the DPC and consequential promotion order. The respondent Nos.-4 and 5 also filed separate counter affidavit. Main contention of the respondents-4 and 5, namely W. Shusila Devi and Y. Lokendro Singh respectively, is that the petitioner was not found fit for promotion to the post of Inspector (Handloom) and therefore she has been superseded by respondents-4 and 5. These respondents however, did not challenge the seniority position of the petitioner at serial No.3 or the seniority of the petitioner over respondent Nos.-4 and 5.

(3.) Mr Ashok Potsangbam, the learned Advocate General, Manipur submitted that in the recruitment rules for the post of Inspector (Handloom) it has not been mentioned whether the post is selection post or non-selection post. The learned Advocate General, further, submitted that in the absence of such entry in the Recruitment Rules, the matter will be regulated in respect of corresponding post in the Government. It has been pointed out that in the Govt. under Industries Department there are posts of Inspectors (Handloom) and it has been mentioned in the Recruitment Rules that the post is a selection post. The learned Advocate General, consequently, submitted that the post of Inspector (Handloom) in the Manipur Development Society is also a selection post. The learned A.G. argued that the Govt. of Manipur in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) by notification dated 16.5.91 adopted the Office Memorandum of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel and A.R.) No. 22011/3/76-Estt(I) dated 24.12.1980 regarding the principle for promotion to selection post. The learned Advocate General submitted that according to the aforesaid Memo, a Select List is required to be prepared as per grading in the ACR of the eligible candidates. The learned Advocate General, further, submitted that among the eligible candidates for consideration for the post of Inspector (Handloom) the gradings of respondent Nos.-4 and .5 were 'Outstanding' whereas the grading cof the petitioner was 'Good' only in the ACR. The learned Advocate General consequently submitted that since the petitioner, though senior to the respondents 4 and 5, is less meritorious than the respondents--4 and 5, her name has not been recommended by the DPC for promotion to the post of Inspector (Handloom). On a plain reading of the aforesaid memo regarding principle for promotion of selection post, it appears that the candidates having the gradings of 'Outstanding' in the ACRs are placed above the candidates having the grading of 'Very Good' and 'Good'. It further appears that candidates whose grading is "not fit for promotion" is omitted from the list of eligible candidates for consideration for the promotional post. It further appears that the candidates having the gradings; of 'Very Good' get priority over the candidales having the grade of 'Good'. In the instant case DPC considered promotion of four posts of Inspectors (Handloom). According to the aforesaid memo of the Govt. 12 (twelve) candidates according to seniority are to be considered for promotion in four promotional posts. According to the grading in the ACR the DPC prepared a select list as per aforesaid Memo of the Central Govt. as adopted by the State of Manipur. The learned Advocate General, argued that the respondents 4 and 5 who are junior to the petitioner were graded as 'Very Good' and the petitioner has been graded as 'Good' only for consecutive three years and therefore the DPC did not recommend her name for promotion to the post of Inspector (Handloom). I cannot agree with the submission of the learned Advocate General in view of the fact that it cannot be said with definite certainity that the post is a selection post because in tthe Recruitment Rules it has been cleanly stated that promotion will be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. In case of selection posts, the promotions are made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and in that event the procedure laid down in Memo of the Central Govt. as adopted by State of Manipur shall apply for preparing the select list on the basis of gradings in the ACR of the candidates who are in the zone of consideration. Therefore, it appears that the DPC has committed a confusion in interpreting the phraseology of "promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit" and "promotion on the basis merit-cum-seniority." Learned Advocate General, however, submitted that the petitioner was not found fit by the DPC and therefore, DPC did not recommend her case. Consequently, the respondent No.2 did not appoint the petitioner in the promotional post of Inspector (Handloom). The learned Advocate General further submitted that since the petitioner has not been found fit for promotion she has been superseded by her juniors (respondents-4 and 5) who were found fit for promotion] to the post of Inspector (Handloom).