Item No. 12-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 308 of 2024 with
MC(WP(C) No. 106 of 2024 with
MC(WP(C) No. 278 of 2024 with
MC(WP(C) No. 435 of 2024 with
MC(WP(C) No. 47 of 2024 with
MC(WP(C) No. 90 of 2024 with
WP(C) No. 79 of 2024
Lairikyengbam Tomocha Roy & 2 Ors.
Petitioner
…
- Versus-
The State of Manipur represented by the
Chief Secretary & 25 Ors.
…Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
O R D E R
29.11.2024.
[1] Heard Mr. RK. Mehta, learned counsel assisted by
Mr. E. Premjit, learned counsel and Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. Devananda, learned
Addl. A.G. assisted by Mr. Tomclist, learned counsel for the State
respondent, Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel for the Principal
Accountant General and Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the
private respondents.
[2] The petitioners are Executive Engineers in IFCD
Department (now Water Resources Department) and they were
Page 1
promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from
03.02.2018 and their appointment has been upheld by the
common judgment dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the batch of writ petitions being WP(C) No.
917 of 2017 and etc.
[3] In para 29, the Division Bench upheld the failing
clause inserted in the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post
of Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department.
[4] In para 30 of the Division Bench order, it was
observed that out of 25 vacant posts of Executive Engineer, the
direct recruit Assistant Engineer could be considered for
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The judgment dated
30.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench is challenged before the
SLP No. 25889-25894 of 2023
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of
and the same is pending. Vide order dated 11.12.2023, the
to be
Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that any promotion made
subject to the outcome of the special writ petitions. Thereafter, on
the basis of the DPC held on 22.12.2023, out of 23 direct recruits,
21 Assistant Engineers were promoted to the post of Executive
Engineers vide order dated 27.12.2023 giving notional effect from
03.02.2018.
[5] The petitioners preferred two writ petitions being
WP(C) No. 79 of 2024 challenging the promotion of 21 private
Page 2
respondents dated 27.12.2023 to the post of Executive Engineer,
also the posting order dated 16.01.2024 and in writ petition being
WP(C) No. 308 of 2024, the petitioners herein challenged the
proceeding of the DPC dated 22.12.2023 recommending the
promotion of 21 private respondents to the post of Executive
Engineer notionally with effect from 03.02.2018.
[6] Mr. RK. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that the DPC proceeding dated 22.12.2023 and the
promotion of 21 private respondents dated 27.12.2023 and
posting order dated 16.01.2024 are in violation of the direction of
the Division Bench in the order dated 30.10.2023.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl.
A.G. for the State respondent, has raised the question of
maintainability of the writ petitions to the effect that the petitioners
who had already been promoted to the post of Executive
Engineers in the year 2018, cannot challenge the promotion of the
private respondents made on 27.12.2023.
[8] Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the private
respondent, adopts the submissions of the learned Addl. A.G.
[9] Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel for the Principal
Accountant General, refers to the counter affidavit stating that the
matter pertaining to appointment and promotion is prerogative of
the Administrative Department.
Page 3
[10] Mr. RK. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner,
has pointed out that it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were
promoted in the year 2018 with effect from 03.02.2018 and the
private respondents who were promoted in the year 2023 are also
given notionally from the same date i.e. 03.02.2018. Since the
private respondents were senior to the petitioners in the cadre of
Assistant Engineer, by the impugned DPC proceeding dated
22.12.2023 and impugned promotion order dated 27.12.2023, the
private respondents would be senior to the petitioners and others
who have already been promoted in the year 2018 and the
petitioners are aggrieved by putting the private respondents above
them in the cadre of Executive Engineer.
[11] At this stage, Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G.,
submits that the seniority list in the cadre of Executive Engineer is
yet to be prepared and the apprehension of the petitioners are
pre-matured, as the final seniority list is yet to be finalised.
[12] Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel, also submits that
the apprehension of the petitioners is pre-matured.
[13] This Court has considered the materials on record
and the submissions made at the bar.
[14] On mere perusal of the proceeding of the DPC dated
22.12.2023 and the promotion order dated 27.12.2023 of the
private respondents to the post of Executive Engineer, it is natural
Page 4
for the petitioners to have apprehension that the private
respondents would be put above them in the seniority list.
However, as clarified by the learned Addl. A.G. to the effect that
the tentative as well as final seniority list of the cadre of the
Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department is yet to
be prepared, there is no injury to the petitioners at the moment.
[15] In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that
the apprehension of the petitioners of putting the private
respondents above them in the seniority list in the cadre of
Executive Engineer of Water Resources Department is pre-
mature. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the final seniority list of
the cadre of Executive Engineer in the Water Resources
Department, they are at liberty to approach this Court by
appropriate proceeding.
[16] Mr. RK. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that since there is no stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the pending SLP, the State respondent may be directed to
prepare the seniority list of Executive Engineer within a stipulated
period of time.
[17] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G., submits that
since the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it
may not be appropriate to the State respondent to prepare final
seniority list at its own and the petitioners may be directed to
Page 5
submit a representation in this regard and they will consider as per
rule.
[18] Mr. RK. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that the petitioners will submit a detailed representation to
the State respondent within two weeks and the State respondent
may consider the case of the petitioners as per rule.
[19] With this observations and directions, writ petitions
are disposed of. Misc. applications are also disposed of in terms of
the above observations and directions.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA
MARING
Date: 2024.12.03
MARING
14:58:17 +05'30'
Page 6