IMPHAL, October 23: The High Court of Manipur has today quashed a “Review DPC” conducted on July 1, 2013 of an earlier DPC conducted on January 12, 2007 for promotion of MPS Grade II officers of the Manipur Police department.
The judgement of the case no WP (c) No 816 of 2013 was passed by a single bench of Justice Kh Nobin Singh.
The joint petitioners of the case are Lourembam Deban Singh of Khuyathong Polem Leikai and Thongom Ramgopal Singh of Chingamakha Yengkhom Leikai.
The respondents in the case are The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary, commissioner/ secretary (Home), Director General of Police and Manipur Public Service Commission represented by secretary, MPSC and 38 police officers.
The final hearing of the court was conducted on October 8 and the judgement passed today.
The judgement said “… the proceeding of the review DPC in its meeting held on July 1 and the government order dated October 18, 2013 are quashed and set aside with the following directions.”
The court’s direction said the official respondents and in particular, the respondent MPSC shall convene/ hold a Review DPC to consider the cases of all eligible candidates who were within the zone of consideration as on January 12, 2007 for appointment on promotion to the post of ‘MPS Grade-II in accordance with the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 and submit its recommendation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
It also directed all incumbents as on date including the petitioners, private and proforma respondents shall be allowed to continue in service in their respective positions till the recommendation being submitted by a Review DPC and appointment orders being issued by the State Government based on its recommendation.
It also said while considering the ACRs of the eligible candidates as one of the factors of determining merit, the overall grading of ACRs as per the Assessment Chart prepared by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) which has remained undisputed/uncontroverted by any one and has attained finality, “shall be the only basis so far as the petitioners and the respondents who were parties before the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007, are concerned and in other words, it is made clear that no down-gradation or up-gradation of ACRs is permissible in respect of these persons.
The order further said in so far as the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 and others who were not parties before the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 are concerned, the overall grading of their ACRs shall be made strictly on the basis of their original ACRs recorded by the competent authorities, as were available with the State respondents as on January 12, 2007, under the provisions of OM dated April 29, 1999 as interpreted/held by the Division Bench of this Court on June 2, 2015 in W.A. No. 39 of 2010 and in other words, it is made clear that no down-gradation or up-gradation of their ACRs is permissible except in accordance with what has been held by the Division Bench of this court in the said writ appeal and that there shall be no order as to costs.
In their petition, the two petitioners had said as many as 41 vacant posts of MPS Grade II were available for appointment on promotion from amongst the eligible Inspectors of police, out of which two vacancies occurred in the year 2005-06 and 39 vacancies in the year 2006-07.
They said that a DPC was convened on January 12, 2007 for consideration of the eligible Inspectors of Police for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade II.
Although there were 41 vacant posts of MPS Grade II, only 40 Inspectors of Police/ Subedars/ Subedar majors were promoted by the DPC, according to their petition.
It also said that challenging the DPC, the petitioners and another person filed a writ petition being WP (c) No 265 of 2007 praying for quashing the said recommendation of the DPC.
The petition was filed citing downgrading of ACRs of candidates during the DPC.
On March 12, 2010, the then Gauhati High Court Imphal Bench in its ruling on the case directed the respondents of the case to review DPC of the DPC within three months.
The petitioners had also filed another petition against the review DPC conducted on July 1, 2013 stating that not only the ACRs were altered but there were also several irregularities in the conduct of the Review DPC.