LexKSH. LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND OTHERS. versus STATE OF MANIPURAND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 439 KSH. LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND OTHERS. A v. STATE OF MANIPURAND OTHERS • (Civil Appeal No.6783 of 2015 etc.) SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 B [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Service /aw-Appointment- Quota for promotion vis-a- vis direct recruitment -Appellants serving as Section Offic- c ers - In terms of the recruitment rules, for the next promo- tional post of Assistant Engineers, 60% of the posts to be filled up by promotion· and 40% by direct recruitment - Fi- nancial crunch faced by the State Government, policy deci- sion imposing total ban on appointment under direct recruit- D ment quota - However, issuance of letter by the Department to initiate the process for direct recruitment to the said post- Writ petition by appellants seeking quashing of the letter- Single Judge held that since the Government had lifted the ban on direct recruitment partially in respect of certain posts E· including the post of Assistant Engineer, the action taken by the Department for filling up the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Engineer against direct recruitment quota cannot be faulted with- In appeal before this Court, case of the ap- pellants that the quota prescribed for promotion and direct F recruitment would apply to vacancies and not to posts in the cadre and the Department have not only applied the quota to the cadre strength but also carried forward almost all the vacancies on the erroneous supposition that they are meant for direct recruitment- Held: As fairly submitted by the State G that still there are 16 vacancies available against the pro- motion quota and the appellants come within eight in the seniority list, appellants' case would be considered for pro- 439 H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A motion against the promotion quota - PWD, IFCD and PHED, Manipur Assistant Engineer (Civil! Meehan/cal) !Assistant Surveyor of Works Recruitment Rules, 2009. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. B 6783 of2015. c D E From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2013 of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in W.P. (C) No. 155 of 2013. WITH C.A. NOS. 6784 and 6785 OF 2015 P. P. Rao, Raj Kumar Mehta, Swarnenadu Chatterjee, Elangbum P.S.,Abhishek Upadhyay, HimanshiAndleyforthe Appellants. Jaideep Gupta, S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Thibohal Singh, Biswajit Meitei, Z. H. Isaac Haiding, Ashok Kumar Singh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Sumit Kumar Vats, Sneha Iyer for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.35459 of 2013 F is directed against the Judgment and order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Manipur, who disposed of the writ petition preferred by the appellants seeking quashing of the letter dated 02.02.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, G Government of Manipur to the Manipur Public Service Commission to initiate the process for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur. H 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are KSH. LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND OTHERS. v. STATE OF 441 MANIPUR [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] Master Degree/Degree Holders serving in the Public Health A Engineering Department as Section Officers Grade-I. The next higher promotional post for them is the post of Assistant Engineer, which is. to be filled up in terms of the recruitment rules known as PWD, IFCD and PHED, Manipur Assistant Engineer (Civil/ Mechanical) /Assistant Surveyor of Works B Recruitment Rules, 2009 (in short "Rules of 2009"). As per the aforesaid recruitment rules, 60% of the posts of Assistant Engineers are to be filled up by promotion and the remaining 40% by direct recruitment. As regards the 60% promotional quota, 50% of the vacancies thereof are to be filled by Degree C Holders Section Officers Grade-I and the remaining 50% by Diploma Holders and others. 4. It has been pleaded that due to certain financial crunch faced by the State Government in the past, the State D Government took a policy decision in the year 1999 by which a total ban was imposed on appointment under direct recruitment quota. Thereafter, the State Government, considering the continuing acute financial condition of the State Government, issued an order on 19.03.2001 by which all E appointments made on part-time, contract, adhoc,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.