GURUARIBAM CHITTARANJAN SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate with Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3, i.e., Manipur Public Service Commission, Shri Roshni Piba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 6, Shri M. Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 10 and 11 and Ms. Monomala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing/setting aside the entire proceedings of the DPC held on 22 -03 -2014 and for reviewing the same thereafter.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, on seeing the said promotion order dated 27 -03 -2014, the petitioner felt suspicious that though there were 3 (three) posts reserved for the ST, promotions had been given to 4 (four) candidates belonging to ST and 1 (one) belonging to SC. Being aggrieved by the said order, one Shri Ch. Ganeshlal Singh submitted an application dated 03 -05 -2014 to the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing information in regard to the proceedings of the said DPC held on 22 -03 -2014 and the Assessment Chart being considered by the Manipur Public Service Commission. The MPSC, Imphal, Manipur vide its letter dated 10 -04 -2014 furnished the information as sought for by the applicant. After seeing the proceedings of the DPC held on 22 -03 -2014, the petitioner felt that the proceedings of the said DPC was irregular as the DPC did not consider the case of the petitioner though he was within the zone of consideration and was very much eligible for appointment as District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer. The act of the State respondents in not properly assessing the Roster Point and the issuance of the said order dated 27 -03 -2014 based on the said recommendation of the DPC is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending inter -alia that though there are three posts reserved for the candidates belonging to ST, the State respondents have given promotions to four ST candidates thereby exceeding the percentage of reservation; that the respondents have violated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 1988, UP Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karmachari Kalyan Sangh v. UP State Electricity Board & ors. referred to in SLP (C) No. 14568 -69/1995, C.D. Bhatia & ors v. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble Court agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be a separate zone of consideration so far as the SC/ST candidates are concerned; that the principle that when a member belonging to reserved category gets selected on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the quota reserved for him but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard to recruitment by open competition and not by promotion effected on the basis of seniority -cum -suitability has not been followed; that the principle that in the case of promotion, the reserved posts be filled up by the candidates belonging to reserved category and unreserved posts be filled up by the general candidates as per roster point and there shall be no encroachment upon each other has not been followed in the present case and that the proceedings of the DPC are not in accordance with the roster for promotion.