NINGTHOUJAM MADHUNIMAI SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents, Shri S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the MPSC, Shri Serto T. Kom, learned counsel, Shri S. Jhaljit, learned counsel and Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of the amendment, to the existing M.P.S. Rules, 1965, called the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (First Amendment), 2013 published vide Notification dated 28 -12 -2013 issued by the State Government. The petitioner has further challenged the validity and correctness of the Seniority List published vide Government order dated 17 -05 -2013, the recommendation of the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 18 -02 -2014 and the consequential orders dated 19 -02 -2014, 12 -03 -2014 and 11 -07 -2014 issued by the State Government.

(3.) THE present writ petition is contested by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by fling an affidavit -in -opposition on their behalf wherein it is stated that the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 came to be amended for smooth administration of the service and for better service deliverance to the general public. It is further stated that the final seniority was published after considering the claims and objections of the concerned officers and the petitioner cannot claim seniority over the officers who had been appointed earlier than him, since the seniority is to be counted from the date of appointment to the service in the grade. An affidavit -in -opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 to 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 33 34 and 37 was filed wherein it is stated that the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 came to be amended from time to time and the amendment published vide Notification dated 28 -12 -2013 was made as per the Guidelines of the DOPT with a view to avoid supersession amongst the MPS Officers with a bench mark and that since the petitioner had also been promoted to MPS Grade -I vide Government order dated 29 -10 -2014 without any objection, the question of quashing the said Notification did not arise. Further, an affidavit -in -opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos. 37, 39, 41, 43 to 50 was filed wherein it is stated that the petitioner was appointed only on 24 -11 -2007 by way of substitution while the answering respondents were appointed on 14 -08 -2007 and since they were already in the Grade by the time when the petitioner was appointed, he had no right to be senior to them. It is also stated that the amendment published vide Notification dated 28 -12 -2013 by which the Rule 29 (2)(B) was inserted, is absolutely valid with a rightly titled as "Method of Promotion" which is outside the scope of general principles of promotion "Merit -cum -Seniority" and "Seniority -Cum -Merit".