Manipur High Court
Guruaribam Nalima Devi & 50 Ors vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors on 16 July, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
LAIRENM Digitally signed 1
by
AYUM LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET Item Nos. 23 & 26
INDRAJE SINGH
Date: 2025.07.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
ET SINGH 16:40:14 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 141 of 2024
Guruaribam Nalima Devi & 50 ors. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Manipur & 2 ors. Respondents
With
WP(C) No. 874 of 2024
Yendrenbam Radhamani Devi Petitioner
Vs.
State of Manipur & 2 ors. Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
16.07.2025
[1] Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in WP(C) No. 141 of 2024; and Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing
for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 874 of 2024. Heard also Mr. S. Nepolean,
learned G.A. appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in both the writ petitions;
and Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent
Nos. 3 in both the writ petitions.
[2] The present writ petitions have been filed assailing the letter
dated 21.11.2023 from the Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption
Department, Manipur, recommending to the Commissioner (Education/S),
2
Government of Manipur for streamlining the functioning of the Council of
Higher Secondary Education, Manipur, and also for cancelling the
promotion orders of 16(sixteen) employees as mentioned in the said letter
on the ground that they have not completed the mandatory period of
8(eight) years’ service as provided under the Recruitment Rules (R.R.)
notified by the COHSEM on 27.02.2010(2019) and to hold a fresh DPC for
those who have completed 8(eight) years in their respective posts or
otherwise eligible as per the R.R. In the present two writ petitions, the
petitioners have also assailed the letter dated 29.01.2024 from the Joint
Secretary, Education(S), Government of Manipur, addressed to the
Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur, conveying the
approval of the government to cancel the promotion of the aforesaid
16(sixteen) employees, who did not complete the probation period of
2(two) years and also to cancel the DPC held on 28.06.2022, except in
cases of 4(four) employees who had completed 8(eight) years of
mandatory service as well as directing to recover the excess amount paid
due to such promotion in 6(six) Monthly installments.
[3] The case of the petitioners is that under the impugned letter
dated 21.11.2023 from the State Vigilance Commission, recommendation
has been made for cancelling the promotion order in respect of 16(sixteen)
employees named in the impugned letter, who are the petitioners herein,
on the ground that majority of them have not yet completed the mandatory
period of 8(eight) years’ service as provided under the Recruitment Rules
3
notified by COHSEM on 27.02.2019 and also for holding a fresh DPC only
for those who have completed 8(eight) years’ service. The simple case of
the petitioners is that the so called R.R. alleged to be notified by the
COHSEM on 27.02.2019 and on which, the State Vigilance Commission
have relied on for making the recommendation for cancelling the
promotion of the petitioners, is yet to be approved, notified and enforced
by the Government. In short, it is the case of the petitioners that as on
today, there is no approved or enforced R.R. in respect of the posts against
which the petitioners have been promoted and as such, in the eyes of law
there is no valid recruitment rules for regulating the promotion against the
posts held by the petitioners. Accordingly, it has been submitted on behalf
of the petitioners that the recommendation made by the State Vigilance
Commission for cancelling the order of promotion in respect of the
petitioners by solely relying on the provisions of an unenforced or
unapproved RR is not sustainable in the eyes of law and that such
recommendation has been made on misconceived facts and accordingly,
such recommendation is not sustainable. Accordingly, a prayer has been
made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing and setting aside both the
impugned letters. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that as on today, neither the State authorities nor the Council have not yet
issued any orders cancelling the promotion orders of the petitioners
pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation made by the State Vigilance
Commission as well as by the Joint Secretary, Education(s) Department
4
and that the petitioners are still continuing to discharge their duties of the
posts to which they have been promoted.
[4] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of both the
State respondents as well as the State Vigilance Commission, submitted
the following contentions:-
(i) The learned G.A. by drawing attention of this Court to
the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 2,
i.e., Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department,
Government of Manipur, more particularly at paragraph
Nos. 4, 5, 7 & 9, submitted that it has been clearly
stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the
recommendation for cancellation of the promotion
order of the petitioners has been made on the basis on
the recruitment rules alleged to have been notified by
the Council of Higher Secondary Education Manipur on
27.02.2019 and that this factum is clearly on record.
(ii) The learned G.A. also by drawing attention of this Court
to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of
respondent No. 1, i.e., State of Manipur represented
by the Commissioner/Secretary, Education (Schools)
Department, more particularly at paragraph Nos. 6, 8
& 9, submitted that as there were no Recruitment Rules
framed by the Council which have been approved by
5
the State Government for all the posts in COHSEM,
including the posts held by the petitioners, the
COHSEM by invoking its power provided under Section
13(xxi) of the Manipur Higher Secondary Education Act,
1992 and in consonance with the approval of the
Administrative Committee and with due approval of the
Council, have given promotion to the petitioners. It has
also been submitted that such promotion has been
given after due process as prescribed under the said
Act and that as on today neither the government nor
the council have issued any order cancelling such
promotion pursuant to the recommendation made by
the State Vigilance Commission.
(iii) The learned G.A., further submitted that as there is no
approved RR for the said posts, the authorities of
COHSEM have exercised its power as provided under
Section 12(6) and Section 13(xxi) of the Manipur
Higher Secondary Education Act, 1992 and have given
promotion to the petitioners and that COHSEM have
the power and authority to give such promotion.
[5] The learned G.A., accordingly submitted that any appropriate
order as deem fit and proper may be passed by this Court taking into
6
consideration the facts and circumstances of these cases as well as the
relevant provisions of law.
[6] Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel, representing
respondent No. 3, i.e., the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur
(COHSEM) submitted that even though the authorities of the COHSEM
have, under the notification dated 27.02.2019, proposed various
Recruitment Rules for regulating the appointment to various posts in
COHSEM for obtaining approval of the State government, the said
notification as well as the proposed Recruitment Rules are yet to be
approved and enforced by the Government. The learned senior counsel
accordingly submitted that as on today, there is no approved RR for the
various post in COHSEM including the posts against which the present
petitioners have been promoted. The learned senior counsel submitted
that in absence of any approved RR, the authorities of COHSEM have the
power and authority to appoint and to give promotion to any posts in the
Council by resorting to the provisions of Section 12 & 13 of the Manipur
Higher Secondary Education Act, 1992 and there is no illegality in giving
such promotion. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that
as there is no approved or enforced RR in respect of the posts against
which the petitioners have been given promotion, the recommendation
made by the State Vigilance Commission for cancelling such promotion
order by relying only on the provisions of RR, which is yet to be enforced
or notified, is per se arbitrary and unsustainable. The learned senior
7
counsel also endorsed the submission made by the learned G.A. that as on
today neither the State Government nor the Council have issued any order
cancelling the order of promotion of the petitioners pursuant to the
recommendation made by the State Vigilance Commission and that the
petitioners are also continuing in their service. The learned senior counsel
also submitted that any appropriate order as deem fit and proper may be
passed by this Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
[7] I have heard at length the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully examined all the
materials available on record. In the present case, under the notification
dated 27.02.2019 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur,
various recruitment rules, specifying the method of recruitment, age limit,
qualification and other matters, were annexed thereto. However, in the
affidavit in opposition filed by respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No.
3, who are the competent authorities, it has been clearly and specifically
stated that as on today, such recruitment rules as proposed by the Council
of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur are yet to be approved by the
government and as such, there is no valid recruitment rules for regulating
the appointment against various posts, including the posts presently held
by the petitioners, in the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur.
[8] On perusal of the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of
respondent No. 2, i.e., the State Vigilance Commission as well as the
8
affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 1, it is clearly seen that
the recommendation made by the State Vigilance Commission for
recommending the cancellation of the order of promotion of the petitioners
is solely based on the provisions of an unapproved, un-notified and
unenforced recruitment rules. In the face of such undisputed facts, this
Court has no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that the
recommendation made by the State Vigilance Commission is without any
basis and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
[9] On perusal of the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 & 2, this Court also finds that it has been clearly and
specifically stated that respondent No. 3 has the power and authority to
appoint, either by direct or by promotion, officers and employees of the
COHSEM whenever it may consider necessary for discharging its functions,
as provided under Section 12 & Section 13 of the Manipur Higher
Secondary Education Act, 1992. In view of such clear and ambiguous
statement made by respondent Nos. 1 & 3 in their affidavit-in-opposition,
this Court did not find any illegality in the promotion given to the present
petitioners and as such, this court did not find any ground or reason to
upheld the recommendation made by the State Vigilance Department as
well as by the Joint Secretary, Education(S), Government of Manipur,
under the two impugned letters dated 21.11.2023 and 29.01.2024.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have
been able to make out a case of interfering with the impugned letters.
9
This Court also takes note of the submission advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties that as on today, neither the State
Government nor the authorities of the COHSEM have issued any order
cancelling the order of promotion in respect of the petitioners and that the
petitioners are still discharging their duties efficiently and to the
satisfaction of the concerned authorities.
[10] Taking into consideration the undisputed facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court come to the conclusion that
the recommendation made by the State Vigilance Commission and the
Secretary, Education (S) Department under the two impugned letters are
arbitrary and without any authority of law. Accordingly, the said two
impugned letters dated 21.11.2023 and 29.01.2024 are hereby quashed
and set-aside.
With the aforesaid direction, both the writ petitions are disposed
of. Parties are to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Indrajeet
[ad_1]
Source link