Manipur High Court Slams State For Failing As Model Employer | Quashes ASI Rejection, Says UR Cut-Off Cannot Be Fixed At 51
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Manipur Single Bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma set aside the rejection of a candidate's representation for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Male/Civil) in the Manipur Police Department. The Court held that the authorities failed to provide a valid justification for denying appointment when others similarly placed had been granted such benefit. The Court directed the respondent authorities to re-decide the cut-off mark for Unreserved (UR) candidates and reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh. It was recorded that the rejection was based on a claim of minimum qualifying marks which the Court found to be untenable in view of factual inconsistencies.
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Male/Civil) following a notification dated 24.04.2010 issued by the Director General of Police, Manipur. The requisite qualification was PUC or its equivalent. The petitioner successfully cleared the Physical Efficiency Test and subsequently qualified the written test, securing 40 marks and being placed at Serial No. 94 among 480 candidates listed for Interview/Viva-Voce.
On 03.03.2014, a notification declared 315 candidates recommended for selection. The petitioner was not among those recommended. However, the notification listed 203 more candidates than the originally advertised 112 posts. No formal panel or wait list was declared. Subsequently, two wait lists were generated: one comprising 32 candidates and another with 53 candidates. The Government approved filling of these upgraded vacancies.
By an order dated 04.02.2015, 368 candidates were approved for appointment. Of these, 53 candidates were not in the original DPC recommendation. The petitioner, along with others, filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2014 seeking documents but received no response, leading to a first appeal dated 03.05.2014.
An Office Memorandum dated 20.12.1995 restricted waitlists to 10% of notified vacancies. The two waitlists in this case far exceeded that limit.
In compliance with a High Court order dated 16.09.2021 in WP(C) Nos. 300 of 2016 and 660 of 2020, four similarly situated candidates, two of whom also filed the RTI application, were appointed.
The petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.08.2022 seeking parity in treatment. As no action was taken, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 824 of 2022. The Court, on 29.09.2022, directed the respondents to dispose of the representation within eight weeks by passing a speaking order.
The impugned order dated 07.10.2022 rejected the representation on the ground that the petitioner scored less than 51 marks, which was stated to be the qualifying mark for UR candidates. It was stated that the four appointed candidates also scored less than 47 marks.
The petitioner contended that these four candidates, including those scoring 39, 40, and 42 marks, were from the same ‘Not Qualified Candidates’ list. Additionally, 36 UR candidates in the waitlist scoring below 51 were also appointed.
The respondents maintained that the petitioner’s marks fell below the required threshold. A short counter affidavit was filed reiterating that 317 posts were filled following expansion from the initial 112 posts. Four appointments were justified as compliance with Court orders.
The rejoinder stated that those four appointees were from the ‘Not Qualified Candidates’ list and scored marks equal to or lower than the petitioner. It also pointed to the presence of 36 UR candidates with less than 51 marks among those appointed.
The Court recorded "The direction was only to consider the representation of those four candidates who were included along with the petitioner in the list of 'Not Qualified Candidates'. There was no specific direction from this Court for appointment of those four persons except for consideration of their representation."
On the claim of a fixed cut-off of 51 marks, the Court held "The cut-off mark for UR candidates for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.04.2010 cannot be '51' as alleged by the respondents."
Regarding the doctrine of equality, the Court cited precedent and clarified "The principle of equality before law does not extend to negative to confer a benefit contrary to law."
Further, the Court cited the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, noting "All persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
However, it clarified through precedents such as Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh that appointments in contravention of rules cannot be perpetuated, stating "The High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction... Each case must be decided on its own merits."
Applying this, the Court declined to issue mandamus on parity alone, observing "This Court has been refrained from passing similar order in the case of the petitioner, only on the ground of non-applicability of the principle of equity and parity in perpetuating wrongful act."
Yet, it found fault in the rejection order, stating "The only reason given by the respondents is untenable, wrong and cannot be sustained."
Criticising the state's approach, the Court stated "The State respondents have miserably failed to act fairly as a model employer." It noted that "the approach of the respondents is highly unethical, arbitrary, and policy of pick & choose without following a definite norm."
The Court directed that the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the Director General of Police, Manipur rejecting the petitioner’s representation be set aside. The Court directed the respondents "to decide the cut-off mark for UR candidates in the recruitment of the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (Civil/Male) in terms of the advertisement dated 24.04.2010".
Following this, the respondents were directed "to re-consider the representation of the petitioner afresh, keeping in mind that this Court never directed for outright appointment of those four other candidates except for consideration of their representation."
Further, the Court mandated that "the whole exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shyam Sharma, Government Advocate
Case Title: Shri Chintu Wahengbam v. State of Manipur and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: MNHC:119
Case Number: WP(C) No. 1110 of 2022
Bench: Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma
[Read/Download order]
