KSH. LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND OTHERS. versus STATE OF MANIPURAND OTHERS
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 439, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
[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, substitute, 
casual basis, etc. on direct recruitment were to be terminated 
and various Government Departments were also subjected to 
downsizing of staffs. 
5. Before the High Court, the writ
petitioners pleaded that 
although there were 27 vacancies in the grade of Assistant 
Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department most 
F 
of which were to be filled up by promotion, the office of the 
Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipurvide his letter dated 29.8.2012 G 
submitted a proposal to the Principal Secretary (PHE), 
Government of Manipur for filling up 25 of the vacant posts by 
way of direct recruitment. The writ petitioners contended that 
till the ban is lifted on direct recruitment, the Department cannot H 
proceed to initiate any action for filling up the vacant posts by
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A direct recruitment and as such, the aforesaid action on the 
part of the authorities to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct 
recruitment is not permissible. It has also been contended on 
behalf of the appellants that as per the office memorandum 
dated 29.4.1999 issued by the Department of Personnel & 
B Administrative Reforms, Personnel Division, Government of 
Manipur the vacancies are to be filled up on year wise basis 
and quota for promotion vis-a-vis the direct recruitment is to 
be worked out on year wise basis. !t has been further pleaded 
that those vacancies which became available prior to the 
C enforcement of the Rules of 2009 for the Assistant Engineers 
i.e. 29.7.2009 cannot be counted in the determinatio"n of 
number of vacancies for direct recruitment quota. According 
to them, the number of vacancies for direct recruitment quota 
D under the 2009 Rules should be calculated on the basis of 
vacancies available after 28. 7.2009. However, the authorities 
have not followed any norm for determination of vacancies to 
the post of Assistant Engineer which are to be filled up by way 
of direct recruitment. 
E 
6. After hearing learned. counsel on either side and 
perusing a copy of the Government order dated 12.8.2013 
placed on record by the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for 
the State, which showed that the Government of Manipur had 
F relaxed the ban on direct recruitment partially in respect of 
certain
services/posts including the post of Assistant Engineer 
for Power/Works/PHE/IFC departments, learned Single Judge 
of the High Court disposed of the writ petition observing as 
under: 
G 
H 
"Since the Government has already t.aken a decision as 
evident from the order dated 12.8.2013 for lifting the ban 
o.n direct recruitment partially in respect of certain posts 
including the post of Assistant Engineer for Public Health 
Engineering Department, the action taken by the 
Department for filling up the vacancies in the grade of
KSH. LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND OTHERS. v. STATE OF 443 
MANIPUR [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Assistant Engineer against direct recruitment quota as A 
mentioned in the impugned letter dated 02.02.2013 
cannot be faulted with and accordingly, no writ can be 
issued to set aside/ quash the impugned letter dated 
02.02.2013. However, as regards the actual number of 
vacancies to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public B 
Health Engineering Department which may be filed up by 
direct recruit, it is clarified that the State authorities would 
re-examine the exact number of vacancies falling under 
direct recruitment quota before any appointment is made 
to the post of Assistant Engineer in terms of the C 
recommendation of the Manipur Public Service 
Commission on direct recruitment quota, so that any 
vacancy, which otherwise would fall under the promotion 
quota is not filled up by direct recruitment. Accordingly, if 0 
any appointment is made under the direct recruitment 
quota in excess of the direct recruitment quota as per the 
relevant recruitment rules, the petitioners, if aggrieved, 
would be at liberty to approach this Court again." 
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, thethree E 
writ petitioners preferred this appeal by special leave. While 
issuing notice in the matter on 29.11.2013, this Court directed 
that the result of the selection shall remain pending subject to 
final decision of the special leave petition. Thereafter, 
F 
respondents-State moved an
interlocutory application being 
IA No.1/2014 for vacating stay, upori which learned senior 
counsel on both sides were heard and following order was 
passed by this Court on 3.7.2014: 
"Our order dated 29.11.2013 is modified to the following G 
extent: 
1) 
The State shall be free to fill up the vacancies 
advertised in the direct recruitment quota subject to 
the condition that three ourof such vacancies are left H
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
unfilled. 
B 
2) 
Appointment against the advertised vacancies, if any, 
shall remain subject to the ultimate outcome of these 
proceedings. 
3) 
Appointment orders issued to the selected 
candidates shall specifically mention that their 
appointments are subject to the outcome of this -
petition. 
C 
Post the petition for final disposal after six weeks. 
Counter affidavits and rejoinder, if any, be filed in the 
meantime if not already filed." 
8. Other Section Officers Grade-I also preferred writ 
o petitions before the High Court with a prayer for direction to 
the respondents to keep posts vacant for the writ-petitioners. 
Upon this prayer, learned Single Judge of the High Court on 
25.7.2014 observed that it would not be appropriate on the 
part of the High Court to direct that some post be kept unfilled 
E and, therefore, refused to pass any interim order except that 
any appointment made in pursuanceof the advertisement shall 
be subject to outcome of the writ application. 
9. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court to not grant 
F interim order, aforesaid two groups of Section Officers Grade-
l are also before us by way of appeals under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. We have heard learned counsel appearing for 
the parties at length. 
G 
H 
10. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 
appellants, made the following submissions: 
(I) The statutory Recruitment Rules dated 27.07.2009 and 
the Rules in force
even earlier mandate that 60% of the 
vacancies shall be filled by promotion and 40% by direct 
recruitment and not the posts in the cadre. But the Chief
KSH. LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND OTHERS. v. STATE OF 445 
MANIPUR [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Engineer, the Government and the Public Service A 
Commission have applied the quotas to the 'cadre 
strength' of Assistant Engineers and not to the vacancies 
which is contrary to the statutory rules. 
(II) The respondents herein have not only applied the B 
quota to the cadre strength as stated above but also 
carried forward almost all the vacancies on the erroneous 
supposition that they are meant for direct recruitment and 
filled up 22 out of the 27 accumulated vacancies by direct 
recruitment subject to the outcome of the SLP, keeping C 
three vacancies for the appellants in terms of the interim 
order. This is a clear violation of not only the statutory 
rules and administrative instructions but also Articles 14 
and 16(1) of the Constitution. 
(111) According to Mr. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the 
appellants, the quota prescribed for promotion and direct 
recruitment will apply to vacancies and not to posts in 
the cadre. 
(IV) For the last 30 years, there is not a single promotion 
given to candidates eligible for promotion as Assistant 
Engineers. An officer should get at least two promotions 
D 
E 
in his career as per law declared by this Court. But the 
respondent-Government has acted most arbitrarily by F 
allowing stagnation of officers eligible for the post of 
Assistant Engineer for the last 30 years in violation of 
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 
(V) The High
Court failed to decide the issues arising in G 
the Writ Petitions. The impugned judgment is liable to 
be set aside. This Court may be pleased to grant special 
leave, allow the appeals and direct the respondents to 
fill up the vacancies of 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012 by 
promotion with retrospective effect and fill the remaining 
H
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015} 10 S.C.R. 
A 
vacancies according to the respective quotas i.e. 60% 
by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment. 
11. On the other hand, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior 
counsel appearing for the respondent-State, firstly drawn our 
B attention to the operative portion of the impugned judgment 
and submitted that the appellants raised only one question 
before the High Court which has been decided by the 
impugned judgment. 
C 
12. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, denied the submissions 
made by Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
appellants that no promotions have been given to the 
candidates eligible for promotion for the last 30 years. He also 
denied that there is stagnation in the service inasmuch as the 
0 
appellants and other similarly situated persons have been 
granted benefits undertheACP scheme. 
13. In course of arguments, Mr. Gupta, learned senior 
counsel, submits that still there are 16 vacancies available 
against the promotion quota and the appellants come within 
E eight in the seniority list. They shall automatically get promotion. 
Having regard to the fair submissions made by Mr. Gupta, 
learned counsel, we do not want to go into the question raised 
by Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 
F 
14.As notice above, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, very fairly 
submitted that 16 vacancies for promotion against the 
promotion quota are available and in any case the appellants 
shall be considered
for promotion. In that view of the matter, 
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed 
G by the High Court. However, we dispose of the appeals holding 
that the appellants' case shall be considered for promotion 
against the promotion quota as they are much above in the 
seniority list. The question of law raised by the appellants shall 
be kept open. 
H 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals disposed of.