Shri Lungkhangwibou Abonmai v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN

04.04.2022 Heard Mr. S.Worthing, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.Samarjit, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. [2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner. [3] Mr. S. Worthing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 13.10.2010, the brother of the petitioner shot by a police commando at Makhan and the bullet injury permanently damaged his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed from chest down. He would submit that within a week, the then Superintendent of Police met the family members of the victim and after seeing the seriousness of the injury caused, he made an assurance that the younger brother of the victim will be given appointment to the post of rifleman without fail. [4] The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the assurance given, the immediate younger brother of the victim, namely Sangdirong Abonmei, applied for the post of police constable under Manipur Police Department in the recruitment year 2010, however, he was not selected. Though the then Superintendent Police recommended the appointment of the brother of the victim, he was not included in the selection list during 2013. [5] The learned counsel then submitted that in the year 2015, the then Hon’ble Minister Z.Kikhonbou Newmai also recommended for selection of the applicant, but despite clearing the examination, he was not selected. Since Sangdirong Abonmei became overage, he could not apply for the post further. Therefore, the petitioner, who is the younger brother of the victim, applied for the said post in 2019 recruitment, for which the MLA also recommended the petitioner for the post of police constable in accordance with the mutual agreement between the Police Department and the family of the victim. [6] The learned counsel urged that even after different authorities recommended for the appointment, no steps was taken. The petitioner also submitted several representations for consideration of the prior agreement, but there was no response. According to learned counsel, since the unfortunate incident dated 13.6.2010, the innocent victim has become immobile down the chest leaving him bed-ridden for more than ten years now and his poor parents have become old and are unable to take proper care of him. In fact, he needed a permanent attendant to take care of him for feeding him food, to attend the call of nature, to sit or change sleeping position, to clean for himself and in all respects of life. There is no one employed in the family and hence, there is no income to look after the victim who needs constant attention and needed special diet for his deteriorating health. [7] On the other hand, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner, who is the second brother of the victim applied for recruitment of 10th and 11th IRB (Rifleman), 2019 and has cleared PET. He would submit that the Inspector General of Police (Admn.), Manipur also recommended the name of the petitioner to the Chairman, DPC for Direct Recruitment of Rifleman 10th and 11th IRB, Manipur for appointment. Now the petitioner also cleared the written test examination and his name has been shown in Serial No.5191. According to the learned Government Advocate, the recruitment process is still in progress and there is high chance that the petitioner might get selected in the selection list if he had performed well in the viva-voce that concluded recently. Arguing so, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the prayer for appointment in this writ petition is premature and therefore, liable to be dismissed. [8] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. [9] There is no dispute that on 13.6.2010, the brother of the petitioner, namely Ab. Kaidihemang, was shot by a police commando Takhellambam Anou Meitei, Imphal Police Station bearing No.0601029 at Makhan. In the course of the said action, the victim received bullet injury at his left shoulder and chest and the bullet injury also damaged his spinal cord, leaving him permanently disabled and paralyzed from chest down. There is also no dispute that after the incident, the Imphal West Police Commando led by L.Kailun, the then Superintendent of Police met the family members of the victim and made an assurance for appointment to the post of police constable to the younger brother of the victim. Accordingly, the younger brother of the victim Sangdirong Abonmei applied for the post of police constable and he was not selected despite the recommendation of the then Hon’ble Minister, namely Z.Kikhonbou Newmai in the year 2015. Again in 2016, the then Inspector General of Police also recommended the name of Sangdirong Abonmei for appointment. Despite making repeated applications for the post and clearing of the examination, he was not selected according to the prior agreement. Thereafter, Sangdirong Abonmei became over age, he could not apply for the post further. In view of the above, the second brother, the petitioner herein, applied for recruitment of 10th and 11th IRB 2019. He was also recommended for appointment by the MLA, Tamei and the police higher officials. [10] According to the respondents, the petitioner has cleared PET for ongoing recruitment of 10th and 11th IRB 2019 and the Inspector General of Police (Admn.) also recommended the name of the petitioner to the Chairman, DPC for appointment. It is stated that now the petitioner has completed the written examination and it is high chance that the petitioner might get selected in the present selection if he had performed well in vivavoce that also concluded recently. [11] At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the respondents that there is a high chance that the petitioner might get selected in the selection list if he had performed well in viva-voce is clouded with uncertainty and therefore, the intervention of this Court is very much required, thereby directing the respondents to give appointment order in favour of the petitioner. [12] Admittedly, the recruitment process is still in progress. The petitioner may or may not be selected in the selection and it all depends upon the performance of the petitioner in the written examination and the vivavoce. However, when the higher officials of the Police Department themselves assured the family of the victim that they will appoint the brother of the victim as a constable in the Police Department, the Police Department has to keep their agreement fulfilled for the reason that for fault, an innocent tribal, namely Ab. Kaidihemang, was shot by the police commando and due to bullet injury, the victim was totally paralyzed. [13] As could be seen from the letter of the Inspector General of Police, Manipur dated 31.1.2013 addressed to the Director General of Police, the Inspector General of Police the condition of the victim’s family has been clearly stated. In fact, the Inspector General of Police in his letter stated that on 16.6.2010, a meeting was held at the residence of the former MLA, Saitu Assembly Constituency between the family members of the victim and the Inspector General of Police, wherein the victim family requested for appointment of his brother as a constable in the Police Department and from their side, not to go ahead with any agitation and financial claim other than the medical expenses already incurred. [14] As per settled law, a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the authority to consider the case of the petitioner for an appointment or promotion, as the case may be, but no direction can be given to appoint or promote a person. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and also the agreement entered into between the Police Department and the victim family that the Manipur Police Department will appoint the younger brother of the victim as police constable and accordingly, by the letter dated 22.9.2020 the Director General of Police, Manipur also recommended the name of the petitioner to the Chairman, DPC for Direct Recruitment of Rifleman 10th and 11th IRB, Manipur for appointment and also taking note of the financial condition of the victim family, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to direct the respondent authorities to give appointment order as constable in Manipur Police Department in favour of the petitioner, as he cleared the written examination, PET and also participated viva-voce in the ongoing recruitment of 10th and 11th IRB (Rifleman) 2019. [15] There is no doubt that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court only examines the decision-making process and does not substitute itself as a Court of appeal over the reasons recorded by the State Government. It is not the case of the respondent State that the petitioner is not suitable for the post of constable. In fact, the petitioner has cleared the written examination and PET in the ongoing selection. [16] In the result, a) the writ petition is allowed; b) the respondent authorities are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner has cleared the written examination and PET and also his name has been listed at Serial No.5191; c) since the selection process is stated to be on-going, it would not be appropriate limit, however, as expeditiously as possible, without any further delay. No cost. [17] It is made clear that in the pathetic situation of the family of the victim and taking into consideration of the financial problems faced by the victim family, this Court passed the aforesaid order. Therefore, this order cannot be cited as precedent. JUDGE - Larson