Chabungbam Thoibisana Devi v. The State of Manipur

Judgment

1. The State of Manipur represented by its Commissioner (Law), Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001. The Deputy Secretary (Law), Law & Legislative Affairs

2. Department, Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.

3. The Director of Prosecution, Directorate of Prosecution, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001. …. Official Respondents

4. R.K. Bhubaneshwari Devi, aged about 52 years old, W/o Thigom Mangi Singh, a permanent resident of Sagolband Tera Sapam Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.

5. Akoijam Bobby Singh, aged about 48 years old, S/o A.K. Shaymkishore Singh, a permanent resident of Wangkhei Koijam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795001.

6. Hagzamoi Tonsing, aged about 48 years old, S/o T. Thongzathang, a permanent resident of Dorcas Road, Dorcas Veng, New Lamka, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur – 795128. P a g e 1 | 21

7. Shri Khangembam Mohen Singh, aged about 48 years old, S/o (Late) Kh. Gouri, a permanent resident of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai, P.O. Porompat & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal East District, Manipur.

8. Leimapokpam Bimol Singh, aged about 45 years old, S/o L. Mangi Singh, a permanent resident of Athokpam Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138. Khodram Anupama Devi, aged about 44 years old, D/o (Late) Kh.

9. Suresh Singh, a permanent resident of Kwakeithel Bazar, Opposite Kwakiethel Girls High School, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001. Thounaojam Bandana Devi, aged about 43 years old, W/o M.

10. Okendro Singh, a permanent resident of Heirangoithong Makha Mutum Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795008. …. Private Respondents W.P.(C) No. 600 of 2022 Lamneichong Haokip, aged about 51 years old, W/o Sheikhohao Kipgen of Tuipaijang Village, P.O. & P.S. G. Sapormeina, Kangpokpi District, Manipur – 795129 present residing at National Game Village, Mary Kom Complex, Zone – 3, P.O & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur. - Versus -

1. The State of Manipur represented by its Commissioner (Law), Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Manipur, Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001. …Petitioner …. Official Respondent

2. R.K. Bhubaneshwari Devi, aged about 52 years old, W/o Thigom Mangi Singh, a permanent resident of Sagolband Tera Sapam P a g e 2 | 21 Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.

3. Akoijam Bobby Singh, aged about 48 years old, S/o A.K. Shaymkishore Singh, a permanent resident of Wangkhei Koijam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur – 795001.

4. Hagzamoi Tonsing, aged about 48 years old, S/o T. Thongzathang, a permanent resident of Dorcas Road, Dorcas Veng, New Lamka, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur – 795128.

Shri Khangembam Mohen Singh, aged about 48 years old, S/o (Late) Kh. Gouri, a permanent resident of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai, P.O. Porompat & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal East District, Manipur.

6. Leimapokpam Bimol Singh, aged about 45 years old, S/o L. Mangi Singh, a permanent resident of Athokpam Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138. Khodram Anupama Devi, aged about 44 years old, D/o (Late) Kh.

7. Suresh Singh, a permanent resident of Kwakeithel Bazar, Opposite Kwakiethel Girls High School, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001. Thounaojam Bandana Devi, aged about 43 years old, W/o M.

8. Okendro Singh, a permanent resident of Heirangoithong Makha Mutum Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795008. …. Private Respondents. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA For the petitioners : Mr. S. Biswajit, Senior Advocate & W. Sanatomba, Advocate Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate P a g e 3 | 21 For the respondents : Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, Govt. Advocate Ms. Ayangleima, Advocate Date of hearing :

03.10.2025 Date of Judgment & : Order

23.12.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) [1] Heard Mr. S. Biswajit, learned senior counsel and Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and Ms. Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for private respondents. [2] The annexures mentioned in this judgment are from the writ petition WP(C) No. 594 of 2022 for easy reference. Since both these writ petitions pertain to the same impugned order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Factual matrix of the case in a nutshell is that the present petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor -cum- Assistant Government Advocate on contract basis for a period of 1 (one) year vide order dated 20.12.2005 issued by Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur (Annexure – A/1) wherein the petitioners appeared at Sl. No. 2 & Sl. No. 3 and services of the petitioners were extended from time to time by the competent authority till December, 2016 (Annexure – A/2). Regarding appointment of the said post, the Secretary (Law), Government substantiated through Local Newspaper (Naharolgi Thoudang) vide publication dated

03.01.2006 (Annexure – A/3) whereby reporting that the afore-referred appointment P a g e 4 | 21 did not suffer from any irregularity as the recruitment was conducted through an advertisement inviting applications from eligible advocates either through All Manipur Bar Association or Law Department, Government of Manipur. [3] Vide order dated 02.12.2016 issued by the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur (Annexure – A/4), the petitioners were appointed on regular basis along with 13 (thirteen) others by regularizing their past contract services and on the very same day, 6 (six) other APP-cum-AGA were also made regular appointment by regularizing their past contract services. In the said appointment order, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 594 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 600 of 2022 were placed at Sl. No. 1 & Sl. No. 2 respectively and as per the decisions made by the State Cabinet dated

04.08.2016 and 07.11.2016. The order was also made as one time measure which was issued by the Department of Personal & Administrative Reforms (Personal Division), Government of Manipur dated 22.11.2026. [4] The Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur, vide notification dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure – A/5) wherein the petitioners appeared at Sl. No. 4 & Sl. No. 6 in W.P.(C) No. 594 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 600 of 2022 respectively, issued a tentative seniority list of APP(District)-cum-AGA (District) whereby calling any claims and objections to the said list. Thereafter, a final seniority list was published vide notification dated 23.11.2021 whereby the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 10 & Sl. No. 11 in W.P.(C) No. 594 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 600 of 2022 respectively (Annexure – A/6). [5] In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis on 20.12.2005 and made regularization on 02.12.2016. However, without any reason, the petitioners in W.P.(C) P a g e 5 | 21 No. 594 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 600 of 2022, were placed at Sl. No. 10 & Sl. No. 11 respectively which are below the batches of APPs appointed in the years 2007, 2009 and 2010. [6] Being aggrieved by the said seniority list, the petitioners challenged the same by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) 895 of 2021 before the High Court and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure – A/7) upholding the regularization of the petitioners made by the Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur dated 02.12.2016. Operative portion of the order passed in the afore-referred writ petition is reproduced herein below: “In terms of the proposal made by the learned A.G., Manipur, the respondents are directed to finalize the Final Seniority List of Assistant Public Prosecutor (District) -cum- Assistant Government Advocate (District), Manipur in the Office of the Public Prosecutor (District), Manipur within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. Thereafter, promotion to the post of Addl. Public Prosecutor (District)-cum-Additional Government Advocate (District) in the Office of Public Prosecutor (District), Manipur shall be made within a period of 3 (three) months in accordance with the prevailing Recruitment Rules when the vacancies arose. It is also made clear that the promotional post to the post of Addl. Public Prosecutor (District)-cum-Additional Government Advocate (District) in the Office of Public Prosecutor (District) shall not be filled up by way of any other method except in terms of the directions passed by this Court.” In pursuance of the order passed in the afore-referred writ petition, vide notification dated 08.06.2022(Annexure – A/8), the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur set aside and quashed the seniority list dated 23.11.2021. As per the said notification whereby calling claims and objections, if any, from the concerned on or before 22.06.2022, the petitioners filed their objection against the tentative seniority list wherein the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 594 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 600 of 2022 appeared at Sl. No. 9 & Sl. No. 10 respectively. P a g e 6 | 21 [7] The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that without considering the judgment & order dated 01.06.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 895 of 2022 and also the objection filed by the petitioners, vide notification dated

22.07.2022 (Annexure – A/10), the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur published a final seniority list wherein the petitioners appeared at Sl. No. 10 & Sl. No. 11 well below her colleagues who are junior to both of them, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The impugned notification reads as follows: “GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT : LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 22 July, 2022 Final Seniority List of Asst. Public Prosecutor (District)-cum- Subject: Asst. Government Advocate (District), Manipur in the office of Public Prosecutor (District), Manipur. No.GAP-3/5/2021-SEC-LAW Whereas, the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur has directed to State Government to finalize the finial seniority list of Asst. Public Prosecutor (District)-cum-Asst. Government Advocate (District), Manipur in office of the Public Prosecutor (District), Manipur within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 01-06-2022 passed in WP(C) No. 2 of 2019 with WP(C) No. 896 of 2018 with MC(WP(C)) No. 137 of 2022 with MC(WP(C)) No. 138 of 2022 with MC(WP(C)) No. 139 of 2022 with MC(WP(C)) No. 89 of 2019 with WP(C) No. 5 of 2020 with MC(WP(C)) No. 132 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 895 of 2021 (Ch. Thoibisana Devi & Anr-vs-State of Manipur); 2 Whereas, the tentative seniority list of Asst. Public Prosecutor (District)-cum- Asst Government Advocate (District), Manipur has been published under this Department’s Notification of even number dated 13.09.2021 inviting therein claims or objections from all concerned, 3 Whereas, all the claims and objections in respect of st. no. 01 to 13 received in this regard were examined and considered including obtaining of comment/view along with additional submission by holding person to person meeting with the Whit Petitioners which were held at different timings from 14.07.2022 (09:30 am) to 15.07.2022 (09:30 am); 4 Whereas, the Asst. Public Prosecutor (District)-cum-Asst. Government Advocate (District), Manipur from sl. no. 14 to 18 in the list had not submitted P a g e 7 | 21 any claims and objections and that their appointment was on the recommendation of MPSC in the recruitment year of 2018 on merit.

5. And after detailed examination and consideration, it is hereby notified for information of all concerned, the final seniority list of Asst. Public Prosecutor (District)-cum-Asst. Government Advocate (District), Manipur in the Office of Public Prosecutor (District), Manipur as in ANNEXURE appended herewith. Sd/- (Henry Alemo Francis) Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur ANNEXURE Notification No. GAP-3/5/2021-SEC-LAW Imphal, 22nd July, 2022 FIAL SENIRITY LIST OF ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (DISTRICT)-CUM-ASST. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (DISTRICT), MANIPUR IN THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (DISTRICT), MANIPUR Name Sl. No.

1. Smt. RK Bhubaneshwari Devi Date of birth Remarks Date appointment on regular 02.12.2016 01.02.1969 Initially engaged on contract basis selection through recruitment process

2. Shri Akijam Bobby -do-

05.03.1973 -do- Singh

3. Shri Hangamoi -do-

01.05.1973 -do- Tonsing

4. Shri Khangembam -do-

10.02.1974 -do- Mohen

5. Shri Leimapokpam -do-

01.02.1976 -do- Bimol Singh

6. Miss Khomdram Anupama Devi 7. Smt. Thounaojam Bandana Devi -do-

24.12.1977 -do- -do-

01.03.1978 -do-

8. Shri Khuman -do-

01.01.1963 -do- Cheirakpam Basanta Singh

9. Shri Mutum -do-

01.02.1963 -do- Ajitkumar Singh

10. Smt.Chabungbam -do-

01.03.1967 -do- Thoibisana Devi

11. Smt. Lamneichong -do-

01.03.1971 -do- Haokip P a g e 8 | 21

12. Smt. -do-

01.03.1971 -do- Meitankeishangbam Jamuna Devi 13. Smt. Rakhi Golmei 14. Smt. Phuritsabam Chaoba Devi -do-

01.03.1977 -do-

21.12.2018 01.03.1983 Appointed vide Order No. 7/52/2018-GA/L 21.12.2018 on recommendation by MPSC vide their letter No. 7/6/2018-MPSC (DR) dated 15.10.2018 -do-

15. Smt. Kangjam -do-

01.04.1991 Malemnganbi Chanu

16. Shri Hrangao -do-

01.03.1985 -do- Rozhemai

17. Smt. Mayanglambam Vidhyalaxmi Devi -do-

30.03.1986 -do-

18. Shri K.S. Pamreiso -do-

15.10.1988 -do- Sd/- (Henry Alemo Francis) Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Manipur“ Being aggrieved by the afore-referred notification, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the same. It is evident from the earlier final seniority list dated 23.11.2022, those persons appearing at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were initially appointed on 26.11.2009. Furthermore, the one appearing at Sl. No. 4 was initially appointed on 17.02.2010. By any standard, the present petitioners ought to be above those persons at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. Even if age is the standard to be used, then the petitioners (whose date of birth is 01.03.1967) must be placed well above those persons appearing at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. [8] Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authority made the impugned notification in violation of principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. P a g e 9 | 21 The mandate of Article 14 and 16 demands that determination of seniority to be based on some principles, which are justice and fair. The said seniority list prepared by the respondent authority placed the petitioners below the batches of APPs junior to both of them are in and of itself discriminatory and arbitrary. [9] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that since the appointment has been made by following the constitutional scheme of public employment, it is entitled to due consideration while conferring benefits of service condition including seniority. Hence, in the impugned final seniority list dated

22.07.2022, the indication “Initially engaged on contract basis by execution of agreement” against the petitioners is grossly wrong and it should be “Initially engaged on contract basis by selection through open recruitment process” and therefore, the petitioners would be placed at Sl. No. 1 & Sl. No. 3. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for giving direction to the respondent authority to maintain the order/sequence as shown in the regularization order No. 7/13/2015- GA/L(B) dated 02.12.2016 and set aside the impugned notification dated 22.07.2022. [10] In respect of W.P.(C) No. 594 of 2022, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has made written submission on behalf of the petitioner. A. SCOPE AND GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE The impugned seniority list published vide notification dated 22-07-2022 (AT ANNEXURE A/7) is being challenged inter alia on the following grounds:

1. Arbitrary placement of the petitioner below her juniors and consequent violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned final seniority list has inexplicably placed the present petitioner—who was appointed as APP-cum-AGA on a contractual basis as far back as 2005—below her peers who entered service only in 2009 on an P a g e 10 | 21 identical contractual footing. This inversion of seniority is not merely illogical; it is manifestly arbitrary and fundamentally inconsistent with established principles of fairness in public service. It is crucial to underscore that the services of both the petitioner and her peers were subsequently regularized by the Government vide order dated 02-12-2016 (AT ANNEXURE A/4). The regularization order itself speaks unequivocally: the petitioner’s name appears at the very top of the list, a placement that the Government had consciously unmistakably demonstrates recognized the petitioner’s longer and uninterrupted tenure of contractual service while determining the relative standing of the APPs-cum-AGAs at the time of regularization. The order and the sequence reflected therein are neither accidental nor cosmetic; they constitute a deliberate administrative determination acknowledging the petitioner’s seniority. The respondent authority cannot now attempt to rewrite history by ignoring the regularization order and substituting it with an entirely new and inconsistent basis for seniority. Such an act not only disturbs a settled position but also undermines the binding effect of a government order that has neither been appealed against nor modified by any competent court of law, and has therefore attained finality. Furthermore, even if one were to assume for the sake of argument that past contractual service is to be disregarded altogether and seniority is to be determined strictly by reference to the regularization order dated 02-12- 2016, the petitioner’s name still appears at the top of that list. By any lawful metric—whether by reckoning past contractual service or by using the regularization order as the baseline—the petitioner’s rightful place is at the top of the seniority list. Significantly, even if age were to be adopted as an additional criterion to resolve any supposed tie in seniority, the petitioner is demonstrably the oldest among her peers and, on that ground as well, is entitled to precedence over the others. The impugned seniority list’s departure from all these settled and objective standards—past service, the sequence in the regularization order, and even the criterion of age—renders it patently arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Article 14. It reflects a blatant arbitrary exercise of power and a failure to adhere to the most basic tenets of fairness and equality, and is thus unsustainable in law.

2. Arbitrary, irrational and whimsical distinction of categories and consequent violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned final seniority list impermissibly carves out two artificial categories of employees within the very same cadre and grade on the ostensible ground that their initial appointments were contractual in different forms. Such a distinction is plainly irrational, manifestly arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. Once the Government, by its regularization orders, ratified the entirety of their past contractual service and accorded them the same substantive status, there remained no lawful basis to resurrect the nature of their initial engagement as a ground for differential treatment. The respondent authority cannot now rewrite history or employ shifting yardsticks to deny parity in seniority to officers who stand on an P a g e 11 | 21 equal footing in every material respect. Any such attempt amounts to a blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16 and an affront to the rule of law.

3. The complete disregard and non-consideration of the judgment and order dated 01-06-2022 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No. 895 of 2022. It may be poignant to note that this is second round of litigation with regard to the issue of seniority amongst the APPs-cum-AGAs. In the earlier round of litigation raised in WP(C) No. 895 of 2022, a coordinate bench of this Hon’ble High Court was pleased to set aside and quash the earlier final seniority list. Moreover, the Ld. AG at the relevant time submitted that the Department was willing to undertake another exercise for reconsideration of the final seniority list. Consequently, the said writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 01-06-2022 thereby allowing the prayer of the petitioner to maintain the order/sequence reflected in the regularization order dated 02-12-2016 (AT ANNEXURE A/4). This judgment and order nor regularization order has been appealed or challenged before any court of law and has attained finality and therefore, deserves to be followed in letter and spirit by the respondent authority. Hence, any departure therefrom amounts to a clear disregard of judicial mandate and strikes at the root of administrative fairness and the rule of law. B. POSITION OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Determination of seniority The settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the determination of seniority are as follows: 1. In the cases of A.K. Subrman and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.1, it has been held by the Supreme Court that in the absence of statutory seniority rules, seniority is to the determined on the basis of length of service in the grade as well as in an equivalent grade.

2. In the case of Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.2, the Supreme Court observed “20. In the service Jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such appointment cannot be held to be ‘stop gap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc’. In this view of the matter, the reasoning and basis on which, the appointment of the promotes in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the case at hand was held by the High Court to be ‘fortuitous/ ad hoc/ stop gap’ are wholly erroneous and, therefore, exclusion of those appointees to have their continuous length of service for seniority is erroneous”.