Miss Samsat vs State Of Manipur

Heard Ms. L. Sillori, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. RK Umakanta, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

[2] The present petition has been filed praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 issued by the DGP, Manipur

rejecting the claim of the petitioner for her appointment to the post of Women Police Constable under the Die in harness scheme in the Manipur Police

Department, couple with a prayer for directing the respondents to give companionate appointment to the petitioner under the Die in harness scheme.

[3] The facts of the present case in a nutshell is that the father of the petitioner, who was serving as a constable in the Manipur Police Department

during his life time, died on 21.08.1999 while still in service.

On expiry of the father of the petitioner, the Petitioner’s mother, viz., Smt. Reshmani Bibi, submitted an application dated 14.12.1999 for

appointing her to any suitable post on compassionate ground under the Die- in-harness scheme. Subsequently another application dated 13.06.2007

was submitted by the mother of the petitioner requesting the concerned authorities for appointment of her second daughter viz., Miss Kh. Reshma in

her place. However, during the pendency of the said application, the said Miss Kh. Reshma got married in the year 2013. Accordingly, the

petitioner’s mother submitted another application dated 13.06.2013 to the concerned authorities for appointing her first daughter, the petitioner

herein, on compassionate ground under the Die-in-Harness scheme in place of the second daughter.

[4] The application submitted on behalf of the first daughter was duly process by the authorities and the Joint Secretary (Home), Government of

Manipur, under his letter dated 17.04.2015 requested the Director General of Police, Manipur, to include the name of the petitioner in the waiting

seniority list of Women Police Constable for appointment under Die-in-Harness scheme. In the said letter, the DGP, Manipur was also requested to

furnish vacancy position of Women Police Constable for appointment under Die in harness scheme as on the date of the said letter along with a copy

of the latest seniority list of the candidates for appointment as Women Police Constable for taking further necessary action.

[5] In response to the aforesaid letter of the Home Department, the Inspector General of Police (Adm.), Manipur, under his letter dated 13.05.2015

furnished the number of vacant posts to be reserved for appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme as 67 posts and also the revised seniority list

of the applicants for appointment to the posts of Police Constable (female) under the Die in Harness scheme as on April, 2015. In the said seniority

list, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 1.

[6] It is the case of the petitioner that quite surprisingly, instead of giving appointment to the petitioner, the DGP, Manipur issued an order dated

28.03.2019 rejecting the claim for appointment of the petitioner under the Die-in-Harness scheme. The said rejection has been done only on the

ground that change of nominee from first nominee to second nominee was not admissible as per roman (iii) of DP’s OM dated 01.04.2011.

Having been aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the said order issued by the DGP.

[7] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that there are adequate numbers of vacant posts of Police Constable

(Women) available in the Manipur Police Department. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is the senior most candidate in the

waiting list and the authorities have found the petitioner to be an eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Police Constable (Women).

Moreover, the name of the petitioner has been recommended by the special DPC in its meeting held on 26.10.2015 for appointment as Women Police

Station under the Die-in- Harness scheme. It is also submitted that all the other 8 candidates, recommended by the said special DPC and who are all

junior to the petitioner in the waiting list, have been given appointment as Police Constable (Women) leaving out only the petitioner in a most

discriminatory manner.

[8] The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 2 had rejected the claim of the petitioner arbitrarily, discriminatory and without any

application of mind. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 and for directing the

respondents to appoint the petitioner as Women Police Constable in the Manipur Police Department against one of the available vacancies.

[9] Mr. RK Umakanta, learned GA submitted that the application submitted on behalf of the present petitioner for appointment under Die-in-hardness

scheme is not the second application but the third application, inasmuch as, prior to the application submitted on behalf of the present petitioner, the

mother of the petitioner earlier submitted two applications dated 14.12.1999 and 13.06.2007.

[10] In the officer memorandum dated 01.04.2011 issued by the Government of Manipur, it is provided at roman (iii) that second nominee can be

considered by counting his/her seniority from the date of receipt of the first application where the applicants had to be changed because of compelling

circumstances which are beyond his/her control such as date/marriage, etc. The learned GA also submitted that under the said office memorandum, it

is not provided that third nominee can be considered in place of either the first or second nominee. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned GA that the

claim of the petitioner for her appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme had been rejected on the basis of the said office memorandum and there

is no illegality or arbitrariness in issuing the impugned order dated 28.03.2019. In support of his contention the learned GA has relied on the judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in the case of “N.C. Santosh vs. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617†wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has in paragraph 13 & 18 held as under:

“13. It is well settled that for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as is mandated under Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the

said norms. In SAIL V. Madhusudan Das it was remarked accordingly that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria

laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants;

“18. In the most recent judgment in State of H.P. V. Shashi Kumar the earlier decisions governing the principles of compassionate appointment

were discussed and analysed. Speaking for the Bench, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. reiterated that appointment to any public post in the service of the

State has to be made on the basis of principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and compassionate appointment is an exception to

the general rule. The dependants of a deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and

they must fulfil the norms laid down by the State’s policy.â€​

The learned GA accordingly submitted that the present writ petition has got no merit and it deserves to be dismissed.

[11] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record of the present case, this Court is of the considered view

that the authorities have all along accepted and considered the application made on behalf of the petitioner for her appointment under Die-in-harness

scheme and they found the petitioner to be eligible and qualified for appointment as Women Police Constable in the Manipur Police Department under

the Die-in-harness scheme. The office of the respondent No. 2 has also intimated that there are adequate vacancies for appointment of the petitioner

and record also shows that the petitioner is the senior most in the waiting list of the candidates for appointment under Die-in-harness scheme.

Moreover, the special DPC constituted by the Government for considering the eligibility of the candidates claiming for appointment under the Die-in-

harness scheme had also recommended the petitioner for appointment as Women Police Constable under the Die-in-harness scheme in its meeting

held on 26.10.2015. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is quite eligible and entitle to be appointed as a Women Police

Constable in the Manipur Women Department under the Die-in-harness scheme.

[12] On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 the ground taken by the respondent No. 2 for rejection of the claim of the

petitioner is only on the basis of a letter dated 18.03.2019 from the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. In the said letter the ground

for rejection is mentioned as under:

“The proposal for appointment of Miss Samsat as 3rd nominee was processed in DP’s file No. 20/5/2005-DP(Pt) and decided to intimate AD

to reject her case as change of nominee from 1st nominee to 2nd nominee was not admissible as per roman (iii) DP’s O.M. dated 01.04.2011.â€​

[13] Office memorandum dated 01.04.2011 had been issued by the Governor of Manipur for relaxing the conditions for appointment under Die-in-

harness scheme as a special case as a onetime measure so as to enable to dispose of the pending cases for appointment under Die-in-harness

scheme. At roman (iii) of the office memorandum, it is provided as under:

“(iii) To consider the 2nd nominee by counting his/her seniority from the date of receipt of the 1st application where the applicants had to be

changed because of compelling circumstances which are beyond his/her control such as death/marriage in case of women candidate/mental disorder

and disability due to accident of the first applicant.â€​

[14] On perusal of the conditions prescribe under the aforesaid roman (iii) which has been notified by the Government of Manipur, it is nowhere

provided that change of nominee, specially the third nominee is not permissible. On the other hand, this Court is of the considered view that the said

office memorandum had been issued by the Government of Manipur relaxing the conditions for appointment under Die-in-harness scheme as a special

case so as to enable to dispose of pending cases under for appointment under Die-in-harness scheme and not for rejecting any applications. We must

bear in mind that the Government has framed the Die-in-harness scheme as a beneficiary scheme to enable the Government to help the family

members of a Government servant who Die-in-harness to tide over their hardship and sufferings due to sudden demise of a Government servant while

in service.

In the present case the 3rd nominee had been changed due to the marriage of the 2nd nominee and such change of nominee in such circumstances is

not prohibited under the said O.M., rather the said O.M. permitted to make such changes.

[15] This Court respectfully agrees with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court which has been relied on by the learned GA. However, in

the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said authority relied on by the learned GA is not applicable, inasmuch as, the respondents cannot

point out any rule which has been violated in recommending the petitioner for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. Rather the authority has

without any application of mind and in a most discriminatory and arbitrary manner rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Die-in-

harness scheme even though she is found to be qualified and eligible for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme as per the rules framed by the

State Government.

[16] For the reasons given herein above, the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to

appoint the petitioner as a Women Police Constable in the Manipur Police Department within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is allowed. Parties are to bear their own costs.