WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 1 of 24

Non-reportable

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

WP(C) No. 619 of 2023

1. P. Lakshmi Chanu, aged about 34 years, D/O Ph. Lalit Singh,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Tiger Camp, P.O. & P.S.

Sagolmang, Imphal East District, Manipur. PIN: 795114.

2. Gangmei Lamdinliu, aged about 37 years, D/O G. Yaima Kabui,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Lilong Chingkham, P.O. & P.S.

Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur. PIN: 795009.

3. Sarina Huidrom, aged about 31 years, D/O H. Dwijendro Singh,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O.

& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN: 795001.

4. Rashidamad Bogi, aged about 29 years, S/O Abdul Gani Bogi,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Uchiwa Nastao Awang Leikai,

P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN:

795126.

5. Maringmei Makuchung, aged about 28 years, S/O M.

Gaingamlung, Fishery Inspector, resident of Ragailong, P.O. &

P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur. PIN: 795001.

…Petitioners

- Versus -

1. State of Manipur through Addl. Chief Secretary/Commissioner/

Secretary (Fishery), Government of Manipur at Secretariat

Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. and District Imphal West,

Manipur-795001.

2. The Director of Fisheries, Manipur having its Office at

Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795001.

3. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its Secretary,

having its office at AT Road, Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal

West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Md. Ziaur Rahman, aged about 33 years S/o. A.R. Rahman of

Lilong Ushoipokpi, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur,

Pin: 795130.

5. M.M. Sabanam Shahni, aged about 30 years, D/o. M.M. Nashib

Ali Shah, resident of Lilong Leihaokhong, P.O. & P.S. Lilong,

Thoubal, District, Manipur, Pin: 795130.

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 2 of 24

6. Md. Farooque Shah, aged about 35 years, S/o. Md. Abdul Jalil,

resident of Lilong Leihaokhong P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Thoubal

District, Manipur, Pin: 795130.

7. Akoijam Bijaya Devi, aged about 31 years D/o. Akoijam

Rajendra Singh, resident of Sangaiprou Mamang Leikai, P.O. &

P.S. Imphal West, Manipur, Pin 795001.

8. Khumallambam Amarpriya aged about 46 years, W/o.

Priyokumar Elangbam, resident of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan

Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal West, Manipur, Pin: 795001.

……impleaded as R-4 to R-8 vide order dated

31.10.23 passed in MC(WP(C)) No. 335 of 2023]

…Respondents

WITH

WP(C) No. 662 of 2023

1. Ms. Chingakham Sinthoileima, aged about 32 years, D/o.

Chingakham Nondamba of Khambam Chumbreithong, P.O.

Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur,

presently holding the post of Research Assistant and

discharging her duties as Head of Office and the Drawing and

Disbursing Officer in the Fishery Research Centre, Lamphel.

2. Ms. Sagolsem Anamika Devi, aged about 32 years, D/o. S.

Achoubi Singh of Sagolband Noremthong Khumanthem Leikai,

P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur

presently holding the post of Research Assistant while

discharging her duties as Training & Extension, Fish Processing.

…Petitioners

- Versus -

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/

Commissioner/Secretary (Fishery), Government of Manipur

office at Secretariat South Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,

Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (DP),

Government of Manipur, office at Secretariat South Block,

Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.

3. The Director (Fishery), Government of Manipur, Lamphelpat,

P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795004.

…Respondents

4. The Manipur Public Service Commissioner (MPSC) through its

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 3 of 24

Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC), office

at North AOC near Hotel Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal

West District, Manipur-795001.

5. The Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE), Mumbai

represented by the Director/Vice Chancellor of the Central

Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE), Mumbai, Panch Marg off

Yari Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai-400061.

…Proforma Respondents

WITH

WP(C) No. 690 of 2023

1. Ms. Chingakham Sinthoileima, aged about 33 years, D/o.

Chingakham Nondamba of Khambam Chumbreithong, P.O.

Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur,

presently holding the post of Research Assistant and

discharging her duties as Head of Office and the Drawing and

Disbursing Officer in the Fishery Research Centre, Lamphel.

2. Ms. Sagolsem Anamika Devi, aged about 32 years, D/o. S.

Achoubi Singh of Sagolband Noremthong Khumanthem Leikai,

P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur

presently holding the post of Research Assistant while

discharging her duties as Training & Extension, Fish Processing.

…Petitioners

- Versus -

1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/

Commissioner/Secretary (Fishery), Government of Manipur

office at Secretariat South Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,

Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

2. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (DP),

Government of Manipur, office at Secretariat South Block,

Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.

3. The Director (Fishery), Government of Manipur, Lamphelpat,

P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795004.

…Respondents

4. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) through its

Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC), office

at North AOC near Hotel Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal

West District, Manipur-795001.

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 4 of 24

5. The Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE), Mumbai

represented by the Director/Vice Chancellor of the Central

Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE), Mumbai, Panch Marg off

Yari Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai-400061.

…Proforma Respondents

6. Lairenlakpam Lindali Chanu, Holding the post of Fishery Officer

in Fishery Department, C/o. the Director (Fishery), Government

of Manipur, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West

District, Manipur-795004.

7. Gunabati Kangabam, Holding the post of Fishery Officer in

Fishery Department, C/o. the Director (Fishery), Government of

Manipur, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West

District, Manipur-795004.

8. Loveson Golmei, Holding the post of Fishery Officer in Fishery

Department, The Director (Fishery), Government of Manipur,

Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795004.

…Private Respondents

WITH

WP(C) No. 718 of 2023

1. P. Lakshmi Chanu, aged about 34 years, D/O Ph. Lalit Singh,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Tiger Camp, P.O. & P.S.

Sagolmang, Imphal East District, Manipur. PIN: 795114.

2. Gangmei Lamdinliu, aged about 37 years, D/O G. Yaima Kabui,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Lilong Chingkham, P.O. & P.S.

Lilong, Thoubal District, Manipur. PIN: 795009.

3. Sarina Huidrom, aged about 31 years, D/O H. Dwijendro Singh,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Khagempalli Huidrom Leikai, P.O.

& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN: 795001.

4. Rashidamad Bogi, aged about 29 years, S/O Abdul Gani Bogi,

Fishery Inspector, resident of Uchiwa Nastao Awang Leikai,

P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. PIN:

795126.

5. Maringmei Makuchung, aged about 28 years, S/O M.

Gaingamlung, Fishery Inspector, resident of Ragailong, P.O. &

P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur. PIN: 795001.

…Petitioners

- Versus -

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 5 of 24

1. The State of Manipur through Addl. Chief Secretary/

Commissioner/Secretary (Fishery), Government of Manipur at

Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. and District Imphal

West, Manipur-795001.

2. The Director of Fisheries, Manipur having its Office at

Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795001.

3. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its Secretary,

having its office at AT Road, Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal

West District, Manipur-795001.

4. Lairenlakpam Lindali Chanu, Fishery Officer, C/o Director of

Fisheries, Government of Manipur, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S.

Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

5. Gunabati Kangabam, Fishery Officer, C/o Director of Fisheries,

Government of Manipur, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,

Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

6. Loveson Golmei, Fishery Officer, C/o Director of Fisheries,

Government of Manipur, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,

Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

…Respondents

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the petitioners : Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Rendy,

Adv.; Mr. S. Dijeshwor, Adv.

For the respondents : Mr. Athouba Khaidem, GA; Mr. Phungyo

Zingkhai, Dy. GA; Mrs. Momota Devi

Oinam, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Luckyboy, Adv.;

Mr. M. Devananda, Sr. Adv.;

Mr. K. Roshan, Adv.

Date of hearing : 24-09-2025

Date of judgment &

order

: 23.12.2025

J U D G M E N T A N D O R D E R

[1] Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.

M. Rendy, learned counsel and Mr. H S Paonam, learned senior counsel

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 6 of 24

assisted byMr. S. Dijeshwor, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.

Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Phungyo

Zingkhai, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State respondents; Mrs.

Momota Devi Oinam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Luckyboy,

learned counsel for the MPSC; and Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior

counsel assisted by Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the private

respondents.

[2] In this batch of writ petitions, the only common issue arising

therein is whether the petitioners who have academic qualifications of

degree in Bachelor of Fishery Science (B.F.Sc.) and Master in Fishery

Science (M.F.Sc.) are required to undergo diploma/certificate course in

Fisheries as stipulated in the recruitment rules, i.e. Fishery Department,

Manipur (Fishery Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1996. As per the said rules,

the Fishery Officer is a post by promotion from the feeder cadres, i.e.,

Fishery Inspector, Fishery Extension Assistant and Fishery Instructor. The

eligibility qualifications as per Column 11 of the MPSC Form reads as

follows:–

“MPSC Form-8 RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF FISHERY OFFICER

IN THE FISHERY DEPARTMENT, MANIPUR

……

……

In case of rectt. By promotion/deputation/transfer grades

from which promotion/deputation/transfer to be made

……

……

11

………

………

Promotion

1. Fishery Inspector and Fishery Extension Assistant/

Fishery Instructor possessing Diploma with 3 (three)

years regular service in their respective grades.

2. Fishery Inspector and Fishery Extension Assistant/

Fishery Inspector possessing 1 (one) Year

……

……

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 7 of 24

Certificate in the Fishery Science from a recognized

Inland Fisheries obtained from a Centre recognized by

CIFE with 5 (five) Years regular service in their

respective grades.

3. Research Assistant possessing Dip loma/Post

Graduate in Zoology/Chemistry with 12 (twelve)

months training from CIFE, Barrackpore Unit with

3 (three) years regular service in the grade.

4. Other Fishery Inspector/Fishery Extension Assistant/

Fishery Instructor who are not Science Graduate

possessing Fisheries Training of not less than 9

(nine) months Course from any recognized Institutes

with 10 (ten) years regular service in their respective

grades.

[3] In all these writ petitions, the writ petitioners are either B.F.Sc. or

M.F.Sc., i.e., they are bachelor’s and master’s degree holders in Fishery

Science from recognized institutions/universities and they entered service in

the feeder cadre of Fishery Inspector/Fishery Extension Assistant/Fishery

Instructor. It is the case of the petitioners that they, having a higher

qualification and have done bachelor’s and master’s degree exclusively in

Fishery Science, are not required to undergo certificate or diploma course

in Fisheries as mentioned in column 11 of the recruitment rules. It is

explained that diploma/certificate course in Fisheries is meant for those

incumbents who do not have Fisheries as core subject in their graduation or

master course and the petitioners, having done exclusively bachelor’s and

master’s degree in Fishery Science as core subject, are not required to

undergo training course in Fisheries.

[4] Mr. H.S. Paonam and Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel

for the writ petitioners, have pointed to the clarification dated 20-09-2023

issued by ICAR – Central Institute of Fisheries Education that candidates,

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 8 of 24

holding general degree of B.Sc. and M.Sc. (Zoology and other Biological

Science) who have not acquired knowledge of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

are required to undergo one year training in Fisheries and the candidates

who possessed bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in Fishery Science

are not required to undergo such training in Fisheries. The petitioners herein

are held not eligible for promotion to the Fishery Officer, as they did not

attend the requisite training in terms of column 11 of the recruitment rules

for Fishery Officer. In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are

challenging the letter dated 18-08-2023 issued by the Director of Fisheries

for holding review DPC for 6 posts- 2 UR and 4 ST strictly as per the

recruitment rules, i.e., complying the conditions of having certificate/diploma

course in Fisheries and the proceedings of review DPC dated 18-09-2023

recommending the private respondents for promotion to the post of Fishery

Officer and also the promotion order dated 05-10-2023 promoting the 3

private respondents to the post of Fishery Officer. It is also stated that the

request for conduct of review DPC dated 18-08-2023 written by the Director

of Fisheries to the Secretary (Fishery), the proceedings of the review DPC

dated 18-09-2023 and also the appointment of 3 private respondents

promoting them to the posts of Fishery Officer vide order dated 05-10-2023

in terms of the recommendation of the review DPC dated 18-09-2023 are in

violation of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in WA Nos. 111,

112 and 115 of 2022 vide common judgment dated 03-02-2023. The

Division Bench directed the Fishery Department to communicate list of

eligible officers in the feeder cadre to be considered by review DPC and also

to include the names of 3 private respondents as they have completed the

diploma course/ certificate. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have

pointed out that in the earlier occasion, persons similarly situated with the

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 9 of 24

petitioners were promoted to Fishery Officers even if they did not undergo

the certificate/diploma in Fisheries on the ground that they possessed higher

qualification of degree in B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. However, in the review DPC,

the State Government has made a departure from the earlier stand declaring

the petitioners as ineligible for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer for

the simple reason that they did not attend the in-service certificate/diploma

in Fishery in terms of column 11 of the recruitment rules. Learned senior

counsel for the petitioners, submit that the departure is illegal, illogical and

without any substance and the same amount for compelling the petitioners

with higher qualification to undergo basic training in the subject which they

have degree and master certificates. It is highlighted that the same is

clarified by ICAR to the extent that persons with B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. are not

required to undergo certificate and diploma course in Fishery and the course

is meant for non-fishery science graduates in the feeder cadre. The

petitioners are also challenging the promotion of the private respondents

who are juniors to them. By this arbitrary and inconsistent stand of the State

respondents, the private respondents have been given benefits of seniority

upon the petitioners and also overmastered them in the higher cadre. There

is instance of one Mr. Hemchandra Ningthoukhongjam with education

qualification of M.F.Sc. and without undergoing training in fishery, was

promoted to the post of Fishery Officer in the DPC conducted in the year

2016. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners pray for equal treatment to

the petitioners with Mr. N. Hemchandra and in view of clarification by ICAR.

[5] Mr. H S Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in

WP(C) Nos. 619, 718 of 2023 emphasizes that higher qualification

presupposes acquisition of lower qualification. Compelling persons with

higher qualification to undergo training for lower qualification is arbitrary,

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 10 of 24

improper and redundant. He relies on the following case law:

I. (2010) 15 SCC 596 Para 7, 9 Jyoti KK-Vs-Kerala Public Service

Commission

“7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a

qualification has not been set out under the relevant Rules, the same

cannot be in any manner whittle down and a different qualification

cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the

higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the

acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order

to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher

qualification which presuppose the acquisition of the lower

qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the

post. If a person has acquired higher qualification in the same Faculty,

such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the

acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this

case it may not be necessary to seek for.

9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma-

holders have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who

possess higher qualifications, either this Rule should have excluded

in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the

position should have been made clear that degree-holder shall not be

eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on

the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher

qualifications in the same Faculty. It becomes clear that the Rule

could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In

that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be

sustained. In this case we are not concern with the question whether

all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not.

When statutory Rules have been published and those Rules are

applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such

appointments will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of

the Rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court,

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 11 of 24

therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of the applicants

would amount to fraud on the public.”

II. (2000) 2 SCC 655 Para 21-22

Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani & Ors -vs- District & Session Judge,

Nagpur & Ors.

“A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be

considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher

qualification than prescribed cannot be rational……”

III. (2013) 15 SCC 557 Para 11

State of Uttarakhand & Ors -Vs- Deep Chandra Tewari & Ano.

“we are conscious of the principle that when particular qualifications

are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a candidate possessing

higher qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No doubt,

normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is

deemed to fulfill the lower qualification prescribed for a post. But that

higher qualification has to be in the same channel……”.

IV. Order dated 6-11-2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in WP (C) No. 24062021 in Ramnik

Singh Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir.

“Para 11. …decision of the writ petition turns on the determination of

following issue:

“Whether a Degree in Electronics and Communication is a higher

qualification in the same line than the Diploma in Electronics and

Communication and, therefore, acquisition of degree qualification

presupposes the acquisition of Diploma qualification in the same line.”

“Para 15…….It is true that, in the absence of any material on record,

it would be difficult for a Court to come to a conclusion that degree in

Electronics and Communication is a qualification higher than the

minimum prescribed qualification i.e. Diploma in Electronics and

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 12 of 24

Communication and is in the same line. We will, however, advert to

this aspect a little later and find out answer on the basis of material, if

any, on record, suffice it to say that the Tribunal has not gone into this

aspect of the matter. We make it clear that if, we ultimately come to a

conclusion that Degree in Electronics and Communication is a

qualification in the same line and higher than the minimum prescribed

qualification i.e. Diploma in Electronics and Communication, then we

have no doubt in mind that the qualification possessed by the

petitioners herein presupposes the acquisition of Diploma in

Electronics and Communication and, therefore, they cannot be

declared ineligible to hold the posts in question”.

IMMPERSSIBILITY OF TAKING DIFFERENT STAND

V. (2010) 9 SCC 655 Para 35 to 40

Hari Bansal Lal -Vs- Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors.

“….we hold that it is impermissible for the State to take a different

view in the absence of any change of circumstances”. Para 39.

VI. (2011) 7 SCC 69 para 50, 51 & 53

Amar Singh -vs- Union of India

“This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game

of chess. A litigant who comes to court and invokes its writ jurisdiction

must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take

inconsistent position”. Para 50.

VII. (2018) 10 SCC 707 Para 12

Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Ltd -vs- Official

Liquidator of Mahendra Petruochemicals Ltd. & Ors.

“a litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take

contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be permitted to

approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent

shifting stands…”.

[6] Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate for the

State respondents, has fairly conceded that in the earlier occasion persons

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 13 of 24

similarly situated with the petitioners were promoted to the post of Fishery

Officer without on the basis of higher qualification of having B.F.Sc. and

M.F.Sc. on the ground that they have higher qualification in Fisheries.

However, a departure is made in the subsequent review DPC of 2023 where

the Government took a stand strictly following the recruitment rules where

diploma/certificate in Fishery is a mandatory qualification from promotion to

the post of Fishery Officer and in the circumstances, the petitioners were

held to be ineligible for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer as they did

not undergone training course of certificate/diploma in Fishery from the

notified institute in the rules.

[7] In view of the inconsistent of the State Government with regard to

the mandatory provision of undergoing training in Fishery in terms of column

11 of the recruitment rules, vide order dated 19-05-2025 passed by this

Court in WP(C) No. 718 of 2023 & 6 Ors and in the midst of matter being

part heard, this Court directed Mr. Athouba Kh., learned Government

Advocate to take instructions with regard to the requirement of

diploma/certificate in Fishery to those officers who have bachelor and

master degree holders in Fishery Science for the purpose of promotion to

the post. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:—

“Mr. Kh. Athouba, learned GA for the State respondents is directed to

take instructions with regard to requirement of Diploma/ Certificate in fishery

to those officer who are Bachelor or Master Degree holder for promotion to

the post of Fishery Officer.”

[8] In terms of the above direction, the Administrative Department

(Fishery) filed an additional affidavit dated 21-07-2025. In the additional

affidavit, it is stated that in the earlier litigation, i.e. WP(C) No. 617 of 2021,

the State Government took a stand that those who possess ed the

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 14 of 24

qualification of professional degree in B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. and rendered 3

years regular service are eligible for promotion and one Hemchandra

Ningthoukhongjam possessing B.F.Sc. degree without diploma was held

eligible and promoted on the basis of higher qualification vide order dated

07-11-2016. It is clarified in para 5 of the additional affidavit that a person

possessing degree in Fisheries is not required to undergo diploma in

Fisheries in terms of the clarification dated 20-09-2023 from the ICAR –

Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai and in the additional

affidavit, the State Government has clarified in para 7 that, the present writ

petitioners are wrongly held as not eligible for not possessing

diploma/certificate course during the service period and their B.F.Sc. and

M.F.Sc. are only for the purpose of initial appointment. It is clarified that the

persons having B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. certificates are eligible for promotion

without undergoing training in Fisheries. This is reproduced as under:—

i) The deponent submits that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the

Government in W.P.(C) No. 617 of 2021, Government had taken

its stand stating that those who possessed the qualification of

professional Degree in Bachelor of Fishery Science (B.F.Sc.) and

Master of Fishery Science (M.F.S.C) and rendered 3 (three) years

regular service are eligible for the promotion to the post of Fishery

Officer under criteria No. 1 of the existing RR.

ii) The Department had given promotion to one Shri Hemchandra

Ningthoukhongjam possessing B.F.Sc. degree without diploma

treating the bachelor degree in Fishery Science as eligible

qualification for promotion under the criteria for possessing

Diploma having considered Bachelor’s degree and Master degree

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 15 of 24

in Fishery Science as higher qualification than the Diploma in

Fishery Science vide order dated 07-11-2016 which was also

clearly indicated as eligible with 3 years regular service as

reflected in the DPC of the promotion order.

iii) It is also worthwhile to mention that the Director of Fisheries,

Manipur sent clarification letter dated 23-07-2020 and 18-08-2020

addressed to the Addl. Chief Secretary (Fishery), Govt. of Manipur

to the eligibility of the incumbents in term of the existing

recruitment rules that diploma mentioned in the existing RR should

be 2 (two) years course and possessing one year PGDIF & AM

has to render at least 5 (five) years of regular service in the grade

in order to be eligible for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer.

Further, the same interpretation has also been made as the word

“Diploma” in the existing RR is 2 (two) years course from Mumbai.

iv) The deponent submits that a person possessing degree is not

required to undergo diploma in the same subject as substantiated

by clarification letter dated 20-09-2023 from the ICAR-Central

Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai.

v) The Director of Fisheries, Manipur sent the earlier clarification

letter dated 20-09-2023 of ICAR-CIFE, Mumbai for re-verification

as ICAR-CIFE, Mumbai is the premier institute the authority in the

field of Fishery Science which runs the said diploma course on 23-

05-2025. Thereafter, it is clarified in the Directorate email dated

30-05-2025 that the earlier clarification still stands valid as PGDIF

& AM course is not required for candidates holding

B.F.Sc/.M.F.SC. degree which meant that the B.F.Sc./M.F.Sc. is

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 16 of 24

not required to undergo diploma course for promotion to the post

of Fishery Officer.

vi) The deponent submits that due to bona fide mistake and

inadvertence filed the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the

Respondent No. 1, in the above said writ petition thereby stating

that the present petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the

post of Fishery Officer as they have not possessed the diploma

course certificate during their service period, the degree of their

B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. is only for the purpose of their initial

appointment qualification and not for the promotion. Further, it is

also inadvertently stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the writ

petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the post of Fishery

Officer as they have not possessed diploma with 3 (three) years

regular service in their respective grades and possessing 1 (one)

year certificate in the Fishery Science from a recognised inland

Fisheries obtained from a Centre recognised by CIFE with 5 (five)

years regular service in their respective grades till now.

vii) Accordingly, the deponent submits that PGDIF-AM is not required

for those candidates holding B.F.Sc./M.F.Sc. degree as per the

clarification from the Dean Academic ICAR-CIFE, Mumbai which

is the premier institute of higher learning for Fisheries Science.

[9] The clarification from ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries

Education dated 20-09-2023 is reproduced hereinbelow:—

“Dr. B.B. Nayak

Principal Scientist and Dean Academic

Mumbai

Dated 20/09/2023

DEAN/SEP/GEN-6/7

TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 17 of 24

It is to certify that the PGDIF-AM currently offered by ICAR-Central

Institute of Fisheries Education, Kolkata Centre is mean for candidate holding

general degree on B.Sc/M.Sc (Zoology and Other Biological Science) who have

not acquired Knowledge on Fisheries and Aquaculture and following table

shows the comparison of B.Sc and B.F.Sc degree

Basic Degree B.Sc B.F.Sc

No. of years 3 Year Degree

(Zoology Biological

Science)

4 year Degree

Only on Fisheries Science

Subject Specialized Biological Science Fisheries

Required to PGDIF 1 year required to orient

the candidate to

Fisheries and

Aquaculture

Not Required (Student

undergone all the Contents

that taught in PGDIF-AM

during their professional

B.F.Sc degree)

It is therefore clarified that PGDIF-AM is not required for candidates

holding B.F.Sc/M.F.Sc degree

(B.B. Nayak)

Dean Academic

ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Education

Mumbai-400061”

[10] Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate for the

State respondents, submits that this Court may pass an appropriate order in

this batch of writ petitions based on the stand of the State respondents as

reflected in the additional affidavit dated 21-07-2025.

[11] Mrs. Momota Devi Oinam, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of MPSC, submits that there is no illegality in the proceedings of the

review DPC dated 18-09-2023 as the same has been conducted in terms of

the mode of DPC submitted by the Administrative Department and strictly in

terms of the recruitment rules. The recruitment rules made it mandatory for

the candidate to attend training course in the Fisheries for the purpose of

further promotion and since the petitioners herein admittedly did not attend

the training course as required by the recruitment rules, they are rightly held

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 18 of 24

to be ineligible for the purpose of promotion and it is also submitted that the

administrative instructions cannot overwrite the rules without amending the

rules.

[12] Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.

Roshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents,

submits that as per the recruitment rules, the petitioners did not attend in

service training course in Fisheries for the purpose of promotion and the

training course in Fisheries is a mandatory and such the petitioners were

rightly held as not eligible as per the recruitment rules. The higher degree of

the petitioners of B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. are for the purpose of initial

recruitment in the feeder cadre and they are required to undergo training in

Fishery during service. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the private

respondents even though they did not have degree in fisheries, they have

undergone the training course in Fisheries during service and they are rightly

promoted to the next post of Fisheries. It is a settled law that seniors who

are not eligible cannot be considered for promotion and in the

circumstances, the petitioners were rightly not considered and there is no

irregularities in the promotion of the private respondents to the post of

Fishery Officer as they are eligible as per rules. The clarification by ICAR

about non-mandatory nature of training in Fisheries cannot overwrite the

rules. In terms of the stand of the State Government, the rules have to be

first amended and only after that the petitioners can be considered for

promotion. After the filing of the additional affidavit dated 21-07-2025 by the

State, taking the stand that the persons with bachelor’s and master’s degree

holders in Fishery Science do not require to undergo in service training

course for Fisheries as contemplated in the rules for further promotion to

Fishery Officer. He relies the decisions reported as (2002) 6 SCC 252,

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 19 of 24

(2007) 10 SCC 260, (2010) 11 SCC 694, (2007) 4 SCC 54, (2022) 1 SCC

347, (2017) 11 SCC 521 & (1994) 2 SCC 630.

[13] Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits, on instructions,

that the case of the petitioners may be considered on the basis of the new

stand taken by the State that training in Fishery for graduate and master

degree holder in Fisheries will not be required for promotion to Fishery

Officer and they are not pursuing the challenge of promotion already made

in terms of the existing rules and their case can be considered in terms of

the new stand taken by the State as per clarification given by the Ministry in

this regard. It is recorded in the order dated 24-09-2025 passed by this Court

in WP(C) No. 718 of 2023 & 6 Ors. The relevant portion of the order is

reproduced hereunder:—

“[2] In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners approached this

Court for a writ of declaring that they are eligible for promotion to the

posts of Fishery Officer and it is also stated that they are not required

to undergo Diploma/Certificate Course in Fishery as the petitioners

are Graduate and Post Graduate Degree holders in Fishery after

studying 4 years and plus 2 years of regular course in Fishery. As per

the relevant recruitment rules of 1996, one of the eligibility criteria for

promotion to the Fishery Officer is Graduate plus 3 years regular

service in the feeder cadre and 1 year training Certificate/Diploma in

Fishery from the notified institute. Admittedly, since the petitioners did

not have the Diploma/Certificate Course in Fishery, they were held as

ineligible for promotion as per recruitment rules. However, the State

respondents have filed an affidavit dated 21-07-2025 stating the latest

stand of the State Government that for the employees who have

Bachelor and Master Degree in Fishery, they are not required to

undergo Diploma or Certificate Course in Fishery in terms of the

clarification by Central Government. However, from record, it seems

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 20 of 24

that there is a contemplation for amendment of the rules in this regard.

The private respondents who have already promoted to the Fishery

Officers are Bachelor and Master Degree holders in other subjects

with one year Diploma/Certificate in Fishery from the notified institute

and as such, even though they are junior to some of the writ

petitioners, they were considered and promoted to higher post of

Fishery Officers.

[3] At this stage, Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel and

Mr. S. Dijeshwor, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions,

submit that the petitioners’ case may be considered on the basis of

the new stand taken by the State that training in Fishery for Graduate

and Master Degree holders in Fishery will not be required and in the

circumstances, they are not pursuing the challenge to the promotion

already made in terms of the existing rules and they may also be

considered in terms of the new stand taken by the State in terms of

the direction of the concerned Ministry of the Government of India.”

[14] Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel for the private

respondents submits that the case of the petitioners may be considered for

future promotion as stated above without challenging the promotion of the

private respondents. It is reiterated that their promotion was in terms of the

existing RR.

[15] In the changed circumstances of the State Government having

taken a clear stand with regard to the non-requirement of undergoing in-

service training in fishery by officers from the feeder cadres having passed

degree and master courses in fishery as core subject and reading together

with the explanation from the ICAR in this regard and the undertakings of

the petitioners during the course of hearing giving up challenge of promotion

of the private respondents and confining the plea for consideration of their

case for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer without undergoing in-

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 21 of 24

service training in fishery in terms of Column 11 of RR, this Court is of the

opinion that these batch of writ petitions can be disposed of by passing some

directions to the State respondents. However, before proceeding further, it

will be relevant to refer to few case laws with reference to the interpretation

of statute specially the golden rule.

[16] In the case of State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan: (2011)

7 SCC 639, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while interpreting a statute,

any construction leading to absurdity is to be avoided. Relevant para are

reproduced below:

78. Therefore, an interpretation having a social justice mandate is

required. The statutory provision is to be read in a manner so as to

do justice to all the parties. Any construction leading to confusion

and absurdity must be avoided. The court has to find out the

legislative intent and eschew the construction which will lead to

absurdity and give rise to practical inconvenience or make the

provision of the existing law nugatory. The construction that results

in hardship, serious inconvenience or anomaly or gives unworkable

and impracticable results, should be avoided. (Vide Corporation

Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala66 and Sonic Surgical v. National

Insurance Co. Ltd.67)

79. A reasonable construction agreeable to justice and reason is to

be preferred to an irrational construction. The court has to prefer a

more reasonable and just interpretation for the reason that there is

always a presumption against the lawmaker intending injustice and

unreasonability/irrationality, as opposed to a literal one and which

does not fit in with the scheme of the Act. In case the natural

meaning leads to mischievous consequences, it must be avoided by

accepting the alternative construction. [Vide Bihar State Council of

Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine v. State of Bihar68 and

Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union of India69.]

80. The Court has not only to take a pragmatic view while

interpreting a statutory provision, but must also consider the

practical aspect of it. (Vide Union of India v. Ranbaxy Laboratories

Ltd.70)

81. In Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai71 this Court held : (SCC

p. 658, para 20)

“20. … the purpose of [the] law is to prevent brooding sense of

injustice. It is not the words of the law but the spirit and internal

sense of it that makes the law meaningful.”

82. In Workmen v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate72 it has been held thus :

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 22 of 24

(AIR p. 356, para 9)

“9. … the definition clause must be read in the context of the

subject matter and scheme of the Act, and consistently with the

objects and other provisions of the Act.”

83. In Sk. Gulfan v. Sanat Kumar Ganguli73 it has been held as

follows : (AIR p. 1845, para 19)

“19. … Often enough, in interpreting a statutory provision, it

becomes necessary to have regard to the subject-matter of the

statute and the object which it is intended to achieve. That is why

in deciding the true scope and effect of the relevant words in any

statutory provision, the context in which the words occur, the

object of the statute in which the provision is included, and the

policy underlying the statute assume relevance and become

material.”

84. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of

justice is not to be followed. Justice means justice between both the

parties. Justice is the virtue, by which the court gives to a man what

is his due. Justice is an act of rendering what is right and equitable

towards one who has suffered a wrong. The underlying idea is of

balance. It means to give to each his right. Therefore, while

tempering the justice with mercy, the court has to be very conscious

that it has to do justice in exact conformity with the statutory

requirements.

85. Thus, it is evident from the abovereferred law, that the court has

to interpret a provision giving it a construction agreeable to reason

and justice to all parties concerned, avoiding injustice, irrationality

and mischievous consequences. The interpretation so made must

not produce unworkable and impracticable results or cause

unnecessary hardship, serious inconvenience or anomaly. The court

also has to keep in mind the object of the legislation.

[17] Leading case for inapplicability of ‘literal interpretation’ is the

English decision in the celebrated case of Lee v. Knapp: (1966) 3 All ER

961. The fact of the case is that a penal enactment requiring that the driver

of a motor vehicle concerned or involved in an accident ‘shall stop’ and if

required so to do by any person, give his name, address etc., was

interpreted reasonably and it was held that ‘stop’ did not mean a mere

momentary pause and in the context meant that the driver of the motor

vehicle should stop the vehicle and remain where he has stopped it for a

reasonable time as will provide a sufficient period to enable persons to

require of him the information, i.e., names, addresses, etc. If literal

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 23 of 24

interpretation is adopted, mere momentary stoppage will be sufficient.

However, this is not the object of the statute requiring stoppage by a driver

of a vehicle involved in an accident and by applying purposive rule or golden

rule, the court has interpreted the word ‘stop’ as stoppage for a reasonable

period of time.

[18] From the above decisions, it is clear that any construction which

will lead to absurdity and hardship has to be avoided. In the case in hand,

the requirement of undergoing in-service training in fishery is basically

meant for those incumbents who do not have fishery as a core subject and

such training course is required to have a fair idea of the subject, when the

incumbents are promoted to higher posts. However, compelling the

incumbents with graduate and master degrees in fishery to undergo in-

service basic training in fishery does not make any sense. This will not serve

any meaningful purpose. It is just like a highly qualified person is compelled

to undergo basic training in the same subject. This Court is of the view that

considering the new stand of the State Government in its additional affidavit

dated 21-07-2025 in terms of the clarification of ICAR- Central Institute of

Fisheries Education, the requirement of in-service training in fishery as

stipulated in Column 11 of the RR will not be applicable to the officers in the

feeder cadres with B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. qualifications and the same is meant

for those officers who do not study fishery as core subject in graduation

and/or master courses. It is recommended that the State Government may

introduce necessary amendment in the relevant rule in this regard. Till the

rule is amended, it is directed that the training in fishery as contemplated in

Column 11 of RR for Fishery Officer will not be applicable to incumbents

with B.F.Sc. and M.F.Sc. courses, provided they are eligible as per other

requirements.

WP(C) No. 619, 662, 690 & 718 of 2023 &MCs Page 24 of 24

[19] With these directions and observations, the writ petitions are

disposed of. Misc. cases are closed. Interim order, if any, merges with the

final order. Promotion of private respondents are upheld as the same has

been considered strictly in terms of the RR. The petitioners who are B.F.Sc.

and M.F.Sc., are eligible for promotion to the post of Fishery Officer without

undergoing training in fishery in future vacancies. Since they become victim

due to the inconsistent stand of the State Government, if possible, creating

supernumerary posts in the cadre of Fishery Officer may be considered for

these petitioners to compensate the loss and injury suffered by them. The

petitioners are at liberty to submit representations to the authority in this

regard. No cost.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Victoria