IN THE , (THE HIGH COURT OF , NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND )

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.34 of 2011 PETITIONERS: 1. Mrs. A Chune, 533004, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, Assam Rifles Training Centre and School, , Karbi Anglong, Assam

2. Mrs. Retnamma R, 040, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 2 Maintenance Group, the Assam Rifles, , Cachar, Assam

3. Mrs. N Kip Jassal, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 39th Battalion, the Assam Rifles

4. Mrs.Chinnu Guite, 5330010, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 9th Battalion, the Assam Rifles

5. Mrs. L Haokip, 034, Auxillary Nurse

6. Mrs. S Athia, 533008, Auxillary Nurse Midwife,

7. Mrs. Kapesa Mao,035, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 8. Mrs.Mercy Thomas, 020, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 9. Mrs. P Haokip, 027, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 10. Mr. Lamjingba Meetie, 5330023, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, Assam Rifles Composite Hospital. 11. Mrs. Alice John, 029, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 12. Mrs. Chungneihtal Vaipei, 038, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 13. Mrs. Vungkhanngal, 038, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 14. Mrs. L.C.Singsit, 5330007, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 15. Mrs. A Mao 042, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, 16. Mrs. Shamila Haokip, Auxillary Nurse Midwife, RESPONDENTS: 1. The Union of , represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, PIN-110 001 2. The Director General Assam Rifles, Mahanideshalaya (The Directorate General Assam Rifles) , Meghalaya, PIN-793 0011 3. The Assam Rifles North (IGAR, North), C/O 99 APO 4. The Deputy Inspector General Assam Rifles (DIGAR) 25th Sector, the Assam Rifles Lekhapani, , Assam C/O 99 APO

Page 1 of 5

5. The 2 Maintenance Group, the Assam Rifles Silchar, Cachar, Assam C/o 99 APO 6. The Commandant The Assam Rifles Training School, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam, C/O 99 APO

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN

For the petitioners: Mr.H G Baruah and Ms. C Talukdar, learned counsel For the respondents: Ms.H Terangpi, learned counsel Date of hearing & judgment: 2.5.2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Ajit Singh, C.J.) By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction against the respondents to make adequate promotional avenues for them by amending Assam Rifles (Medical Staff) Recruitment Rules, 2001 (in short “Rules, 2001”).

2. The petitioners were appointed on different dates as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (in short “ANM”) in the Assam Rifles. They are presently working in various Battalions of the Assam Rifles. Also their average length of service as ANM is about 18-19 years. The requisite educational qualification for the post of ANM is Midwifery certificate from government recognized Institution. The post of ANM is isolated having no avenue for promotion. Some of the petitioners represented for their promotion to the post of Staff Nurse, but it did not yield any positive result, because none of them possess Diploma in Nursing, which is a mandatory qualification for that post. Aggrieved, the petitioners pray for a direction against the respondents to create avenue for their promotion to the post of Staff Nurse or any other posts by suitably amending the Rules.

3. The respondents in their reply have admitted that the post of ANM is an isolated post having no avenue for promotion. The Respondents have also admitted that the representation of some of the petitioners for promotion to the

Page 2 of 5 post of Staff Nurse has been rejected because they do not possess mandatory qualification of Diploma in Nursing. The Respondents have however prayed for the dismissal of petition on the ground that petitioners have been given the benefits of financial up-gradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) introduced by the Government. According to the respondents, the financial benefits available to the petitioners under ACPS/MACPS are as under:- Sl Pay Pay Scale Grade Remarks No. Band Pay (a) 1 Rs.5200-20200 Rs.2400/- Initially (b) 1 Rs.5200-20200 Rs.2800/- 1st MACPS after 10 years of service (c) 2 Rs.9300-34800 Rs.4200/- 2nd MACPS after 20 years of service (d) 2 Rs.9300-34800 Rs.4600/- 3rd MACPS after 30 years of service

4. The sole question which requires our consideration is whether in the fact situation of the case any direction can be issued against the respondents to make promotional avenues for the petitioners by amending the Rules.

5. The Supreme Court in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635 had held as under:-

“It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not ‘hire a hand’ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See Principles of Personnel Management, Flipo, Edwin B., 4th Edn., p. 246.) Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. ‘The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors.’ (See Personnel Management, Dr Udai Pareek, p. 277.) There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.”

Page 3 of 5

6. In yet an another case O.Z. Hussain (Dr) v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 688, the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has laid down the law stating:

“Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical ‘A’ Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers.”

7. The Supreme Court has thus settled that a public organization must provide promotional avenues for its employees to enhance their intellectual performance and ensure efficient public service. But, it is also seen that when a public organization is unable to provide promotional avenues, it implements ACPS/MACPS as recommended by the Pay Commission. The ACPS/MACPS was introduced with a view to provide ‘safety net’ to deal with problems of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of promotional avenues. This scheme provides granting of three financial up-gradation on completion of 12 years, 24 years and 30 years of regular service, respectively. According to the scheme, isolated post like that of the petitioners, which has no promotional avenues, shall also qualify for similar benefits. And in Hukum Chand Gupta v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, (2012) 12 SCC 666, the Supreme Court has held that provisions contained in ACPS/MACPS are in consonance with the observation made by it in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (supra). While holding so, the Supreme Court has also referred to its earlier decision in the State of Tripura v. K.K.Roy, (2004) 9 SCC 65, wherein non-implementation of ACPS by the State Government was not appreciated because the post of incumbent did not provide any avenue of promotion. In that case, the Supreme Court even directed the State Government to grant the incumbent of a post,

Page 4 of 5 one higher scale of pay on completion of 12 years and another upon completion of 24 years.

8. Since the petitioners are availing the benefits of financial up- gradation under ACPS/MACPS and this addresses their problem of stagnation and hardship due to lack of promotional avenues and the scheme is in consonance with the observation made by the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Agricultural Research (supra), we are unable to direct the respondents to make promotional avenues for them by amending the Rules, 2001.

9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Skd

Page 5 of 5