Kangjam Mohonchand Singh v. State of Manipur

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Adv. For the Respondents : Mrs. Ch. Sundari, GA Date of Hearing & Judgment & Order :

07.04.2022 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned government advocate for the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 3 regularization in terms of the Class-III Special DPC held on 30 and 31st December, 2016 relating to 502 adhoc teachers and its subsequent recommendations submitted on 11.1.2017 by the Director of Education(S), Manipur the Commissioner, Education(S), Government of Manipur and also in the light of the judgment and the order dated 22.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.73 of 2019 and its analogous cases within certain stipulated period as the petitioners are all similarly situated persons like the petitioners in the said writ petition. The petitioners also pray for consideration of the representation dated 23.3.2022 preferred by them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were all initially appointed in between 1990 and 2003 as teachers on adhoc basis and posted at several parts of the State of Manipur. The State Government took a policy decision regularization of 288 adhoc employees in the various Government Departments and by adopting similar policies, the competent authority also took a policy decision for regularization of 502 adhoc teachers W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 4 and, accordingly, Class-III Special DPC was held on 30.12.2016 and

31.12.2016 respectively and the recommendation of the same was submitted on 11.1.2017 by the Director of Education (S), Manipur to the Commissioner,.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that in W.P.(C) No.639 of 2021 filed by the similarly situated 288 persons, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and, as such, the same policy is required to be adopted in the same manner and method in the present case also. He submits that pursuant to the said direction, regularization of 288 adhoc employees of various departments have already been done by the competent authority in view of the office memorandum dated 3.10.2013.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the similar case being W.P.(C) No.73 of 2019 also, this Court, by the order dated 22.11.2021 directed the respondent State to forthwith consider the proceedings of the Special Class-III DPC submitted by W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 5 the letter dated 11.1.2017 and take a decision for regularization of the petitioners therein within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Since the petitioners are also claiming regularization on the recommendations dated 11.1.2017 submitted by the Director fo Education (S) and also similarly situated persons, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid orders.

7. The learned counsel urged that highlighting their grievances, the petitioners have submitted a representation on 23.03.2022 and the same has not been considered by respondents till date and this Court may be directed the respondents to consider the said representation and pass orders within a time frame fixed by this Court.

8. Per contra, the learned government counsel submitted that appointment of the petitioners were made without public notice nor on the basis of any recommendation by any DPC. Their adhoc W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 6 appointment were made for a specific period of time and which was not extended beyond the year 2000. He further submits that in the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.2013, the adhoc employees of the Education (S) Department were not considered due to uncertainty of the number of adhoc employees under Education (S) Department.

9. The learned government counsel further submitted that Class-III Special DPC was not conducted as per applicable rules under the RTE Act, 2009 and therefore, proceedings of the DPC was cancelled by the order dated 07-12-2018. As the petitioners were appointed without any public advertisement and without following due process of appointment, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered for regularization.

10. This Court considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 7

11. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are to be directed for regularization of the petitioners in term of the Class- III Special DPC held on 31.12.2016 and 31.12.2016 relating to 502 adhoc teachers and its subsequent recommendation dated 11.1.2017 and also in the light of the order dated 22.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.73 of 2019.

12. In W.P.(C) No.73 of 2019, the petitioners therein claim that they have been appointed on substantive vacancies and that the respondents after considering the issue of adhoc appointments in various Government Departments of Manipur had taken a policy decision for regularization of 288 direct recruit adhoc employees of various Government Departments/Offices in the State of Manipur by Office Memorandum dated 3 rd October, 2013. On the basis of the policy decision taken by the respondents, all adhoc appointees in different Departments of the State of Manipur were regularized except the adhoc teachers in the Education (S) Department. Considering the plight of the adhoc teachers, the Education (S) Department submitted W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 8 a Memorandum for Cabinet for regularization of 252 adhoc Arts and Science Graduate Teachers which was approved by the Cabinet held on 29.11.2016 for regularizing the services of 502 ad hoc employees of the Education (S) Department through Class–III Special DPC against the existing vacant posts. On the basis of the Cabinet decision, a Class-III Special DPC for regularization of the services of 502 adhoc employees of Education (S) Department was constituted with the Director of Education as the Chairman along with 4 (four) other members after taking the concurrence of the Department of Personnel as well as the Finance Department. Thereafter, Notification dated 28-12-2016 was issued directing all adhoc employees to be personally present before the Class-III Special DPC on 30th to 31st December, 2016 along with relevant documents as specified in the said Notification. All the petitioners appeared before the Class-III Special DPC and thereafter, proceedings of the Class-III Special DPC was forwarded to the Government for approval by letter dated 11-01-

2017. W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 9

13. After considering the rival submissions, on 22.11.2021, this Court passed the following order in the said writ petition: “[31] All the petitioners were appointed substantive posts, though on adhoc basis, and had also the requisite qualification as prescribed by the Rules of 1995 i.e., the prevailing Rules when the petitioners were appointed. This Court has already come to the finding that the Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the NCTE would not apply to the petitioners. This Court has also come to the finding that the appointment of the petitioners are only irregular and not illegal. The Special Class-III DPC, which was constituted on the basis of Cabinet decision, having already made its recommendation by the letter dated 11th January, 2017, the State respondents are bound to consider W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 10 the said recommendation particularly when it is a policy decision of the Government. [32] In the facts and circumstances of what has been discussed hereinabove, the impugned order dated

7.12.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur is set aside and quashed. The State respondents are directed to forthwith consider the proceedings of the Special ClassIII DPC submitted by the letter dated 11.1.2017 written by the Director of Education (S), and addressed to the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur and take appropriate decision for regularization of the petitioners within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.” W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 11

14. As stated supra, the petitioners claim that they are similarly situated persons and the respondents may be directed to consider the proceedings of the Class-III Special DPC submitted by the letter dated

11.2.2017 in the light of the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(C) No.73 of 2019.

15. At this juncture, the learned government counsel submitted that the petitioners have submitted their representation only on

23.3.2022 and have filed the present writ petition on 05.4.2022 without even giving a reasonable time to the authority to consider the representation. However, he submits that the respondents are ready to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 23.03.2012 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits and demerits of the case and also in view of the submissions of learned government counsel appearing for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022 P a g e | 12 respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated

23.3.2022 in the light of the terms of Class-III Special DPC held on

30.12.2016 and 31.12.2016 relating to 502 adhoc teachers and its subsequent recommendations dated 11.1.2016 by the Director of Education (S), Manipur to the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur and also in the light of the order dated

22.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.73 of 2019 and pass a speaking order, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. JUDGE FR/NFR -Larson W.P.(C) No.236 of 2022