Chingangbam Ushakiran Devi v. The Union of India

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN

16.06.2022 [1] Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. [2] Mr.BR Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG who takes notice for the Union of India represented before this Court. [3] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Section Officer in the RIMS, Imphal likewise the private respondent by namely Mrs. Somi Paite also working as Section Officer(Estt.) i/c in the said office along with this petitioner. Due to the retirement of a person who work as administrative officer, there a is vacancy felt in the RIMS. [4] It is the further case of the petitioner that while being so, the 2nd respondent has passed an order dated 10.06.2022 by giving the in-charge post to the 3rd respondent as administrative officer (i/c) and the 3rd respondent should occupy the said post till 30.06.2022. [5] The said order is read as follows. REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE (An autonomous Institute under Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India) Lamphelpat , Imphal-795004: Manipur ORDER (10.06.2022) No.11/A/72-MC(Pt-I): Mrs Somi Paite, section Officer (Estt.) i/c RIMS, Imphal will work as Administrative Officer I/c RIMS, Imphal as a stop gap arrangement without any financial benefit with immediate effect until further order.

2. Mrs. Somi Paite shall be seated in room earmarked for Administrative Officer and Mrs. Shanti Devi, Consultant (Admn) shall be seated in the staff room of CAO/FA and look after liaising work of the institute. No further extension in respect of Mrs Shanti Devi shall be granted beyond 30th June,

2022. This issues with the above approval of Competent Authority. (Tapitha Keishing) Section officer (General), RIMS, Imphal Imphal , the 10th june, 2022. [6] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further represented that challenging the said order on the ground that the 3rd respondent who is working as a section officer like this petitioner has no qualification for giving the in-charge as the administrative officer of the respondent, RIMS. He further raised the point by saying that though the said in-charge has been given as a stop gap arrangement without any financial benefit but she is not having qualification for the post since she obtained her graduate qualification without taking prior permission from the competent authority, which is against the rule 3 of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 alongwith the notification dated 17.06.2020 issued by the administrative officer RIMS thereby upgrading the educational qualification from HSLC to B.A without prior permission is illegal. [7] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further raised several other grounds that this petitioner being the senior and having qualification as prescribed the rule 3 of CCS rules as per the notification dated 17.06.2020 issued by the Administrative Officer RIMS, Imphal and he also raised the point by saying that as per the Memorandum dated

21.03.1996 was issued by the Director, RIMS Imphal thereby publishing the tentative list of the Head Clerk/Accountants and other clerical staffs and the private respondent No.3 is included at Serial No.55 of the said tentative Seniority List and her qualification was mentioned as only HSLC whereas the notification dated 17.06.2020 issued by the administrative officer RIMS, Imphal upgrading the educational qualification for the said of post of administrative officer from HSLC to BA. Later on the final seniority list was also issued for upper Division Clerk (UDC), RIMS, Imphal on 31.03.2022 by the administrative officer by reviewing the objection raised by 7(Seven) UDCs in the tentative Seniority list published on 2nd June, 2020 and further a DPC meeting was held on 11.05.2012 appears to be in order. Further the qualification of the private respondent No.3 is shown as BA in the column of Education Qualification of the said seniority list. [8] Admittedly, the said qualification of BA is obtained without the permission of the respondent department. Therefore, as per the qualification she is only HSLC and she is not suitable for the post of administrative officer. [9] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further states that the present petitioner along with 3(three) other incumbent were promoted as Assistant section officer RIMS, Imphal from the post of UDC vide order dated 05.04.2022 issued by the Director (Admn.) RIMS, Imphal on the recommendation of the DPC meeting held on 30.03.2022 in the scale of pay of Level 6 of 7th CPC plus other allowances as admissible under rules w.e.f. 30.03.2022. Therefore, the petitioner having all qualification with seniority than the 3rd respondent for giving in-charge of the Administrative officer, RIMS, Imphal but in spite of the that, by overlooking the same, the 3rd respondent who is not having the qualification as prescribed by the CCS rules and also the respondents’ notification dated 17.06.2020 which is totally illegal. Therefore, challenging the said order, he filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 10.06.2022. [10] Mr. BR Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG who takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent represented that the order dated 10.06.2022 has been passed by giving in-charge administrative officer only for stop gap arrangement and the said post also only upto 30.06.2022 without any financial benefit. Therefore, the petitioner should not challenge the order because it is order only for stop gap arrangement. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. [11] Heard the arguments of both parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the order dated 10.06.2022 is passed only on the ground of stop gap arrangement by giving in-charge administrative officer to the 3rd respondent, that too without any financial benefit and the 3rd respondent should continue in-charge administrative officer till 30.06.2022. [12] Apart from this, the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 also specifically stated that no further extension shall be granted beyond

30.06.2022. [13] During the course of arguments, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner represented before this Court that this Court may atleast direct the respondent No.1 & 2 not to extend the said in-charge administrative officer post to the 3rd respondent beyond 30.06.2022 and by giving further direction to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to appoint permanent administrative officer as per law by following the seniority list of the eligible candidates. If this Court consider and to pass the above order, the petitioner would be satisfied. [14] Mr. BR. Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG represented that he also agreed that the order itself says that beyond 30.06.2022 the in-charge will not be extended under any circumstance. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 particularly, the respondent No.2 will not extend the in-charge post of the administrative officer post to the 3rd respondent. [15] Considering the argument advanced by both the parties, I am inclined to pass the following orders: (a) This writ petition is disposed of (b) The respondent Nos.1 &2 are hereby directed not to extend the in-charge post of administrative officer in the RIMS, Imphal beyond 30.06.2022 to the 3rd respondent or any other person. (c) The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to take immediate steps to complete the process for appointing the administrative officer permanently in RIMS, Imphal on or before 30.06.2022 by following the CCS Rules and notification dated 17.06.2020 with seniority list among the eligible candidates. (d) With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE John Kom