Shri Naresh Pebam v. The State of Manipur

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN O R D E R

25.04.2022 [1] Heard Mr.Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.H.Debendra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Page - 2 [2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned cancellation order dated 5.1.2017 and the order 1.3.2021 rejecting the representation by the Director, CAF&PD and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to rejoin as LDC/OA by enforcing Letter No.5/9/2016-CAF&PD, dated 7.1.2017 to the petitioner to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant as per the notification dated 16.12.2016 issued by the Director, CAF&PD. [3] The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the notification dated 16.12.2016, he had submitted the application for the post of LDC/OA and after completing all formalities, the petitioner along with others were appointed on 4.1.2017 as LDC/OA. However, on the ground of Election Code of Conduct, the appointment order of the petitioner and others were cancelled on 5.1.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner along with the similarly placed persons approached the respondent authorities by submitting representation dated 9.11.2017 and the same was rejected on 1.3.2021 and proceeded for fresh appointment process. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. [4] The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2016, a DPC was conducted on 4.1.2017 for appointment of suitable persons to the posts of Quality Inspector, Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant, Store Handler and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in Consumer Affairs, Food and Page - 3 Public Distribution and on the basis of the select list dated 4.1.2017, appointment orders were issued on the same day, thereby appointing 20 persons to the posts of Quality Inspector, 22 persons to the posts of Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant, 6 persons to the posts of Store Handler and 35 persons to the posts of Peon-cum-Chowkidar against the newly created posts due to creation of 7 new districts during 2016-

2017. [5] It is stated that the Election Model Code of Conduct for the 11th Legislative Assembly Election of Manipur was announced and came into effect from 4.1.2017 and the Election Commission instructed all Administrative Secretaries/All Head of Departments, Government of Manipur to stop recruitment process. The Secretary, CAF & PD vide its order dated 5.1.2017 cancelled the appointment orders dated 4.1.2017 with immediate effect in keeping with the Model Code of Conduct. [6] It is also stated that a joint representation dated

09.11.2017 submitted by the petitioners addressed Commissioner of CAF & PD and Director (CAF & PD) for revocation of the order dated 5.1.2017 was rejected and disposed of by the order dated 23.3.2021 in compliance with the order of this Court dated

25.2.2021 passed in W.P.No.23 of 2021. According to the respondent State, with the disposal of the representation by a speaking order, the writ petition has become infructuous and the petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned notification dated 10.3.2021. It is stated that Page - 4 the attendance of duty after the cancellation of appointment orders is unauthorized attendance and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. [7] The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the common order dated 12.04.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2021 [Kamei Peikhollu v. State of Manipur] etc. batch submitted that the impugned orders, which are challenged herein, were under challenge in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2021 etc. batch, wherein this Court quashed the impugned orders dated 5.1.2017 and 1.3.2021 and also directed the respondent authorities to reappoint the petitioners therein by issuing appointment orders to the respective posts which they earlier held pursuant to the notification dated 16.12.2016 and the appointment order dated 4.1.2017. He would submit that the petitioner is similarly situated person and therefore, the same order may kindly be passed in this writ petition also. [8] Though the learned Government Advocate disputed the claim of the petitioner by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in this case, nothing has been produced to prove the case of the respondents. However, he admits passing of a common order dated

12.4.2022 in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2021. [9] This Court considered the submissions raised and also perused the materials placed on record. Page - 5

10. The challenge in this writ petition is the impugned orders dated

5.1.2017 and 1.3.2021 issued by the Director, CAF&PD. The said orders are also under challenge in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2021 etc. batch dated 12.04.2021. After contest, this Court set aside the aforesaid two orders and directed the respondents to reappoint the petitioners therein by issuing appointment orders. [11] For proper appreciation, the operative portion of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2021 etc. batch is extracted hereunder: "68. In the result, (i) All the writ petitions in WP(C) No.279 of 2021, WP(C) NO.247 of 2021, WP(C) No.280 of 2021 and WP(C) NO.464 of 2021 are allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 05.1.2017 passed by the Commissioner (CAF&PD), Manipur is quashed. (iii) The impugned orders dated 1.3.2021 and 23.3.2021 issued by the Director (CAF & PD), Manipur are quashed. (iv) The impugned notification dated 10.3.2021 issued by the Director (CAF & PD), Manipur is also quashed. (v) The respondent authorities are directed to re-appoint the petitioners by issuing appointment orders to the respective posts which they earlier held pursuant to the notification dated 16.12.2016 and the appointment order dated 4.1.2017. (vi) The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) The vacate stay applications filed by the respondents stand dismissed. (viii) There will be no order as to costs.” Page - 6 [12] Admittedly, the petitioner herein is similar situated person and the judicial discipline warrants this Court to follow the said common order dated 12.04.2022 in this case also. [13] The present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court dated 12.04.2022 passed in WP(C)No.279 of 2021 etc. batch and, accordingly the writ petition is allowed. [14] No costs. John Kom JUDGE