SHAMURAILATPAM v. The State of Manipur

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioners :: Mr. L. Kamminthang Khongsai, Advocate For the Respondents Date of Hearing and Judgment & Order :: :: Mr. S. Nepolean, GA.

17.08.2022 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned Government approval letter dated

22.11.2016 and also the subsequent appointment orders dated

23.11.2016 issued by the third respondent in respect of the respondent Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, as the same are illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Primary Teachers under Autonomous District Council, Senapati as per the seniority of wait list prepared and recommended by the DPC held on and from 18.12.2009 to

12.01.2010. WP(C) No. 796 of 2017 P a g e | 4

2. Heard Mr. L. Kamminthang Khongsai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Nepolean, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent. None appeared on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, even after receipt of the notice.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they are among the wait list prepared and recommended by the DPC held from

18.12.2009 to 12.01.2010 for appointment of various posts of Primary Teachers under the Senapati Autonomous District Council, Manipur. However, the Government, while giving approval of 23 from amongst of wait list for appointment of Primary Teacher, did not maintain seniority as the juniors to the petitioners had been given appointment in pursuant to the Government approval dated 22.11.2016 and subsequently, appointment orders dated 23.11.2016 were issued by the third respondent. According to the petitioners, the acts aforesaid being unconstitutional and arbitrary and they are prejudiced by issuance of appointment orders in respect of respondents 4 to 10 and in turn, the petitioners should be appointed as per the seniority wait list. WP(C) No. 796 of 2017 P a g e | 5

4. Assailing the impugned Government approval dated 22.11.2016 as well as the appointment orders dated

23.11.2016 in respect of the respondents 4 to 10, Mr. Kamminthang, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a DPC for appointment of various posts of Primary Teachers under Senapati ADC was held on 18.12.2009 to

12.01.2010 and in the aforesaid DPC, the petitioners along with number of candidates appeared for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers. He would submit that in the wait list in order of merit recommended by the DPC, the names of the petitioners appeared at Serial Nos.48, 49, 57 and 59 respectively and out of 129 wait listed candidates, appointment had already been given from Serial Nos.1 to 31 as Primary Teachers.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that on

22.11.2016, the first respondent conveyed its approval to the appointment of 23 persons on regular basis to the post of Primary Teachers under ADC, Senapati as approved by the State Cabinet and subsequently, on 23.11.2016, the third respondent issued appointment orders appointing 23 candidates, including the private respondents 4 to 10 as WP(C) No. 796 of 2017 P a g e | 6 Primary Teachers and posted at different Primary and Upper Primary Schools under the SDC, Senapati.

6. The learned counsel urged that as per the wait list, the petitioners are seniors to private respondents, as the names of 5th respondent appeared at Serial No.55, 6th respondent at Serial No.56, 7th respondent at Serial No.58, 8th respondent at Serial No.79, 9th respondent at Serial No.83, 10th respondent at Serial No.110 and even the fourth respondent’s name not found in the wait list, however, his name has been found at Serial No.7 of the impugned Government approval dated 22.11.2016. Since the third respondent did not maintain seniority of wait list in order of merit and the approval of the Government was done on pick and choose method without following the seniority of wait list in order of merit prepared and recommended by the DPC, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned Government approval dated 22.11.2016 and the appointment orders dated 23.11.2016 in respect of the private respondents and consequently, direct respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners as Primary Teachers under ADC, Senapati. WP(C) No. 796 of 2017 P a g e | 7

7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nepolean, the learned Government Advocate, taking through the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the first respondent, submitted that the appointment of Primary Teachers under ADC, Chandel in the year 2016 have not followed the seniority list on basis of merit and therefore, the Department is of the view that the appointment of Primary Teachers in the year 2016 under the ADC Chandel should have been made strictly as per the merit list of the approved wait list for appointment of Primary Teachers DPC held on 2009-2010.

8. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

9. It appears that in view of the power vested with the State Government under Rule 45 of the Manipur (Hills Areas) District Councils Rules, 1972 to make appointment of its officers and staff, whether temporary or permanent under Autonomous District Council, the State Government vide letter dated 20.4.2010 conveyed its approval for DPC proceedings for appointment of 517 number of Primary Teachers (other than PWD) and another 129 number of candidates as wait list in order of merit under the Senapati ADC. WP(C) No. 796 of 2017 P a g e | 8

10. According to the petitioners, though their names appeared in the wait list at Serial Nos.49, 59, 57 and 48 respectively, the respondents 4 to 10 who were juniors to them were picked from the said list and issued appointment orders. Thus, the petitioners contended that as per the seniority of wait list in order of merit recommended by the DPC, the petitioners are seniors to the private respondents herein.

11. Though the official respondents contended that the appointment of Primary Teachers in the year 2016 have not followed the seniority list on basis of merit and the appointment of Primary Teachers in the year 2016 made strictly as per the merit list of the approved waitlist for appointment of Primary Teachers DPC held on 2009-2010, nothing has been produced to establish the said plea. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the first respondent, nothing has been elaborated and only simple affidavit has been filed with no annexure etc.

12. The specific case of the petitioners is that though the name of the fourth respondent was not found place in the wait list, while approving the list, his name appeared at Serial No.7. The aforesaid has not been resisted by the respondents in their affidavit. Further, it has not been clarified as to how a WP(C) No. 796 of 2017 P a g e | 9 person who has not been recommended by the DPC has been given approval by the Government for appointment and why similarly the Government while giving approval for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers under ADC, Senapati did not maintain seniority of wait list in order of merit was also not clarified. The alleged act of the respondent authorities prima facie show that the approval of the Government was done on pick and choose method and that too without following the seniority of wait list in order of merit recommended by the duly constituted DPC.

13. Since the claim made by the petitioners needs to be adjudicated on the basis of records which were with the official respondents and as stated supra, the respondent authorities have failed to produce any single record. Merely based on the pleadings, the claim made by the petitioners cannot be decided. That apart, the writ petition is of the year 2017 and hardly five years elapsed. Further, none appeared on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3.

14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the only course is to remit the matter back to the respondents 1 to 3 for consideration of the claim made by the WP(C) No. 796 of 2017 P a g e | 10 petitioners and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the matter is remitted back to the respondents 1 to 3 for consideration of the claim made by the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing all concerned. No costs. JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 796 of 2017