IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (IMPHAL BENCH)
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Shri Loyalakpa Wahengbam Ananta - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Manipur and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1002 of 2005
Decided on : 15.09.2009
Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 14 , 162 , 226 and 309 - Recruitment Rules – Employment and Service matter - Serving as Physical Education - Assailing the order to re-designate lone post - Petitioner is now serving as Physical Education Promotion Officer on regular basis in Education Departments), Government - Respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as a substituted teacher and his services was utilized in Non Formal Education Unit of Directorate of Education(S) Government - Later on, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Assistant Graduate Teacher under meritorious Sports Person Scheme vide order of Director of Education - As stated above, respondent No. 3 who has no specialization in physical education was appointed as Assistant Inspector of School - It is clear that respondent No. 3 who was initially appointed as Assistant Graduate Teacher which is a non-gazetted post had been promoted to gazetted post which could be filled up only through DPC associated with Public Service Commission by promotion or by direct recruitment through Manipur Public Service Commission, by way of re-designation of non-gazetted post and that respondent No. 3 never faced any DPC associated with Public Service Commission – Held, Court also reiterates that even orders passed by executive have to be tested on touchstone of reasonableness - On a bare perusal of impugned order dated and records produced by learned Government Advocate, it is crystal clear that impugned order dated is not based on any rational foundation - A bare perusal of the order which has been quoted in its totality goes to show that same is not based on any rational foundation - Conceptual difference between a departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has not been kept in view - Even orders passed by executive have to be tested on touchstone of reasonableness - Concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution embraces entire realm of State action - It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in matter of exercise of right but also in matter of imposing liability upon him - Doctrine of equality is turned as a synonym of fairness in concept of justice and stands as most accepted methodology of a government action - Petition allowed
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order of the Government of Manipur being No. 4(8)/3/93-SE(S) Pt.-III, dated the 6th July, 2004, for according approval to the re-designation of the lone post of Sports Promotion Officer of Educations) Department, Manipur, held by Shri M. Chourajit Singh (respondent No. 3), who is admittedly not eligible for the post of Joint Director (Physical Education) under the relevant Recruitment Rules framed by the Government of Manipur vide order No. 1/7/63-S, dated the 3rd July, 1963, as Joint Director (Sports/Physical) in his grade pay with immediate effect and until further orders in public interest.
2. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. H.S. Paonam along with Mr. N. Jotendro, learned Counsels appearing for the respondent No. 3.
Factual Background:
3. The petitioner is now serving as Physical Education Promotion Officer on regular basis in the Education Departments), Government of Manipur. The respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as a substituted teacher and his services was utilized in the Non Formal Education Unit of Directorate of Education(S), Government of Manipur. Later on, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Assistant Graduate Teacher under the meritorious Sports Person Scheme vide order of the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur being No. 5/30/78-ED, dated 1.6.1990 in the Kha-Imphal High School with effect from the date of joining his duty vice Smt. L. Sumati Devi appointed Lecturer and his (respondent No. 3) service is utilized in the Education Directorate until further order. Admittedly, the educational qualification of the respondent No. 3 is only a graduate and he has not undergone diploma course or degree course or post-graduate degree course in the discipline of sports and/or physical education from any recognized Institution. As stated above, the respondent No. 3 who has no specialization in physical education, was appointed as Assistant Inspector of Schools (Physical Education) by re-designating the post of Assistant Graduate Teacher held by the respondent No. 3 vide order of the Government of Manipur being No. 4(11)/19/91-SE(S), dated 13.12.1991. Thereafter, without considering other Physical Education Teachers or other qualified Assistant Inspector of Schools working in the Education Department(S), Manipur, in the name of streamlining the various physical education programmes in the Department of Educations), Manipur, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to re-designate the lone post of Assistant Inspector of Schools (Physical) held by the respondent No. 3 as Sports Promotion Officer with immediate effect in public interest vide order of the Government of Manipur being No. 11/2/95-SE(S), dated 27.05.1996. Again, in partial modification of the earlier order of the Government of Manipur, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to enhance the pay scale of Sports Promotion Officer of the Directorate of Education(S), Manipur from Rs. 6500-10500/- to Rs. 7500-12000/- per month w.e.f. 19.03.1999 with usual allowances as admissible under the Rules as per Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 vide order of the Government of Manipur being No. 30/17/99-SE(S), dated 16.06.2000, w.e.f. 19.03.1999. It is clear that the respondent No. 3 who was initially appointed as Assistant Graduate Teacher, which is a non-gazetted post, had been promoted to the gazetted post, which could be filled up only through the DPC associated with the Manipur Public Service Commission by promotion or by direct recruitment through the Manipur Public Service Commission, by way of re-designation of the non-gazetted post and that the respondent No. 3 never faced any DPC associated with the Manipur Public Service Commission.
4. The respondent No. 3 who is only a Graduate having no diploma and/or degree or po
State of Orissa and Ors. v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo
S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab
Tandon Brothers v. State of W.B. and Ors.
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors.
Papmsam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd.
Balaram Kumawat v. Union of India and Ors.
Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 385
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Teri Oat Estates(P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry
Uttaranchal ETC v. Mansaram Nainwal
State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena
Union of India, Through Government of Pandicherry and Anr. case
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.