Back
2014 Supreme(Manipur) 47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, N.Kosiwar Singh, JJ.
Sorokhaibam Uttam Singh, and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. - Resopndent
Writ Appeal No. 84 of 2008 with Writ Appeal No. 55 of 2009
Decided On : 28-02-2014
For the appellants :Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. Arunkumar, Advocate .
For the respondents::Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate.
The cancellation of a DPC result and the validity of a policy decision by the State Government were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
DPC - Appointment Dispute - OM dated 19.3.2001, 25.03.2002 - The judgment discusses the cancellation of DPC result, the validity period of the DPC result, and the right of the appellants to seek a writ of mandamus/certiorari. The court also considers the policy decision of the State Government to fill up posts through open competition and the non-challenge of the OM dated 19.3.2001.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the appointment of candidates recommended by a DPC for the posts of Mandols in the Revenue Department. The State Government imposed a ban on direct recruitment, leading to the cancellation of the DPC result. The appellants sought appointment based on the DPC recommendation, while the State Government made a policy decision to fill the posts through open competition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DPC result had been cancelled, and the appellants had no further right to claim for appointment. It also upheld the policy decision of the State Government to fill the posts through open competition.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the cancellation of the DPC result, the validity period of the result, and the right of the appellants to seek a writ of mandamus/certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the DPC result and the policy decision of the State Government were valid, and the appellants had no further right to claim for appointment based on the DPC recommendation.
Final Decision: Both the writ appeals were dismissed by the court.
Acting C.J,
These two writ appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in 4(four) writ applications which were heard together and disposed of in a common judgment and order.
2. The 17 appellants in W.A. No. 84 of 2008 were the petitioners in W.P.(c) No. 1254 of 2005. The appellant in W.A. No. 55 of 2009 was the petitioner in W.P.(c) No. 1407 of 2005.
3. Brief history of the case is that pursuant to a requisition dated 02.04.1998 issued by the Revenue Department for filling up 34 posts of Mandols, DPC was held and recommendation was made. However, recommendation made by the DPC was not declared as a ban was imposed on direct recruitment by the State on 06.11.1999. The appellants, therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(c) No. 1007/2000 praying for publishing the recommendation made by the D.P.C. Though the state authority took a stand that because of the ban order, recommendation made by the DPC have not been disclosed, the Court disposed of the above writ petition on 27.08.2001 directing the publication of recommendation made by the D.P.C. on the premises that a ban order issued by the State Government cannot be a ground for not publishing or disclosing the recommendation made by the D.P.C.
4. In compliance of the said order, the recommendation made by the D.P.C. was published with the following conditions:-
“The declaration of this result does not ipso facto create any right for any of the above listed candidates to claim employment in the Government and it is clarified that the publication is only for complying with the order of the Hon’ble High Court”.
5. Even after publication of the recommendation made by the D.P.C., appointment letters were not issued. The appellants through their association named as “All Manipur Mandol DPC Successful Candidates Association” filed W.P.(c) No. 902 of 2002 for a direction to the State Authorities to appoint the members of the said Association who had been recommended by D.P.C. against those 34 posts of Mandols. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that association was an un-registered association and accordingly, writ application at it’s instance is not maintainable. Thereafter, on 15.11.2005, the present set of writ petitions were filed challenging the requisition dated 15.11.2005 issued by the Revenue Department requisitioning names from the Director of Employment Exchange to fill up 69 posts of Mandols in the Revenue Department. The appellants and others filed the above 4(four) writ applications on the ground that having been recommended by D.P.C. for such appointment in the year 2002, their cases should be considered for such appointment and the remaining posts could be filled up by considering the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
6. In the said writ petitions, counter affidavits were filed by State respondents. It was contended in the counter affidavits that the DPC for selection of candidates to be appointed against 34 posts of Mandols in the Revenue Department was held in the year 1999. A ban was imposed on direct recruitment by the State Authorities w.e.f. 6th November, 1999 and all recommendations made by the different DPCs were freezed. Therefore, the recommendation made by the DPC in the year 1999 for the purpose of filling up of 34 posts of Mandols in the Revenue Department could not be acted upon. However, because of the order passed by the Court in W.P.(c) No. 1007 of 2000, recommendation made by the DPC was published on 25.03.2002. The further stand of the state authorities in the counter affidavit was that more than 1000 employees were working on ad-hoc basis in the Revenue and other Departments and they could not be removed because of restraint orders passed by the Court in several cases. Therefore, the State Government was required to take a policy decision to bring to an end to this ad-hoc employment and continuance of such employment on ad-hoc basis. After consideration of the facts and cir
