Back
2015 Supreme(Manipur) 34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N.Kotiswar Singh, J.
Gaithaorung Gonmei - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. - Resopndent
Writ Petition (C) No. 508 of 2014
Decided On : 24-02-2015
For the Appellant :H. Kenajit, Advocate
For the Respondents: A. Vashum, G.A.
Non-conformity with the Central Rules of 2007 would not render the appointment under the State Rules illegal.
Headnote:
Quo Warranto - Appointment of Member of Juvenile Justice Board - Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Rule 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the qualifications for appointment as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board under Rule 7 of the 2007 Central Rules and the appointment of the respondent No. 4 under the 2002 State Rules. The court also considered the proviso to Section 68 of the JJ Act, 2000, enabling the Central Government to frame model rules to be followed by the State Government. The court held that non-conformity with the Central Rules of 2007 would not render the appointment under the State Rules illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the removal of respondent No. 4, alleging that he did not fulfill the qualifications for appointment as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board and did not discharge his duties properly. The respondent No. 4 denied the allegations and contended that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 under the State Rules of 2002 was not illegal, and the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent No. 4 did not fulfill the qualifications under the State Rules. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the other allegations against the respondent No. 4 were outside the scope of the writ of quo-warranto.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board was valid under the State Rules of 2002 and the Central Rules of 2007. The court also considered the maintainability of the writ petition and the scope of the writ of quo-warranto.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-conformity with the Central Rules of 2007 would not render the appointment under the State Rules illegal. The court also found that the other allegations against the respondent No. 4 were outside the scope of the writ of quo-warranto.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was devoid of merit and without any cost.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Rarry, the respondent No. 4 in person. Also heard Mr. Aleng Vashum, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for issue of a writ in the nature of writ of quo-warranto or any other appropriate writ or direction for removing the respondent No. 4 who is alleged to be an usurper of the Membership of the Juvenile Justice Board, Imphal West, Manipur.
3. According to the petitioner, the qualifications for appointment as a member of Juvenile Justice Board constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred as the JJ Act, 2000), are governed by Rule 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Central Rules) which the respondent No. 4 does not fulfil. It has been contended that as per Rule 7, a person to be qualified for appointment as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board must be a social worker, of not less than 35 years of age and must possess post graduate degree in social work, health, education, psychology, child development or any other social science discipline and has been actively engaged in planning, implementing and administering measures relating to child welfare for at least seven years. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 neither possesses the required educational qualification nor the experience. The petitioner has also charged the respondent No. 4 of conducting himself in a manner not befitting a member of the Juvenile Justice Board. It has been mentioned that the respondent No. 4 was absent on 11.6.2014 when the application for bail of the petitioner's son was fixed as he was busy with some other private works as an Advocate before other Court. It has been also stated that the respondent No. 4 is not a social worker and is in fact, a full fledged legal practitioner, who is heavily engaged in High Court and lower Courts, which does not allow him to give necessary time and attention for the works of the Board. There are also other charges against the respondent No. 4 as mentioned in para No. 6 of the writ petition of not following the procedure prescribed law while functioning as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board. In this connection, the petitioner has annexed a number of documents in support of his complaint that the respondent No. 4 has not been functioning properly in accordance with the provisions of law.
4. The respondent No. 4 by filing his affidavit-in-opposition has denied the allegations made in the writ petition. He has denied that he is not eligible for appointment as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board. It has been also contended that the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable inasmuch as the impugned order by which the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Imphal West, Manipur has neither been annexed nor challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner, however, has subsequently annexed a copy of the order dated 30.4.2012 by which the respondent No. 4 was appointed as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Imphal West, Manipur by filing an additional affidavit on 04.8.2014, seeking to cure the defect mentioned by the petitioner.
It has been also contended by the Respondent No. 4 that the writ petition was filed challenging his appointment by relying on the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, alleging that he did not fulfil the requirements of Rule 7. The respondent No. 4 contends that however, he was appointed as a member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Imphal West, Manipur under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Manipur Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 State Rules) of which there is not even a whisper in the writ petition and not under the 20
