IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Yanglem Herojit Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 208 of 2017
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Regularization - Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant - Article 14, 16, 309 of the Constitution of India - 28.11.2016 - The court discussed the relevant Recruitment Rules, policy decisions, and the State Cabinet's authority in regularizing the contract appointment of the respondents as Assistant Agriculture Officers. The court found that the engagement of the private respondents was meant to strengthen the implementation of the MIDH scheme and was a prerogative of the Administrative Department. The petitioners were found to have no locus standi to challenge the regularization.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, unemployed graduates in Agriculture/Horticulture, challenged the appointment and regularization of respondents as Assistant Agriculture Officers (AAO) in the Horticulture Department, citing violation of constitutional provisions and rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the engagement of the private respondents as AAOs was a policy decision to meet the exigencies of service and shortage of staff, and was in line with the relevant rules and the decision of the State Cabinet. The petitioners were found to have no locus standi to challenge the regularization.
Issues: Violation of constitutional provisions and rules in the appointment and regularization of respondents as AAOs.
Ratio Decidendi: The engagement and regularization of the private respondents as AAOs were found to be in line with the relevant rules and policy decisions, and the petitioners were found to have no legal right to challenge the same.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioners' claims and ruled in favor of the respondents.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the appointment and regularization order dated 28.11.2016 in respect of the respondents 4 to 21 published in Manipur Gazette on 30.11.2016 and posting order dated 28.11.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Horticulture and Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur and to declare the cabinet decision dated 7.11.2016 and 21.11.2016 resulting in issuance of the impugned orders as bad in the eye of law.
2. The case of the petitioners are that they are all unemployed graduates in Agriculture/ Horticulture either B.Sc. Agriculture or B.Sc. Horticulture from different Universities and after obtaining degrees, they are searching for Government job commensurate with their educational qualification. The Under Secretary (H&SC) vide letter dated 14.4.2016 conveyed to the Director (H&SC) regarding approval of the cabinet decision for engagement of Horticulture Assistant/ Field Consultant/Data Entry Operator on contract basis under Technical Support Group Programme under Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH). Pursuant to the notification dated 20.4.2016, the third respondent issued notification dated 29.4.2016 declaring the result for the contractual posts of Data Entry Operator and Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant in the MIDH Section of the Department of Horticulture and Soil Conservation selecting 6 Data Entry Operator and 18 Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant candidates.
3. The Secretariat of the Confidential and Cabinet Department issued a cabinet meeting notice dated 7.11.2016 to discuss 22 Agenda, including regularization of 18 Assistant Agriculture Officer (AAO) appointed on contract basis in respect of Horticulture Department as Agenda No.22. On 28.11.2016, the Commissioner issued an order regularizing the contract appointment of 18 Horticulture Consultant/Assistant, MIDH as AAO in Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department with their respective posting at various districts. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. Respondents 1 to 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that taking in view the holistic sector grown of Horticulture in Manipur, the Department of Horticulture and Soil Conservation with the approval of the Administrative Department, took a decision for filling up of 18 posts of Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant and 6 Data Entry Operators on contractual basis under MIDH from the eligible Agri/Horti graduates/candidates. The third respondent in the course of implementation of MIDH made proposal on 29.9.2015 to the Commissioner for according administrative approval for engagement of the employees on contract basis on payment of fixed remuneration under a Detailed Project Report. The Department of Horticulture and Soil Conservation, after due process, submitted the matter before the State Level Committee of Officers chaired by the Chief Secretary for consideration and according approval to the proposal for contract engagement under MIDH.
5. The Committee of Officers in its meeting held on 10.12.2015 recommended contractual engagement of staff in the Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department and as per the recommendations of the Committee of Officers, the Department referred the matter to the State Cabinet for approval. After obtaining approval from the State Cabinet, the Department issued notification dated 20.4.2016 inviting application from the intending candidates for appointment of Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant and Data Entry Operator on contract basis. Thereafter, on the basis of the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC, the private respondents were appointed as Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant on contract basis vide order dated 29.4.2016 by following the reservation policy.
6. It is stated that in the course of time, there were 36 vacancies in the grade of AAO/equivalent in the Department and as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, 75% of the vacancies are to be filled up
A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies
AI
Long-term contractual employees serving on sanctioned posts acquire a legitimate expectation of regularization. The State, acting as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels to arbitrarily....
Recruitment by way of absorption or regularization must adhere to the Recruitment Rules, and a policy decision cannot override statutory rules.
Contractual employees may not claim regularization based on prolonged service or failed applications for higher posts, as employment must adhere to constitutional recruitment mandates.
Contractual employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right; their employment is project-based and temporary, governed by specific contractual terms.
The court ruled that contract employees with over ten years of service against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes and age relaxation ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioners' service should have been regularized as they were engaged against sanctioned posts by following due process of selection and ....
The main legal point established is that the appointment of the petitioners was not illegal, and they were eligible for regularisation of their services.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned order rejecting the claim of regularization was not sustainable in the eyes of the law, and the respondents were directed to cons....
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.