Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Singul Larson Anal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017
Decided On : 07-07-2022
Appointment - Primary Teachers - 20.4.2010, 22.11.2016 - The judgment discusses the appointment of primary teachers against available vacancies under the ADC, Chandel, Manipur. It highlights the pick and choose method adopted by the respondents, the validity of the wait list panel, and the violation of the direction given by the court. The court found that the petitioners are entitled to appointment as primary teachers against the available vacant posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought appointment as primary teachers against available vacancies under the ADC, Chandel, Manipur. They were higher in order of merit and similarly situated based on the letter dated 22.4.2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners are entitled to appointment as primary teachers against the available vacant posts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appointment of primary teachers, the validity of the wait list panel, and the violation of the direction given by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners are entitled to appointment as primary teachers against the available vacant posts, and the respondents are directed to complete the exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners as primary teachers against the available vacancies under the ADC, Chandel, Manipur. No costs are awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as primary teachers along with appointed candidates as per the letter dated 22.11.2016 issued by the Secretariat (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur, as they are higher in order of merit as well as similarly situated based on the letter dated 22.4.2010.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the Chief Executive Officer, Autonomous District Council, Chandel, Manipur, requested the District Employment Exchange to sponsor eligible candidates for direct recruitment for appointment of primary teachers against 159 posts of primary teachers and instructions was notified for public information vide letter dated 23.1.2010. As per the above said letter, 519 select list for the post of primary teachers with further 74 wait list was notified as approved candidates. As per the notification, written examinations and interviews thereto were conducted and the select list and wait list were also submitted to the Government for approval. By the letter dated 20.4.2010, the Government conveyed approval of the DPC proceedings for appointment of 519 primary teachers and 74 approved wait list primary teachers. The petitioners are all candidates amongst the 74 wait listed primary teachers.
3. Further case of the petitioners is that from the said wait list, 14 candidates were later on appointed as primary teachers with effect from the date of joining service vide separate orders dated 22.4.2010 and 533 newly appointed primary school teachers who are enjoying the Government service. Meanwhile, 60 wait listed candidates from Serial 15 to 74, which includes the petitioners, have been kept waiting for their appointment despite the fact that there are 843 sanctioned posts less 716 present strength of 127 posts of primary teachers lying vacant in the Autonomous District Council, Chandel.
4. According to the petitioners, on the 14 appointed candidates from the wait list, only 4 candidates i.e. Serial No.1 to 4 were appointed against the plan education expenditure and the rest 10 i.e. from Serial No.5 to 14 were appointed against non-planned expenditure which still has 127 posts of primary teachers lying vacant against its head. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioners cannot be appointed against these 127 existing vacancy. Aggrieved by the act of the respondents, the petitioners have submitted a representation on 3.2.2011 seeking appointment to the post of primary teachers against the existing vacancies of 127 posts available with the Autonomous District Council, Chandel. The petitioners have also filed W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011 before the Gauhati High Court, wherein they have filed M.C.No.311 of 2015. By the order dated 14.12.2015, the Court directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 3.2.2011 followed by a reminder representation dated 10.8.2015 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
5. Pursuant to the order passed in M.C.No.311 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011, the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) passed an order on 12.2.2016 against the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016, wherein the Court ordered that the pendency of the writ petition shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers. However, to the utter shock, letter dated 22.11.2016 was issued approving 45 candidates for appointment as primary teachers from the remaining 60 approved wait list candidates from the letter dated 20.4.2010 by superseding the merit list against the petitioners who are higher in order of merit as per 74 approved wait listed candidates. Challenging the action of the respondent authorities and to direct them to appoint the petitioners as primary teachers, they have filed the present writ petition.
6. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the appointments of primary teac
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners are entitled to appointment as primary teachers against the available vacant posts, and the respondents are directed to comple....
The operation of a waiting list must adhere to merit and fairness principles, ensuring equal treatment for candidates in similar positions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of appointments made by the Panchayat Employment Committee, the entitlement of the writ petitioner to be offered appointment and con....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality committed by the Selection Committee in denying appointment to the writ petitioner and accommodating the appellant, as well as the p....
Parity – When there is a declaration of law by court, Judgment can be treated as Judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by treating those similarly situated, similarly.
The expiration of a select list due to inaction and erroneous decision of the authorities cannot deprive a selected candidate of appointment.
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
Waiting list candidates entitled to appointment for vacancies within validity period, tolled by judicial proceedings; cannot be denied arbitrarily.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
