Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Mutum Dinamani & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 367 of 2022
Decided On : 07-06-2022
Regularisation - Recruitment Rules - 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment - State of Orissa v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo (2007) 15 SCC 129, A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others (2004) 7 SCC 112 - Taylor v. Taylor (1875) I Ch. D 426, Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an order to regularise contract employees as Assistant Agriculture Officers and to fill vacant posts through direct recruitment. The respondents had absorbed contract employees into regular vacancies without adhering to the recruitment rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the regularisation and absorption of contract employees as Assistant Agriculture Officers were done solely based on a policy decision, without adhering to the Recruitment Rules, rendering the rules nugatory.
Issues: The issues revolved around the regularisation of contract employees as Assistant Agriculture Officers and the adherence to Recruitment Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recruitment by way of absorption or regularization must adhere to the Recruitment Rules, and a policy decision cannot override statutory rules. It also emphasized that an employee appointed on a contract basis cannot claim regularisation unless appointed in accordance with Recruitment Rules in an open competitive process.
Final Decision: The court admitted the petition, subjecting the impugned order to the result of the writ petition, and directed all future recruitment to strictly adhere to the Recruitment Rules of 2012. The respondent authorities were also directed to provide the materials forming the basis for the impugned order.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash the impugned order No.14/76/2021-HSC, dated 16.5.2022, issued during the pendency of W.P. (C) No.61 of 2022; to direct the respondents not to regularise or absorb contract employees under schemes/projects to the vacant posts of Assistant Agriculture Officer in the Department of Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur; and, to fill up all the vacant posts of Assistant Agriculture Officer under direct recruitment quota as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, through Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) within a stipulated time.
2. According to the petitioners, they are unemployed Graduates/ Post Graduates in Agriculture/Horticulture seeking government job and they are duly qualified to be recruited to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, Horticulture Department, Government of Manipur.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Director Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Manipur, vide notification dated 30.6.2018 announced Walk-in-interview to fill up 11 posts of Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant under Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH) for engagement on contractual basis with remuneration of Rs.20,000/- per month for one year. It is claimed that some of the petitioners also appeared in the said interview and there was no written test conducted. While so, during the first week of January, 2022, the Confidential and Cabinet Department issued a Cabinet Meeting Notice to consider absorption/regularisation of the aforesaid 11 Horticulture Assistants/Field Consultants to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officers. However, due to imposition of Model Code of Conduct, no regularisation was effected till 15.5.2022.
4. It is further averred that for recruitment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, the Government of Manipur has framed Rules which contemplate that the said post is Class II Gazetted post and is to be filled up 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment in consultation with Manipur Public Service Commission. It is alleged that on an earlier occasion, the Commissioner (Hort. & S.C.) vide proceedings dated 28.11.2016 regularised contract appointment of 18 Horticulture Consultant/Assistants, MIDH as Assistant Agriculture Officers and the same is subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No.208 of 2017 filed by some other unemployed Agriculture Graduates, which is pending consideration.
5. It is the say of the petitioners that they earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.61 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities not to fill up the vacant post of Assistant Agriculture Officers by absorption from contract Field Consultant/Horticulture Assistant. However, pending consideration of the said writ petition, the respondents vide proceedings dated 16.5.2022, which is impugned in this writ petition, absorbed/ appointed 13 Horticulture Assistants/Field Consultants of MIDH on regular basis in Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department, Manipur.
6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there are over 60 vacant posts of Assistant Agriculture Officers in the Department of Horticulture and Soil Conservation which are meant for direct recruitment and the respondents without adhering to the recruitment rules and without making appointments through the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC), are absorbing and appointing contractual employees into regular vacancies. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court for granting interim stay of the impugned order.
7. In the admission stage itself, the respondent Nos. 4 to 16 are appeared through their advocate Mrs. G Pushpa and filed their counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 16, it is the case of the respondent authorities that some of the petitioners did not participate in the earlier recruitment process and some of them who participated failed and, therefore, they have no locus sta
AI
Recruitment by way of absorption or regularization must adhere to the Recruitment Rules, and a policy decision cannot override statutory rules.
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....
Temporary or contractual employees lack a legal right to claim regularization unless appointed through proper recruitment processes, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
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 ....
Regularisation of employment requires adherence to constitutional provisions and recruitment rules, specifically against sanctioned posts.
Regularization of contractual employees is not permitted under the KCS Act as per existing legal precedents.
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
