IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment and regularisation of the fifth respondent as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer were in accordance with the State Cabinet's decision and operational guidelines, and there was no infirmity in the process.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the appointment order of the fifth respondent as Research Officer dated 13.7.2016 and also the regular appointment issued dated 24.12.2016 as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer under the Tribal Research Institute, Manipur.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 18.12.2015, an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Research Officer in the Tribal Research Institute (for short, 'TRI') on contract basis for the pay scale of Rs.13,700/- per month. Pursuant to the said advertisement, 15 candidates have appeared in the DPC and the fifth respondent, who is the brother-in-law of the then Director, Tribal Affairs & Hills and Scheduled Caste Department, Manipur was appointed by adopting pick and choose policy and also extended favouritism to him by the third respondent. Pursuant to the engagement order dated 13.7.2016, the fifth respondent has been continuing to work as Research Officer in the TRI. While so, by an order dated 24.12.2016, the Secretariat of Tribal Affairs and Hills Department (TRI) created as many as 10 different posts such as 1 post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer, 1 post of Accountant, 2 posts of Computer Operator-cum-Office Assistant, 1 post of Driver, 3 Office Attendants, 1 Sweeper and 1 Chowkidar respectively.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that soon after the creation of the said 10 posts on 24.12.2016, the Commissioner (Tribal Affairs & Hills/TRI) has immediately issued another order on the same day thereby regularising the said newly created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer having pay scale of Rs.9300- 34800+GP 5400 in favour of the fifth respondent. According to the petitioner, the said regularisation was made without any DPC and the post of Research Officer cannot be converted into the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer and such conversion is against the service jurisprudence. It is averred that when the petitioner enquired, he was informed that the Recruitment Rules for the said post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is yet to be made and the re-designation of the said post is under process. While that being so, the post of Research Officer has been redesignated and regularised in favour of the fifth respondent. Hence, the writ petition.

4. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the designation of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer has been done with the approval of the Government in conformity with the operational guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. The fifth respondent was regularised as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer as per the decision of the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 14.12.2016 and with the concurrence of the Finance Department and also the Department of Personnel. Therefore, there is no infirmity in regularising the fifth respondent as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.

5. It is stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the fifth respondent is brother-in-law of the Director is baseless and false and in fact, the fifth respondent is not related to each other. The fifth respondent was appointed in pursuance of the recommendation made by the duly constituted DPC held on 2.7.2016. It is also stated that the TRI obtained approval of the Committee of Officers in its meeting held on 10.12.2015 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for engagement of Research Officer in the TRI on contract basis for one year, subject to the recruitment through open advertisement and payment of remuneration as per the FD/PIC norm. Accordingly, the Selection Committee held interview on 2.7.2016 and interviewed 11 candidates who attended the interview and recommended the fifth respondent. Since the writ petition is bereft of any foundation and prima facie motivated, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. As far as the contra