Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
Longjam Subhaschandra Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No.255 of 2024 with MC(WP(C)) No.216 of 2024 with MC(WP(C)) No.233 of 2024 with MC(WP(C)) No.239 of 2024
Decided On : 24-04-2024
Maintainability - Writ Petition - Recruitment Rules - The court discussed the maintainability of the writ petition based on the eligibility criteria for promotion and the nature of the appointment (deputation vs. in-charge). It emphasized that only aggrieved persons with locus standi can challenge appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the private respondent as Joint Director (Training) on deputation, arguing that he was the senior-most eligible candidate. The respondents contended that the petitioner lacked locus as he was not eligible for promotion at the time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment was essentially on an in-charge basis disguised as a deputation, thus granting the petitioner locus to challenge the appointment under the relevant Office Memorandum.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the appointment of the private respondent as Joint Director (Training) on the grounds of eligibility and the nature of the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the appointment was crucial in determining the maintainability of the writ petition, emphasizing that the substance of the appointment matters more than its nomenclature.
Result: The applications challenging the maintainability of the writ petition were rejected.
ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned AG assisted by Ms. Sharmila, learned counsel on behalf of State respondents/ applicants in MC(WP(C)) No.239 of 2024 and Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel along with Mr. B. Kirankumar on behalf of respondent No.3/applicant in MC(WP(C)) No.233 of 2024.
2. By the present applications being MC(WP(C)) No.233 of 2024 filed by private respondent No.3 and MC(WP(C)) No.239 of 2024 filed by the State respondents in the writ petition being WP(C) No.255 of 2024, the respondents/applicants are raising the question of maintainability and locus of the petitioner to file accompany writ petition being WP(C) No.255 of 2024 challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as Joint Director (Training) on deputation in the Directorate of Craftsman Training, Government of Manipur.
3. By way of writ petition being WP(C) No.255 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of Private respondent No.3 as Joint Director (Training), Directorate of Craftsmen Training, Manipur on deputation issued by Joint Secretary(DP), Government of Manipur vide order dated 13.03.2024. By the impugned order dated 13.03.2024, respondent No.3 has been appointed as Joint Director(Training), Directorate of Craftsmen Training, Manipur on deputation for a period of 3(three) years, or until further orders, in addition to his post as Deputy Director(JNIMS) at no extra remuneration. Earlier the petitioner has also challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 as Joint Director(Training) Directorate of Craftsmen Training, Manipur on in-charge basis by way of writ petition being WP(C) No.170 of 2024 and vide order dated 07.03.2024, this Court stayed the impugned order dated 25.02.2024. It is stated that on 07.03.2024, Joint Secretary (DP) Government of Manipur cancelled the order dated 25.02.2024 conferring in-charge Joint Director (Training), Directorate of Craftsmen Training, Manipur to the respondent No.3 in compliance of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.170 of 2024 and subsequently, the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 appointing the respondent No.3 as Joint Director (Training) in the Directorate of Craftsmen, Manipur on deputation was issued.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the senior most Principal, ITI, Manipur and as per the recruitment rules of Joint Director, (Training), the same is promotion post from the post of Deputy Director of Training and the Principal, ITI having three years of regular service in case of degree holders in Engineering in Mechanical/Electrical/Automobiles Electronic/Computer Engineering and 8(eight) years for Diploma holders, failing which by deputation from State or Central holding analogous post and failing which by direct recruitment.
5. It is submitted that in case of eligible candidates are not available for promotion as per recruitment rules, the senior most in the feeder cadre has to be appointed on in-charge basis in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.2020 issued by DP, Government of Manipur. It is also stated that the present impugned order dated 13.03.2024 has been issued in order to frustrate the ad-interim stay order dated 07.03.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.170 of 2024 whereby the appointment of the private respondent No.3 as in-charge Joint Director (Training) was suspended. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. The State respondents have filed MC(WP(C)) No.239 of 2024 and private respondent has also filed MC(WP(C)) No.233 of 2024 raising the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner herein, mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director. It is pointed out that as per para 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner will be eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director(Training) in the Directorate of Craftsmen Training in the yea
Only aggrieved persons with the requisite eligibility can challenge appointments, and the true nature of an appointment must be assessed beyond its terminology.
Appointments on deputation do not confer a right to continue beyond the specified term, and the distinction between transfer and appointment on deputation is significant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility of a candidate for a deputation post must be determined based on the specified criteria in the notification and relevant regul....
A deputationist has no vested right and can be repatriated for valid reasons, and public interest and administrative exigencies are valid grounds for transfer.
In case of 'appointment on deputation', employer cannot claim employee has no right to continue till completion of deputation - Director's decision not to extend deputation must be based on evaluatio....
Point of law: Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings Under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unr....
No prior consent required for employee deputation within same Union Territory under Article 52-C, J&K CSR, 1956.
Consent is not required for posting to a government-controlled body, and the equivalence of posts negates claims of adverse impact on service conditions.
Pending disciplinary proceedings disqualify a candidate from being considered for promotion or deputation, which must comply with established rules.
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
