JUDGMENT : .

(M.V. Muralidaran, J.) :

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 10.1.2019 passed by the second respondent and to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioners within a time frame.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were initially engaged as skilled Artisans of various categories/trades, sweeper and demonstrator of the Department of Industries since the year 1981 up to the year 1994 and since then they have been serving in the same capacities, however, their wages have been revised from time to time. The petitioners have been drawing meager wages/pay and allowances with a legitimate expectation that their services shall be regularized by the respondent authorities. While so, on 14.7.2016, the Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industries, Government of Manipur, addressed a communication to the Additional Director, Directorate of Employment Exchange requesting candidates for appointment of various categories of posts, including the posts in which the petitioners have been serving for decades together. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.626 of 2016 to quash the said letter dated 14.7.2016 and to direct the respondents to regularize their services through a Screening Committee constituted exclusively for them. By the order dated 10.5.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. Since the respondents failed to take action as per the order of this Court, the petitioners have filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.88 of 2019 and the same was closed on 20.8.2019 by recording the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 10.1.2019. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

3. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Finance Department, Government of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum dated 19.2.2005 prescribing a standard agreement for engagement on contract basis. Accordingly, the engagement of the petitioners on contract basis was made. There are sanctioned post of SA/Dem (D&T), SA/Dem (T&C), SA/Dem (Foundry), SA/Dem (Carpet Weaving), SA/Dem (Weaving), SA/Dem (Carpentry) and SA/Dem (Blacksmithy) in the Department of Textiles, Commerce and Industries. However, the petitioners were not engaged against those sanctioned posts and they were engaged on daily wage basis. Further, no post creation/sanction orders was indicated in the engagement order. Besides, there is no sanctioned post of SA (Winder), Attendant (P/L) and SA (B&BM) in the Department in which petitioners 1, 7 and 14 were engaged respectively. Therefore, there is no question of the post held by the petitioners in the requisition letter dated 14.7.2016.

4. It is stated that pursuant to the order dated 10.5.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.626 of 2016, the Director of Trade, Commerce and Industries, Manipur issued an order dated 10.1.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioners, as they failed to fulfill the conditions. It is stated that framing of scheme for regularization of adhoc/officiating/substitute employees is within the wisdom and domain of the State Government. Only after thorough examination, the claim of the petitioners was rejected as they do not fulfill the conditions stipulated by this Court in the order dated 10.5.2018. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to file the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Anjan Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while rejecting the case of the petitioners, the second respondent has failed to consider the direction of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition. He would submit that the act of the second respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization to their respective posts is unacceptable, as the petitioners have been engaged in the said posts for 2-3 decades together and in spite of being fulfilled the conditions set forth by this Court.

6. Explaining further,