##PAGE1##

LAISHRA

Digitally signed

by LAISHRAM

M

DHAKESHORI

DHAKESHDEVI

Date: 2026.01.29

ORI DEVI 15:05:17 +05'30' Item Nos. 41-42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

WP(C) No. 424 of 2024

Shri Khwairakpam Ranjit Singh …Petitioner/ s

Vrs.

State of Manipur & 11 Ors. …Respondent/ s

With

MC(WP(C)) No. 368 of 2024

-B E F O R E-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

29.01.2026

Heard Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner; Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for

respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mrs. I. Bemola, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No. 4. None appeared on behalf of

respondent Nos. 5 to 12.

Office note dated 25-07-2024 indicated that no step

has been taken for service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 5 to

12.

Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner prays for granting one week’s time to allow the petitioner

to take steps for service of notice upon the said respondent Nos. 5

to 12 by way of dasti service.

Prayer is allowed. Steps should be taken within one

week and Petitioner is to file affidavit showing proof of service of

such notice.

Page 1

The case of the petitioner is that on the

recommendation being made by the Government of Manipur for

filling up 25 (twenty five) vacant posts of Extension Officer

(Development) by promotion in the Directorate of Rural

Development & Panchayati Raj (RD&PR), Government of Manipur,

a Class-II DPC Meeting was held on 15-12-2022 at the MPSC.

It is the case of the petitioner that by the said DPC, he

was recommended at Sl. No. 5 of the merit list for filling up against

the post of UR vacancy. However, the State Government has not

included his name while issuing the appointment order dated 08-

11-2023.

In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the MPSC, it has

been categorically stated that the case of the petitioner was also

considered and he was recommended for promotion against the

post of UR vacancy and that issuing appointment order is in the

domain of the State Government.

Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for the

respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 submitted that no explanation has been

given by the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Director (RD&PR),

Government of Manipur in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the

respondent No. 3 as to why the petitioner’s name was not included

in the appointment order.

The learned GA, further submitted that he may be

given one week’s time to get instruction from the respondent Nos.

1 & 2 as to the reason for not including the name of the petitioner

in the aforesaid appointment order.

Page 2

In view of the submission made above, let these cases

be listed again on 13-02-2026. On which date, the respondent Nos.

1 & 2 are directed to furnish necessary information and place

before this Court without fail.

The counsel for the MPSC is also directed to produce

the relevant official file on the next date of hearing.

A copy of this order be furnished to all the counsel

appearing for the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail during the

course of the day for doing the needful.

JUDGE

Dhakeshori

Page 3