LAWS(SC)-1975-2-32

TOURANG BAM IBOTOMBI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 19, 1975
TOURANG BAM IBOTOMBI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of Director of Education, Manipur fell vacant on 7-12-1969 due to the sudden death of the incumbent of that post. According to the recruitment Rules for Class I and Class II posts of Government of Manipur framed on the 2nd April, 1969 the vacancy could be filled up by promotion of the officers already in service or by transfer on deputation, failing either by direct recruitment. The petitioner in this writ application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India at the relevant time was Inspector of Schools, Department of Education, Government of Manipur. The third respondent was the Principal, G. P. Women's College, Imphal. By order dated 25th May, 1970, a copy of which is Annexure 'D' to the writ application, the Lt. Governor of Manipur, respondent No. 2 appointed by promotion the third respondent to the post of Director of Education. The petitioner obtained a rule from this Court against the respondents (also impleading Union of India as respondent no. 1) to show cause why the order dated 25-5-1970 be not quashed and why respondents 1 and 2 be not directed to consider the case of the-Petitioner according to the relevant Recruitment Rules.

(2.) Cause has been shown on behalf of the respondents and a counter-affidavit sworn by the Under Secretary, Appointments and Service Department to the Government of Manipur has also been filed.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that according to the combined seniority list Annexure 'B' he was senior to respondent no. 3, according to the Rules dated 22nd April, 1969 - Annexure 'A'- respondent no. 3 was not qualified to be appointed by promotion to the post of Director of Education, Rules were amended male fide and according to the amended Rules - Annexure 'C' the essential requirement of the candidate being the holder of a degree or diploma in education was relaxed and thereafter respondent no. 3 was appointed ignoring the claim of the petitioner.