ALL MANIPUR JUDICIAL OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION' Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Serto T.Kom, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Th.Ibohal, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Ms.Sobhna, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE fact of this case itself shows clearly that the State Government vide Office Memorandum being No.1/2/2009 -MIS(MGEL) Imphal 25.09.2009 had meted out discriminatory treatment to the members of the Manipur Judicial Service amongst equals, by denying the benefits enjoyed by members of other organized services under the said Memorandum dated 25.09.2009; rather, members of the Manipur Judicial Service are subjected to humiliation by repeatedly subjecting them to the MGEL (CPIS) formalities for the purpose of drawing salaries after appointment, transfer and posting, promotion etc. This court, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, is opening this judgment with the above unhappy words.

(3.) THE respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition justifying the denial of the benefits under the said Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 to the members of the MJS; and the reasons among others are that (1) services of members of the said organized service enumerated in the Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009 are under the purview of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur; and that if the Manipur Judicial Services is included in the list of the organized services enumerated in the said Office Memorandum dated 25.09.2009, a floodgate shall open. The State respondents in their joint affidavit in opposition, is not denying that the Manipur Judicial Service is also an organized service. The members of the Manipur Judicial Service are appointed to the Manipur Judicial Service under the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 1976 and now under the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The State respondents, with due regards this Court is compelled to observe, had clearly misunderstood the exclusive fields occupied by Articles 233, 234 and 309 of the Constitution of India and the role played by those Articles so far as framing of Recruitment Rules for the judicial service. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in State of Bihar & Anr Vs Bal Mukund Sah & Ors: AIR 2000 SC 1296 held that "no recruitment to the post of District Judge can be made by the Governor without recommendation from the High Court. Any statutory provision by -passing consultation with the High Court regarding recruitment to the post of District Judge is to be held in direct conflict with the complete Code regarding recruitment and appointment to the post of District Judiciary and Subordinate Judiciary as permitted and envisaged by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India. Article 309, which, on its express terms, is made subject to other provisions of the constitution, does not get circumscribed to the extent to which its general field of operation is craved out a separate exclusive field for operation by the relevant provisions of Articles dealing with the Subordinate Judiciary as found in Chapter VI of part VI of the Constitution".