STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. CH. SANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2009 passed in W.P(C) No.1302 of 2005 by which the learned Single Judge directed the State respondents to declare the result of the DPC held on 27.3.2000 for recruitment to the post of LDCs as ordered earlier by the High Court in the judgment and order dated 30.01.2001 passed in W.P(C) No. 1496 of 2000 within two months.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the present writ appeal may be stated hereinbelow. The petitioners initially joined service as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the Directorate of Education (U), Government of Manipur on adhoc basis in terms of the appointment orders dated 22.1.1997 and 18.12.1998 issued by the Director of Education (U), Govt. of Manipur. The services of the petitioners on adhoc basis were extended from time to time.While the petitioners were serving as LDCs on adhoc basis, the Director of Education (U), Govt. of Manipur,vide letter dated 16.1.1999 requested the Employment Exchanges for sponsoring candidates for appointment to 11 posts of LDCs in the Directorate of Education (U), Govt. of Manipur.Pursuant to the aforesaid requisition letter, the petitioners and others were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. Thereafter, a DPC was held on 27.3.2000. However, the result of the DPC was not declared as in the meantime a ban was imposed on direct recruitments by the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the High Court by filinga writ petition,being W.P(C) No. 1496 of 2000 seeking for a direction for declaration of the result of the DPC held on 27.3.2000 and for making regular appointment of the successful candidates and not to dispense with their service till the posts held by the writ petitioners are filled up on regular basis. The said writ petition, W.P(C) No. 1496 of 2000 was disposed of by the Court as follows: -

(3.) THE main contention of the State appellants is that the order dated 19.3.2001 providing, inter alia, for cancellation of result of DPCs was issued by the State Government after the Government of Manipur took a policy decision in public interest on 7.3.2001 to streamline the financial liabilities of the State Governmentwhich included adopting different measures for downsizing of various posts under Government of Manipur. According to the learned counsel appearing for the State Appellants, the DPC which was held on 27.3.2000 had been treated as cancelled in terms ofparaNo.4 of the Government order dated 19.3.2001 and since the writ petitioners did not challenge the legality of the said order dated 19.3.2001, more particularly,para No.4 of the said order, the direction given by the Court in W.P (C) No.1496 of 2000 could not be implemented. According to the State appellants, after having treated the result of the DPCascancelled, the Department issued another requisition to the Employment Exchanges on 10.11.2006 for filling up 16 posts of LDCs including the posts held by the writ petitioners in terms of the office memorandum dated 24.9.2005. However, the interview could not be held due to an interim order passed by the Court and due to pendency of the writ petition.The State Appellants had also contended that the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the import of the order passed inW.P(C) No. 558 of 2001 which was in the context of termination of all appointments on adhoc contract/ casual basis against direct recruitment vacancies made upto 19.4.1999. The said W.P(C) No. 585 of 2001 was disposed of on the ground that the State Government issued a modification order by which the said cut off date of 19.4.1999 mentioned in the Government order 19.3.2001 had been changed to 6.11.1999. In other words, since the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis before the cut off date of 6.11.1999, the cases of the petitioners will not be covered by the said office order dated 19.3.2001 and would not be liable to be terminated in terms of the order dated 19.3.2001.Therefore,State Appellants have contended that the direction issued by this Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2009 is liable to be interfered with. The respondents/writ petitioners have, however, reiterated their position and submitted that the order dated 30.1.2001 passed in W.P(C) No. 1496 of 2001 could not have been affected by an executive order as the Government order dated 19.3.2001 would have the effect of nullifying a judicial order. The said order dated30.01.2001 of the High Court had clearly directed to declare the result of the DPC as soon as the ban imposed on direct recruitment is lifted and since ban on direct was lifted as clearly evident by the office memorandum dated 24.9.05, the result of the DPC held on 27.3.2000 ought to have been declared and as such, the finding and direction of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference by this Court.