SANASAM BIMOL Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, in this writ application, prays for a direction to the respondents not to oust him from service till MPSC( Manipur Public Service Commission) calls for fresh advertisement and a select list for appointment as Lecturer is published.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the MPSC in partial modification of the earlier advertisement No.9/2006 dated 18.10.2006 issued another advertisement on 30.12.2006 inviting applications for appointment of lecturers in Government Colleges in different streams including Computer Science. The closing date of issuance and receipt of the application forms and for determining the age of candidates was fixed for 14.3.2007. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner had submitted an application for being appointed as lecturer in Computer Science. He was selected for such appointment. Challenging his appointment and appointment of some others, it appears, three writ petitions were filed by different persons. One Akoijam Ashakumar Singh filed Writ Petition(C) No. 4/09, one Shri Th. Ojenkumar Singh filed W.P(C) No.91/09. Another writ application was filed by Dr. Th. Meghajit Meitei and 4 Others vide W.P(C) No.10/09. In WP(C) No.10/09 all the selected candidates appear to have been made parties. When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, by order dated 12.1.2009 in the said writ petition, notice was issued and as an interim measure, it was directed that the respondents- 17, 38, 108 therein shall not be appointed to the post of Lecturer on the basis of the recommended list dated 15.12.2008 without leave of the Court. Since no interim order was passed prohibiting the appointment of the petitioner in the said writ application or in other two writ petitions such as W.P(C) No. 4/09 and WP No.91/09 the petitioner was issued with an appointment letter on 20.11.2009. The letter of appointment clearly shows that such appointment was on temporary basis in the scale of 8000 13500 per month and was subject to (a) satisfactory police verification report and medical fitness report of the candidates concerned and (b) outcome of the writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No. 685/07 and other relevant court cases.

(3.) It also appears that at the stage of initial appointment it was directed that the petitioner shall be on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner in pursuance of the said appointment order joined the College in which he was posted and while continuing as such, out of the three writ petitions filed challenging the selection, 2(two) writ petitions were taken up for hearing. It appears that the learned Single Judge took up WP(C) No. 4/09 and WP(C) No. 91/09 for hearing and dismissed both the writ petitions in a common judgment and order dated 16.11.2009. From the cause title of both the writ petitions, it is clear that the present petitioner was respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.4/09 and was also respondent No.4 in WP(C)No. 91/09.