SHARMILA NAOREM Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. A. Jagatchandra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Mr. Md. Jalaluddin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. Ch. Momon, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8 respectively.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 02.03.2009 and 28.02.2009 by which the respondent No. 4 and another were appointed as Project Officers on contract basis and the respondent No. 5 promoted to the post of Project Officer respectively in the District Rural Development Agency, Imphal West.

(3.) PURSUANT to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Project Officer and had taken part in the recruitment process, and result thereof was declared by a notification dated 19.4.2008 in which the petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, the Selection Committee held its meeting on 30.6.2008 and 5.7.2008, in which the candidates were interviewed. The petitioner submits that when the result of the interview was not declared for a long time, the petitioner and another candidate approached the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by filing a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 850 of 2008, which was disposed of by the Court on 26.11.2008 directing the respondent authorities to announce the result of the interview on or before 25.12.2008. Thereafter, belatedly the authorities announced the result of the interview and issued the appointment order in favour of respondent No. 4 and another Scheduled Tribe candidate who were engaged provisionally as Project Officers on contract basis and on payment of consolidated pay vide order dated 2nd March, 2009 (Annexure -A/9) which has been challenged in this writ petition. It has been also submitted by the petitioner that, in fact, the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee and was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the select list. However, to her surprise, the petitioner has not been appointed but the respondent No. 4 and other ST candidate as Project Officers as stated above. Another order was also issued on 28.02.2009 (Annexure -A/11) by which the respondent No. 5 was given appointment as Project Officer by promotion on temporary basis with immediate effect and until further orders, which is also under challenge in this writ petition.