WAHENGBAM SURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Th. Khagemba, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri A. Arunkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents and Shri Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 03.12.2016 issued by the Director, Information and Public Relation, Government of Manipur so far as the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are concerned and also to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Cinema Operator.

(3.) Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition are, that the respondent No.2, the Director, Information and Public Relations, Government of Manipur issued a requisition for appointment in respect of 40 different posts including 3 post of Assistant Cinema Operators vide letter dt. 8.12.2014 addressed to the Additional Director, Directorate of Employment Exchange, Government of Manipur, followed by another letter dated 10.12.2014 requesting it to submit a list of eligible candidates on or before 30.12.2014. In reply thereto, the Directorate of Employment Exchange, Government of Manipur issued a notification for the recruitment of the 40 posts. The petitioner being eligible, applied for the post of Assistant Cinema Operator through the Employment Exchange, Imphal West and an admit card thereof was issued to him by the respondent No. 2 for viva-voce on 10.02.2015 but the viva-voce was not held, as it had been postponed indefinitely. One of the essential qualifications as prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules, is that a candidate must hold the Cinematograph Operator Licence.