ZINGSUOKIM ZATE Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the writ petitioner Smti. Zinguskim Zate made a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 19th January, 1999 appointing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Head Clerk and Accountant on promotion respectively as in Annexure - A/6 and A7 to the writ petition under the respondents Department coupled with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay/release the arreare pay and allowances to the petitioner for the post of U.D.C. for the period from 1.12.1987 to 30.5.1992 with interest thereon by contending inter alia, that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe community of the State of Manipur ; and that being the position, the petitioner is entitled for her appointment on promotion either to the post of Head Clerk or Accountant by virtue of the related Government office memorandum dated 1.1.1992 whereby it was stated that the office memorandum -dated 29th April, 1975 and 25th April, 1989 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India regarding reservation for Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste in service and ban on dereservation in direct recruitment shall be adopted by the Government of Manipur with immediate effect but, the respondent/ authority concerned appointed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post(s) of Head Clerk and Accountant respectively thoughs the petition is quite eligible for promotion either to the post of Head C1 or to the post of Accountant as one of the said post falls under reservation quota of the Scheduled Tribe in pursuance of the 100 points roster and, as such, the action of the State -respondents concerned is not only violative of Article 315 of the Constitution but also violative of the directive principles of the State policy which though not enforceable in the court of law but not less important.

(2.) MR . B.P. Sahu, learned counsel supporting the case of the petitioner argued that one Shri M. Nipamacha Singh who was serving as U.D.C. was appointed on promotion to the post of Head Clerk on temporary basis vide, office order no. 226 dated 17.4.1979 as in Annexure - A/11 to the rejoinder affidavit and similarly, another incumbent namely Shri N. Sarat Singh who was serving as U.D.C. was appointed on promotion to the post of Head Clerk on temporary basis vide, office order No. 118, dated 16.12.1985 as in Annexure - A/12 to the rejoinder affidavit and, the Chief Town Planner, Govt. of Manipur also appointed the respondent No. 3 on promotion to the post of Head Clerk under the impugned order of 19.1.1999 and likewise in the year 1981 on Shri No. Ibohanbi Singh was also given appointment to the post of Accountant vide, order dated 25th June, 1981 and subsequently, the respondent No. 4 was also given appointment on promotion under the impugned order of 19th January, 1999 as in Annexure - A/7 to the writ petition and, as such, there has been 3 (three) vacancies for the post of Head Clerk in the Department of Town Planning, Govt. of Manipur but not appointment in respect of Schedule Tribes candidates has so far been made till date and likewise, so far there has been 2(two) vacancies for the post of Accountant in the Department of Town Planning, Govt. of Manipur but no appointment in respect of Schedule Tribes candidates has so far been made to the said post till date, which is violative of the 100 points roster formulated by the Government of Manipur and the provisions of law laid down under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as par proceedings of the said DPC and subsequent recommendation, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been given appointment on promotion to the posts of Head Clerk and Accountant which are not tenable in the eye of law and, as such, the same are liable to be quashed and review DPC deserves to be conveyed/ held to enable the authority concerned to appoint suitable candidates in pursuance to the reservation policy,

(3.) MR . Asok Patsangbam, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also endorsed the submission so far made by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate and submitted that as the post of Head Clerk and Accountant are selection posts governed by the different recruitment rules, all the incumbents who are within the zone of consideration irrespective of being general S.T., S.C. etc. have been considered on the basis of merit and cases of all eligible candidates have been examined by the DPC concerned and appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 have been made on the basis of merit -cum -seniority and in accordance with the related recruitment rules and the same do not suffer from any infirmity and, as such, no interference of it is called for.