ELANGBAM TOMBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ application has been filed to quash the proceedings of the DPC held on 8.5.98 for selection of Labour Officer from the post of Labour Inspector. In that proceedings the respondent No. 6 was selected and the petitioner was not selected and as such there was a recommendation to appoint the respondent No. 6 and accordingly the respondent No. 6 was appointed. The next prayer is that the final seniority list (Annexure- A/15) may be quashed.

(2.) I have heard Shri A. Madhuchandra Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. Kh. Nimaichand the learned G.A. for the respondents 1 to 4. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and also on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4.

(3.) Let us come to the second prayer made in the writ application i.e. to quash the seniority list at Annexure-A/15, that prayer is to be rejected on two counts, (1) that seniority list was prepared as far back as on 18th Dec/1993 and the Civil Rule was filed in the year 1998 and so on the ground of delay that prayer is to be rejected. The next ground for rejection of this prayer is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 were selected as Labour Inspector by the same DPC and in that selection position of the respondent No. 6 was on the top at Sl. No. 1 and the position of the petitioner was at Sl. No.2 and that seniority, will be carried over. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 6 belongs to SC and he was appointed against the roster vacancy and as such there was a necessity to recast the seniority list. Keeping that position in mind, there is no question of doing that inasmuch as the respondent No. 6 on merit stood at No. 1 and he cannot lose that merit position as because he belongs to Scheduled Caste. So, this prayer stands rejected. The next question regarding quashing of the DPC as indicated above, two grounds are urged to quash the DPC proceedings, namely, that the DPC was not properly constituted. In that connection learned Advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to the order dated 25.6.97 (Annexure- A/10) to the writ application. It may be stated herein that this is an order by the Governor and it is not the Rule under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may that provides as follows: