YUMNAM DIMBAJIT SINGH Vs. D S POONIA COMMISSIONER ELECTION DEPARTMENT CUM CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crude facts leading to the filing of the present Criminal Contempt petition may be briefly recited. Respondent/contemner No. 2 herein was employed in MANITRON (Manipur Electronics Development Corporation Ltd.) He was brought on deputation as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer for a period of 1 (one) year by an order dated 7-11-97. After the expiry of the period of one year, the deputation was sought to be extended for another period of one year with effect from 12th Nove. '98. This order extending the period of deputation term of the 2nd respondent/contemner for another one year has been challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition viz. Civil Rule No. 1187/98, inter-alia on the ground that the impugned order dated 4th Nove. '98 extending the deputation period of the 2nd respondent for another year with effect from 12-11-98 as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer in the Department of Election is not permissible under the Government Memorandum dated 18th August ' 92 (Annexure-11 in the writ petition) inasmuch as the MANITRON in which the 2nd respondent was serving is a Corporation and autonomous body and it is not permissible under the aforesaid office memorandum because in the office memorandum the deputation of Govt. Department can only be done in the case of State services officer and not in the case of the officer belonging to a Corporation and autonomous body. After hearing the counsel on both sides at length, this Court by judgment and order dated 11-6-99 quashed the impugned order dated 4th Nove.' 98 extending the deputation period of the 2nd respondent for another year w.e.f. 12th Nove.'98 with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the 2nd respondent herein. While quashing the impugned order of extension, this Court has examined the relevant file suggesting that the service of the 2nd respondent as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer is no more required in the Department of Election in view of the fact that the computerisation of electoral rolls has already been completed. It was further opined that the 2nd respondent is only B. Tech. (Electronics and Communication) and not Computer Engineer. It is also pointed out in the notesheet that the request for extension of the service of the 2nd respondent and also the request made by his wife is based neither in the public interest nor in the interest of public works. Despite the objection raised in the Office note dated 26-10-98 the objection was overruled by the respondent/contemner No. 1 herein and the deputation period of the 2nd respondent was further extended for another period of one year by impugned order dated 4th Nove.'98 which was quashed by this Court.

(2.) Being aggrieved, writ appeal registered as Writ Appeal No. 108/99 has been preferred by the respondent No. 2 The said appeal was moved on 24-6-99 on which date it was admitted to be heard and also passed an interim order in the following terms :-

(3.) The entire drama began after the receipt of the impugned order restraining respondent No. 1 from extending the period of deputation of the Respondent No. 2 beyond 11/11/99 by an interim order.