ALL MANIPUR PRIMARY TEACHERSHIP DPC FACED CANDIDATES ASSOCIATION Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONS GOVT OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of all the four Civil Rules pertain to common questions of law relating to recruitment of Matriculate Primary Teachers in the State of Manipur. Therefore, the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The Director of Education (Schools), Government of Manipur vide letter dated 27th June, 1991 addressed to the Director of Employment requested for sponsoring candidates for 270 posts of Matriculate Teachers at the ratio of 10 candidates for one post. But the Directorate of Employment, vide their letter dated29.9.1991,sponsored28,714 candidates out of which only 12,822 appeared in the written test. Of them, only 7,219 candidates qualified in the written test and were summoned for viva-voce held between 1.8.1992 and 11.9.1992. In the meantime, on 3rd August, 1991, a resolution adoptedlby the State Government was published iin the Manipur Gazette dated 9.8.1991. The said resolution appended with the writ petitions as Annexure-A/1 incorporated in clause, namely, Clause-7, providing for higher qualification i.e. Class-XII or PUC passed.The earlier qualification for this post as per Rules was matriculation only. The said clause also provided that the posts of Matriculate teachers will automatically be deemed to have: been upgraded as Under-Graduate (Primary School Teachers) posts. The matter rested like that till 10.1.1996 when the State Government issued a notification suspending Clause-7 of the resolution dated 3rd August, 1991 to enable completion of recruitment process of 820 Matriculate Teachers' Posts i.e. additional 550 posts of Matriculate Teachers in addition to 270 posts already notified to the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, on 10.1.1996 (vide Annexure-A/3) the Director of Education was asked to recommend 550 candidates after preparation of the list as per guidelines indicated in para-3 of the said letter. The Director, on the following day i.e. on 11.1.1996, submitted the merit list of 550 candidates for appointment to the 550 additional posts of Matriculate Teachers. The State Government asked for all the relevant documents including D.P.C. proceedings for consideration vide letter dated 12.1.1996. The Director in his letter dated 30th January, 1996 informed the State Government that the recommendation of 550 candidates was made after taking into consideration the criteria prescribed in para-3 of the notification dated 10.1.1996 and that there was no irregularity in the recommendation. But the reply do not show that the proceedings of the D.RG. and other documents were forwarded to the State Government.

(3.) The posts of 270 Matriculate Teachers notified to the Employment Exchange were filled up by the 270 candidates recommended by the D.P.C. The vacancy position with regard to the additional posts was only indicated by the Director in his letter dated 27th may, 1995 (Annexure-A/8) appended with the rejoinder while the recruitment process was initiated in 1991. The State Government on consideration of the gamut of the entire situation decided not to fill up the additional posts of Matriculate Teachers as recommended by the D.P.C. It is this order of the State Government which is in challenge in these writ petitions. This notification also indicates the reasons for which the State decided not to go ahead with the appointment. Hence, this order issued on 29th May, 1998 is re-produced below for better appreciation of the matter.