(1.) The petitioner, an educated lady, got herself trained to hold a post of Assistant Teacher in Lower primary/Junior Basic/Upper Junior Basic School of Manipur.The training was in pursuance of a Government decision to see that the educated youths are successfully employed. The petitioner completed her training in the academic year 1973-74. She duly appeared before a D. P. C. (Departmental Promotion Committee) and her name did find place in the second list recommended by the D.P.C. on 28-1-77. Her name is at serial NO. 27 of that list. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 found their places at 29 and 30 of this list. Respondent No. 7's name is not to be found in any of the three lists prepared by the D.P.C. The petitioner came to be first appointed by an order dated 30-11-77. So she found her entrance in the Government service on 30-11-77. The second appointment order is dated 8-11-78 and this was to take effect till the return of a teacher from training. To her misfortune, in January. 1980 also she was appointed in the post of "substitute teacher" though respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were fortunate to be regularised with effect from 5-1-79 and 24-4-79 respectively. As a regular vacancy took place, the petitioner approached the authorities to appoint her in that vacancy so that she could be assured of her livelihood. She had moved even the Chief Minister on 27-6-78 to appoint her on regular basis but her voice did not perhaps reach the Chief Minister, or the Chief Minister did not think it fit to grant the relief. But respondent No. 7, whose name did not find place in any of the lists of the D. P. C., as already noted, was appointed on 30-10-80 in a regular post though on ad hoc basis. The petitioner had herself prayed for appointment against that post but her prayer was refused on the ground, as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition of respondents Nos. 1 to I, that the validity of the recommendation of D. P. C. had expired by that time. Thinking that she would not get relief at the hands of the authorities, she knocked the door of this Court by filing her petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution on 26-11-80 when she was aged about 29 years of age as per her affidavit. After the filing of the petition, she however came to lose her job from 13-12-1980.
(2.) According to the State, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed on regular vacancy because D. P. C. list was not based on merit and so considering the suitability of the candidate, these respondents were so appointed. As to respondent No. 7, the averment is that his appointment was only ad hoc.
(3.) Shri R.K. Nokulsana Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the D.P. C.'s lists have to be taken as per order of merit though it has not been specifically so stated. We find that in the first list the D. P. C. had clearly stated that the selection had been made ' after giving proper assessment of the candidates." The learned counsel also refers us in this connection to General Principle 4 as finding place in Annexure to Art. 26 of the Civil Service Regulations at page 52 of the 11th edition of Chaudri's Compilation. That principle states that in order to obviate difficulties of determining the relative seniority of direct recruits, the selecting authority should indicate the order of merit at the time of selection. Though nothing specific was stated by the D. P. C. that their list was in order or merit, we are inclined to think that this was so. In any case, we are not fully satisfied about the appointment of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 on regular basis "on consideration of the suitability", as we would have thought that suitability aspect has to be adjudged by a body like the D. P. C. to take care of "pick and choose" often resorted to by the appointing authorities.