TH IBOHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in response to the advertisement dated 20th November, 2000 for appointment on the post of Grade-I officer of Maniur Judicial service the appellant ThIbohal Singh and the respondent No. 4 Shri K Bipinchandra Sharma filed their applications along with other candidates. The High Court conducted the written examination on 5.3.2001 and the viva-voce on 19.4.2001. The appellant figured at Sl. No. 1 in the merit list whereas the respondent No. 4 figured at Sl. No. 2. The High Court in its Full Court Meeting took up the matter of recommendation to the Governor for appointment of the candidates selected, under Article 233 of the Constitution of India. When the matter came before the Full Court on 2.6.2001 as Addl Item No. 4 the Full Court passed a resolution as follows:

(2.) In pursuance of the resolution passed by the Full Court of the High Court, the High Court issued the formal order vide communication dated 27th September, 2001 recommending the name of the respondent No. 4 K Bipinchandra Sharma for appointment on the post of Grade-I of Manipur Judicial Service. This gave rise to a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court seeking relief of quashing the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court adopted in its meeting dated 21.9.2001 so far it relates to Resolution No. 9 & 10 and also for quashing the letter of recommendation issued by the High Court to the Government recommending the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Shri K Bipinchandra Sharma on the post of Grade-I of Manipur Judicial Service. Before the appointment process started, the appellant who was holding the post of Additional Govt Advocate, Manipur in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, the personnel of Assam Rifles visited the residence of the appellant/petitioner and enquired about his whereabouts on 11.9.2000. On the following day the appellant/petitioner approached the High Court Bar Association, Imphal, Manipur seeking redressal against the action taken by the Assam Rifles. The Executive Committee of the High Court Bar Association, Imphal convened a meeting on 13.9.2000 and made two resolutions, firstly, the Association urged upon the State Government to provide adequate security to the appellant/petitioner and secondly assured all sorts of legal assistance to the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner moved an Anticipatory Bail Petition in Criminal Original (Bail) Application No. 211 2000 and the court admitted the petition fixing 18.9.2000 with a direction to the authority concerned for not arresting the petitioner until further orders of the court and vide order dated 20.9.2000 the Court directed the Assam Rifles Authority that in case of verification of any information required to be had from the petitioner, that should be done through IG (Law & Order), Manipur Police and in case the peitioner's presence was required that should be done in presence of a State Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police as the petitioner is a salaried Addl Govt. Advocate. On 20.9.2000 Maj Sukhmeet Singh asked the appellant/ petitioner to appear in the office of the Commandant, 17 Assam Rifles on 23.9.2000 and it is the case of the appellant that on 26.9.2000 the appellant was interrogated by the Assam Rifles personnel and was found to be innocent not having any involvement with any unlawful activities. The learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner. While dismissing the writ petition the learned single Judge, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, has held:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued before this court challenging the High Court's authority to base its opinion on the information received by the High Court regarding appellant's antecedents and could it be said to be legal information or it is a mere pretence, hence a rumour. According to the learned counsel, the personnel of 17 Assam Rifles could not have visited the residence of the appellant on 11.9.2000 to verify the information with them that the appellant was harbouring terrorists unless information precedes their visit. Even if it is assumed that the 17 Assam Rifles Authority had any information with them that the appellant is guilty of harbouring terrorists, in that event also the 17 Assam Rifles Authority could not have visited the residence of the appellant to verify the information. That apart, the power of entry and search conferred in Clause (d) of Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 can be exercised for the purpose of effecting arrest only within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 4 of the Act and not for eliciting information. It is further submitted that the action of the 17 Assam Rifles Authorities asking the appellant to appear in the office of the Commandant on 23.9.2000 is absolutely illegal and without any authority of law. We need not go into all these questions regarding legality of the search of the house of the appellant and the appellant being called for interrogation. So far the material placed before the High Court relating to the appellant was concerned, that had been considered by the Full Court only to finding out the suitability of the appellant to hold the judicial post.