L MAICHON DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.1998 passed in (1) CR.No. 392/95 (Ms. L. MaichonDevi and Ors. Vs. State of Manipur and 3 Ors.) (2) CRNo. 919/95 (Shri S. Maitum Singh and anr. Vs. State of Manipur and 3 Ors. and (3) CR No. 425/95 (Miss Khangembam Subadani Devi and Ors. Vs. State of Manipur and 2 Ors.

(2.) Heard Mr. S. Jayanta, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf on the respondents.

(3.) For deciding the present writ appeal, following short fact will suffice: The appellants had filed C.R. No. 392/95 for quashing the order of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur being No. 2/419,90-ED. Imphal the 26th March, 1992 for cancelling their substitute appointment only on the ground that it was issued in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and Principles of Natural Justice. In their writ petition i.e. CRNo. 392/95 they further prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularize their substitute service as assistant teachers. In filing the writ petition, the present appellants stated that they were appointed on substitute basis in the particular schools mentioned in the appointment orders against the posts created vide order of the Government of Manipur, being No. 3/157/84-SE(S) Pt (A) dated 30.5.87 on substitute basis until further orders or till the post is filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier vide different orders issued in the month of December, 1989 and January, 1990. It would be pertinent to mention that the said appointment order of the appellants i.e. (1) No. 46/13/88-ED(V)(1) Imphal the 1 st December, 1989, (2) No. 46/ 13/88-ED(V)(l), Imphal the 1st December, 1989 and (3) No. 46/13/88-ED(V)(I), Imphal, the 2nd January, 1990 were all issued by one Shri Th. Modhu Singh, Additional Director of Education (V), Government of Manipur and in all those appointment orders, particulars of the Government order i.e. No. 3/157/84-SE(S) Pt. A dated 30.5.87 for creating the posts of teachers against which they were appointed on substitute basis are mentioned. The appellants in their writ petition did not mention anything about the procedures followed by Shri Th. Modhu Singh, Addl. Director of Education (V), Govt. of Manipur in issuing the said orders for appointing them as Asstt. Teachers on substitute basis in the schools mentioned in the appointment orders. The main and only ground taken by the appellants in their writ petitions for quashing the cancellation/termination order being No. 2/419/90-ED, Imphal the 26th March, 92 issued by the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur for quashing their substitute appointments were that it was issued in violation of natural justice and their right under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. In the termination order dated 26.3.92 it is clearly mentioned that the appellants were appointed against no posts inasmuch as the posts created under the said order of the Government of Manipur being No. 3/157/84-SE(S). Pt.A dated 30.5.87 were not allotted in the schools in which they were appointed as teachers on substitute basis.