HULANG ROBINSON Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Nilmani Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Bimol Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 1061 of 2006, Mr. K. Rabei, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 1062 of 2006 respectively as well as Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. L. Gunindro Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions.

(2.) IN these Writ Petitions common questions of facts and law are involved and as such they are being disposed by this common Judgment and order.

(3.) THE factual controversy lies within the very short compass in the present Writ Petition are: The petitioners, namely, (i) Hulang Robinson, (ii) NL. Khungshel Anal and (iii) A. Bikram Singh in the writ petition (C) No. 1067 of 2006 and the petitioner, namely Ms. Khareila Keising and Mr. Db. Suresh Thamdok are the unemployed youths anxiously waiting for appointment under the Government and or council, including 32 posts of Assistant Teachers which are going to be filled up by the Autonomous District Council, Chandel (hereinafter the Council ). All the petitioners have their essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers and they have also possessed the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the recognized University, and within the upper age limit prescribed in the recruitment rules, namely, the Department of Education (Schools), Manipur "primary Teacher" Recruitment Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules, 1995 ). They are also registered in the Employment Exchange Manipur and thus eligible for being sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the aforesaid post of teachers. But the respondents herein, particularly, the Chief Executive Officer District Council (for short DEEO) acted contrary to the prescriptions of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules, 1995 by way of writing a letter dated 10. 03. 06 to the District Employment Exchange Officer, Chandel (for short DEEO) wherein and whereunder the C. E. O. of the Council requested the D. E. E. O. to sponsor the names of candidates on or before 25. 03. 06 for appointment of 32 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers and in the said letter it is also mentioned that the posts may be increased or decreased according to the actual vacancy. The C. E. O. Chandel also issued a notification dated 28. 10. 06, which was published in a local daily, namely, "the Sangai Express" dated 28. 10. 06 wherein all the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange, Manipur are, therefore, informed to appear before the DPC along with the original educational certificates and two recent pass port size photographs duly attested by Gazetted Officer. As the aforesaid letter and the notification of the C. E. O. are contrary to the provisions of Rules, 1995, as well as the general notification issued by the Government of Manipur prescribing upper limit of age for Govt. employment, the petitioners, though qualified under the rules and the notification/order of the Govt. to apply for the post of Assistant Teachers for which the D. E. E. O. , Chandel sponsored the names of the candidates and the notification (Annexure-A/5 to the writ petition) by which the candidates whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange were informed to appear before the DPC along with their original certificates as stated above. As all the petitioners are within the upper age limit prescribed by the Rules, they were/are eligible for the post of Asstt. Teacher and entitled to be sponsored by the D. E. E. O. for the post of Assistant Teacher and appear in the interview in question. But due to decrease of the upper age limit by the C. E. O. and D. E. E. O. , the present petitioners and similarly situated persons could not apply for the post in question and their names were also not sponsored by the sponsoring authority as they were not eligible according to the aforesaid letter and notification.