JULIATE ZIMIK Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions common question of facts and law are involved and as such these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in Civil Rule No. 44 of 1996, 45 of 1996 and 46 of 1996 have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of termination. It is stated in the petition that a DPC was constituted for appointment of 6 (six) Supervisors (ICDS) under Social Welfare Department of the Govt. of Manipur under direct recruitment quota on regular basis. Accordingly, a DPC was constituted for selection of 6(six) candidates and the DPC recommended six candidates for appointment to the post of Supervisors (ICDS and also prepared a panel of 27 candidates for appointment in the post of Supervisors which are likely to become vacant and kept; the panel in a sealed cover. As per recommendation of the DPC 6(six) persons have been appointed by Government. Subsequently, 3 (three) more candidates were appointed as Supervisor from the panel of wait list candidates. The Government appointed the three petitioners whose names appeared at Sl. Nos.17,18 and 19 of the panel by an order of the Director, Department of Social Welfare dated 24.7.95 at Annexure-A/1 (a) of the writ petition. It is further stated that all the 3 petitioners were appointed on regular basis. Thereafter, on 5.10.95 the Director, Department of Social Welfare by his order at Annexure-A/2 of the writ petition, terminated the services of the petitioners with immediate effect without assigning any reason therefor. It is, further, averred that the said termination order was in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as well as in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners being regular employees should have been given a chance of hearing before issuing the aforesaid termination order. There was no misconduct on the part of the petitioners for termination of their services. Having felt aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioners filed the aforesaid three writ petitions.

(3.) The contention of the respondents Government is that the advertisement was issued for filling up of six posts of Supervisers under direct recruitment quota and six persons recommended by the DPC were appointed by the Government. It is, further, averred that the panel was not acted upon by the Government. It is, however, admitted by the Govt. that these petitioners were erroneosly appointed in the posts of Supervisors to fill up the back-log quota of ST candidates, but, ultimately Government realised that the petitioners whose names appear at SL. Nos.17, 18 and 19 of the panel cannot be appointed on two grounds, namely, (i) the Govt. advertised for filling up of six posts of Supervisors under direct recruitment quota and since these posts have already been filled up by the candidates recommended by the DPC, there is no scope to appoint any person from the panel, and (ii) the names of the petitioners appeared at Sl. Nos-17, 18 and 19 and without making any appointment of the candidates appearing in serial Nos.l to 16 of the panel, the Government cannot appoint the persons whose names appears in SI. Nos.17 to 19. Having realised the mistake the Government has terminated the services of the petitioners.