R K SHANTI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these civil rules raise the common question of law and facts and as such they are taken up for hearing together. In some of the cases notice of motion was issued and the same have been listed for admission, but as agreed to by both the counsel of the parties, I have taken up these cases for disposal.

(2.) These writ applications have been filed for enforcement of the Office Memorandum dated 22.8.94 issued by the Commissioner (DP) Govt. of Manipur for regularisation of the ad-hoc appointments who have completed 2(two) years as on 1.1.94 and continue to hold the post till date against clear vacancies. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been denied regular appointment in spite of the Office Memorandum mentioned above and in spite of the need and warrant of regular appointment. The appointments were made by the Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul District as will be evident from Annexures to the writ application and a copy of it was sent to the Secretary (Revenue) Govt. of Manipur, Imphal. Initially it was for a fixed period, but that has been extended from time to time and that also with the knowledge of the Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of Manipur, Imphal. The Deputy Commissioner again and again wrote to the Secretary (Revenue) for regularisation of their services vide different annexures showing regular vacancy position. Even it was stated vide Annexure-A/4 to writ application being CRNo. 1052/95 as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_372_GAULT3_2000Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The authority at one point of time; even wanted to oust the ad-hoc appointees, but the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A/5 wrote as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_372_GAULT3_2000Html2.htm</FRM> Annexure-A/6 to the writ application being CR No. 1052/95 is the Office Memorandum dated 22nd August, 1994.