Manipur High Court
+05'30' vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 12 April, 2022
Page |1
Digitally
JOHN signed by
JOHN TELEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
TELEN KOM
Date:
AT IMPHAL
2022.04.12
KOM 16:57:32
WP(C) No. 279 of 2021
+05'30'
Kamei Peikhollu, aged about 34 years, D/O Kamei
Makunipou, R/O Saolombung Kabui Khunjao, P.O
Lamlong, P.S Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (CAF & PD), Govt.
of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Director, CAF & PD, Govt. of Manipur, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
.... Respondents
W.P.(C) No.247 of 2021
1. Shri Athokpam Somorendro, aged about 29 years, S/o
Athokpam Sanajaoba, resident of Naharup Pangong
Makhong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat and District Imphal
East, Manipur-795005.
2. Kamei Ajenba, aged about 47 years, S/o Kamei
Merachao, resident of Sangaiprou Kabui, Imphal, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. Lamphel and District Imphal West, Manipur
- 795001.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |2
3. TK. Moshil, aged about 31 years, S/o TK. Menai,
resident of Langol Village, P.O. Pallel, P.S. Tengnoupal
& District Tengnoupal, Manipur - 795135.
4. Nelson Nameirakpam, aged about 33 years, S/O Noren
Singh Nameirakpam, resident of Chingamakha
Yanglem Leikai, Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei and
District Imphal West, Manipur-795008.
5. Kamala Longmei, aged about 40 years, D/o Kadangpu
Longmei, resident of Sawombung Kabui Khunjao, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai and District Imphal East, Manipur
- 795010.
6. Temui Makunga Maring, aged about 27 years, S/o
David Makunga, resident of Koijam Village, P.O. & P.S.
Khongjom and District Tengnoupal, Manipur - 795148.
7. Kansam Mothil, aged about 27 years, S/o Kansam
Leithil, resident of Waithou Phunal Village, P.O. Lilong,
P.S. Irilbung and District Imphal East, Manipur -
795001.
8. Marem Koreng maring, aged about 37 years, S/o
Marem Kotor Maring, resident of Kanemram Village,
P.O. Pallel, P.S. and District Tengnoupal, Manipur -
795135.
9. K. Manshintlung Tontanga, aged about 32 years, S/o K.
Angrouning, resident of Langol Village, P.O. Pallel, P.S.
and District Tengnoupal, Manipur - 795135.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |3
10. K. Manshim Dangsawa, aged about 31 years, resident
of Langol Village, P.O. Pallel, P.S. Tengnoupal and
District Chandel, Manipur - 795135.
11. Lamthaka Medar Maring, aged about 23 years, S/o
Lamthaka Modun Maring, resident of Lamlong Khunou,
P.O. Pallel, P.S. & District Tengnoupal, Manipur -
795135.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner/Secretary (CAF & PD), Govt. of Manipur,
Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Director, CAF & PD, Govt. of Manipur, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
.... Respondents
W.P.(C) No.280 of 2021
1. Shri Rajkumar Satyajeet Singh, aged about 28 years, S/O
Rajkumar Kumarjeet Singh, R/O Nongmeibung
Pungmakhong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District - Imphal
East, Manipur - 795005.
2. Shri Laishram Robertson Singh, aged about 25 years, S/O
Laishram Surjit Singh, R/O Nambol Maibam Chingmang,
P.O. & P.S. Nambol, District - Bishnupur, Manipur -
795134.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |4
3. Shri M. Chungan, Aged about 32 years, S/O M.
Charmson, R/O Nagaram-D-Block, Dingku Road, P.O. &
P.S. Lamlong, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
4. Shri Benny Luikham, aged about 39 years, S/O (Late)
Reisang Luikham, R/O Deulahland, P.O. Porompat, P.S.
Imphal, District- Imphal East, Manipur - 795001.
5. Shri Moirangthem Mahin, aged about 42 years S/O (Late)
Moirangthem Dhana Singh, R/O Awang Sekmai Bazar,
P.O. Awang Sekmai, P.S. Sekmai, District- Imphal West,
Manipur - 795136.
6. Kumari Akoijam Bidyarani Chanu, aged about 25 years,
D/O Akoijam Mohari Meitei, R/O Athokpam Makaha
Leikai, P.O. Thoubal, P.S. Thoubal, District- Thoubal,
Manipur - 795138.
7. Shir Mayanglambam Niranjoy Meetei, aged about 27
years, S/O Mayanglambam Momom Meetei, R/O Sekta
Makha Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District- Imphal
East, Manipur - 795010.
8. Kumari Taorem Victoria Devi, aged about 29 years, D/O
Taorem Ibotomba Singh, R/O Yourabung Makha Leikai,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District- Imphal East, Manipur
- 795010.
9. Shri Waikhom Ginachandra Singh, aged about 40 years,
S/O Waikhom Kesho Singh, R/O Seijang Awang Leikai,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
10. Mrs. Rojeena Irom, aged about 39 years, D/O Irom
Nilachandra Singh, R/O Kwakeithel Moirangpurel Leikai,
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |5
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Kakwa, District- Imphal West, Manipur
- 795001.
11. Thokchom Robindro singh, aged about 39 years, S/O
Thokchom Rajen Singh, R/O Koirou Thongju Part-II, P.O.
Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei, District- Imphal East, Manipur
- 795001.
12. Kumari Oinam Linda Devi, aged about 24 years, D/O
Oinam Thoiba Singh, R/O Sagolband Tera Lukram Leirak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, District - Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
13. Miss Naulak Chingching Paite, aged about 29 years, D/O
Naulak Thangzachin Paite, R/O (RTRS) Staff Quarters
Housing Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang,
District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795001.
14. Smt. Tongbram Robi Devi, aged about 36 years, D/O
Tongbram Mangibabu Singh, R/O Wangkhei
Pukhrambam Leirak, P.O. Porompat, P.S. Porompat,
District- Imphal East, Manipur - 795005.
15. Yengkokpam Hitler Singh, aged about 39 years, S/O
Yengkokpam Mohendro Singh, R/O Singjamei Wangma
Kshetri Leikai Lane No.5 Thiyam Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795008.
16. Khaidem Romila Devi, aged about 25 years, D/O Kahidem
Dhananjoy Singh, R/O Sekta Makaha Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District- Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
17. Kumari Rajkumari Preeti Devi, aged about 30 years, D/O
R.K Sanayaima Singh, R/O Thangmeiband, D.M College
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |6
Colony, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, District - Imphal
West, Manipur - 795001.
18. Kumari Thokchom Mary Chanu, aged about 37 years, D/O
Thokchom Rajen Singh, R/O Laipham Khunou Makaha
Leikai, P.O. Heingang, P.S. Heingang, District - Imphal
East, Manipur - 795001.
19. Kumari Angom Priyata Devi, aged about 34 years, D/O
Angom Manihar Singh, R/O Awang Sekmai Makha Leikai,
P.O. Sekmai, P.S. Sekmai, District - Imphal West,
Manipur - 795136.
20. Renuka Rajkumari, aged about 31 years, S/O Rajkumar
Amusana Singh, R/O Nongmeibung Pung Makhong, P.O.
Porompat, P.S. Porompat, District - Imphal East, Manipur
- 795005.
21. Shri Waikhom Basanta Singh, aged about 40 years, S/O
(Late) Waikhom Muktarei Devi, R/O Yaingangpokpi Sana
Inkhol, P.O. Litan, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795154.
22. Shri Sapam Bijaykumar, aged about 28 years, S/O Sapam
Basan, R/O Chalou Lamlai Bazar, P.O. Lamlong, P.S.
Lamlai, District- Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
23. Shri Sinam Boro Singh, aged about 44 years, S/O Sinam
Mangi Singh, R/O Kanguchingjin Khulen, P.O. Porompat,
P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795005.
24. Sanasam Soken Singh, aged about 31 years, S/O S.
Sobhachndra Singh, R/O Sawombung Gate, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |7
25. Shri Lisham Ranjal Singh, aged about 36 years, S/O
Lisham Nimaichand Singh, R/O Wangkhei
Thambalmakhong Lisham Leirak, P.O. Porompat, P.S.
Porompat, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795001.
26. Shri Waikhom Malemnganba Meitei, aged about 22 years,
S/O W. Brojen Meitei, R/O Sabungkhok, P.O. Lamlong,
P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795101.
27. Ngangom Salamba Singh, aged about 37 years, S/O
Ngangom Chaoba singh, R/O Lamlai Mayai Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
28. Sapam Romio Singh, aged about 27 years, S/O Sapam
Ibocha Singh, R/O Phaknung Makha Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
29. Smt. Srimayum Mrinalini Devi, aged about 42 years, W/O
Shija Gurumayum Jadumani Sharma, R/O Maibam Lotpa
Ching, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, District - Bishnupur,
Manipur - 795134.
30. Khumukcham Khomdonsana Singh, aged about 22 years,
S/O (Late) Kh. Modhu singh, R/O Samaram Makha Leikai,
P.O. Wangjing, P.S. Khongjom, District - Thobal, Manipur
- 795138.
31. Khaidem Sunil Singh, aged about 24 years, S/O Kh.
Khova Singh, R/O Pungdongbam Mayai Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
32. Miss Pangambam Nirmala Chanu, aged about 26 years,
D/O Pangambam Nimai Meitei, R/O Thoubal Athokpam
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |8
Makaha Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, District - Thoubal,
Manipur - 795138.
33. Okram Ratankumar Singh, aged about 22 years, S/O
Okram Tomba Singh, R/O Thoubal, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal,
District- Thoubal, Manipur - 795138.
34. Ng. Mangangsana Meetei, aged about 30 years, S/O Ng.
Rajendro Meetei, R/O Yaingangpokpi, P.O. Litan, P.S.
Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795145.
35. Chongtham Shanta Meetei, aged about 36 years, S/O Ch.
Biramangol Meetei, R/O Yourabung Mayai Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
36. Irungbam Lanchenba, aged about 23 years, S/O
Irungbam (Ongbi) Sanatombi, R/O Pungdongbam Makha
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
37. Kshetrimayum Johnson Singh, aged about 25 years, S/O
Kshetrimayum Jeday Singh, R/O Sekta Awang Leikai,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
38. Sandham Rojen Meetei, aged about 34 years, S/O
Sandham Ibocha Meetei, R/O Yourabung Khunou, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
39. Sagolsem Bimol Singh, aged about 39 years, S/O
Sagolsem Ibohalbi Singh, R/O Takhel Mamang Leikai,
P.O. Porompat, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
Page |9
40. Thounaojam Iboyaima Meetei, aged about 44 years, S/O
Thounaojam Merajaoba Meetei, R/O Sawombung Block
Gatem, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
41. Md. Sagir Khan, aged about 28 years, S/O Md. Tayeb Ali,
R/O Thoubal Moijing, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, District -
Thoubal, Manipur - 795138.
42. Pheiroijam Rohen Singh, aged about 37 years, S/O
Pheiraoijam Ibochou Singh, R/O Nongada, P.O. Lamlong,
P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
43. Khaidem Ibomcha Singh, aged about 40 years, S/O (Late)
Kh. Irabot Singh, R/O Pungdongbam Mayai Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
44. Haobam Gobin Singh, aged about 41 years, S/O (Late)
Haobam Angangjao Singh, R/O Itam Nungoi, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
45. Ingudam Manihar Singh, aged about 41 years, S/O I.
Romon Singh, R/O Seijang Mayai Leikai, P.O. Nongada,
P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner/ Secretary (CAF & PD), Govt. of Manipur,
Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 10
2. The Director, CAF & PD, Govt. of Manipur, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
.... Respondents
W.P.(C) No.464 of 2021
1. Elangbam Dayananda Singh, aged about 42 years,
S/o (L) E. Ibomcha Singh, resident of Lamlai Mayai
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
2. Ngangbam Binolata Chanu, aged about 45 years, S/O
(L) Ng, Sanajaoba, resident of Kangla Sangomsang
Mayai Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
3. Irom Giri Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o (L) L.
Gopimohom, resident og Lamlai Awang Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur.
4. Huidrom Rabikanta Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o
H. Rajen, resident of Pungdongbam Makha Leikai,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District,
Manipur - 795010.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner/ Secretary (CAF & PD), Govt. of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 11
2. The Director, CAF & PD, Govt. of Manipur, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
.... Official respondents
3. Shri Rajkumar Satyajeet Singh, aged about 28 years,
S/O Rajkumar Kumarjeet Singh, R/O Nongmeibung
Pungmakhong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District -
Imphal East, Manipur - 795005.
4. Shri Laishram Robertson Singh, aged about 25 years,
S/O Laishram Surjit singh, R/O Nambaol Maibam
Chingmang, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, district - Bishnupur,
Manipur - 795134.
5. Shri M. Chungan, Aged about 32 years, S/O M.
Charmson, r/O Nagaram-D-Block, Dingku Road, P.O.
& P.S. Lamlong, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
6. Shri Benny Luikham, aged about 39 years, S/O (Late)
Reisang Luikham, R/O Deulahland, P.O. Porompat,
P.S. Imphal, District- Imphal East, Manipur - 795001.
7. Shri Moirangthem Mahin, aged about 42 years S/O
(Late) Moirangthem Dhana Singh, R/O Awang Sekmai
Bazar, P.O. Awang Sekmai, P.S. Sekmai, Distrcit-
Imphal West, Manipur - 795136.
8. Kumari Akoijam Bidyarani Chanu, aged about 25
years, D/O Akoijam Mohari Meitei, R/O Athokpam
Makaha Leikai, P.O. Thoubal, P.S. Thoubal, Distrcit-
Thoubal, Manipur - 795138.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 12
9. Shir Mayanglambam Niranjoy Meetei, aged about 27
years, S/O Mayanglambam Momom Meetei, R/O
Sekta Makha Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamali,
District- Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
10. Kumari Taorem Victoria Devi, aged about 29 years,
D/O Taorem Ibotomba Singh, R/O Yourabung Makha
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District- Imphal
East, Manipur - 795010.
11. Shri Waikhom Ginachandra Singh, aged about 40
years, S/O Waikhom Kesho Singh, R/O Seijang
Awang Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District -
Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
12. Mrs. Rojeena Irom, aged about 39 years, d/P Irom
Nilachandra Singh, R/O Kwakeithel Moirangpurel
Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Kakwa, District- Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
13. Thokchom Robindro Singh, aged about 39 years, S/O
Thokchom Rajen Singh, R/O Koirou Thongju Part-II,
P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei, District- Imphal East,
Manipur - 795001.
14. Kumari Oinam Linda Devi, aged about 24 years, D/O
Oinam Thoiba Singh, R/O Sagolband Tera Lukram
Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, District - Imphal
West, Manipur - 795001.
15. Miss Naulak Chingching Paite, aged about 29 years,
D/O Naulak Thangzachin Paite, R/O (RTRS) Staff
Quarters Housing Complex, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S.
Heingang, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795001.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 13
16. Smt. Tongbram Robi Devi, aged about 36 years, D/O
Tongbram Mangibabu Singh, R/O Wangkhei
Pukhrambam Leirak, P.O. Porompat, P.S. Porompat,
district- Imphal East, Manipur - 795005.
17. Yengkokpam Hitler Singh, aged about 39 years, S/O
Yengkokpam Mohendro Singh, R/O Singjamei
Wangma Kshetri Leikai Lane No.5 Thiyam Leirak, P.O.
& P.s. Singjamei, District - Imphal East, Manipur -
795008.
18. Khaidem Romila Devi, aged about 25 years, D/O
Kahidem Dhananjoy Singh, R/O Sekta Makaha Leikai,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District- Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
19. Kumari Rajkumari Preeti Devi, aged about 30 years,
D/O R.K Sanayaima Singh, R/O Thangmeiband, D.M
College Colony, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, District -
Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
20. Kumari Thokchom Mary Chanu, aged about 37 years,
D/O Thokchom Rajen Singh, R/O Laipham Khunou
Makaha Leikai, P.O. Heingang, P.S. Heingang, District
- Imphal East, Manipur - 795001.
21. Kumari Angom Priyata Devi, aged about 34 years, D/O
Angom Manihar Singh, R/O Awang Sekmai Makha
Leikai, P.O. Sekmai, P.S. Sekmai, District - Imphal
West, Manipur - 795136.
22. Renuka Rajkumari, aged about 31 years, S/O
Rajkumar Amusana Singh, R/O Nongmeibung Pung
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 14
Makhong, P.O. Porompat, P.S. Porompat, District -
Imphal East, Manipur - 795005.
23. Shri Waikhom Basanta Singh, aged about 40 years,
S/O (Late) Waikhom Muktarei Devi, R/O
Yaingangpokpi Sana Inkhol, P.O. Litan, P.S. Lamlai,
District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795154.
24. Shri Sapam Bijaykumar, aged about 28 years, S/O
Sapam Basan, R/O Chalou Lamlai Bazar, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District- Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
25. Shri Sinam Boro Singh, aged about 44 years, S/O
Sinam Mangi Singh, R/O Kanguchingjin Khulen, P.O.
Porompat, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur
- 795005.
26. Sanasam Soken Singh, aged about 31 years, S/O S.
Sobhachndra Singh, R/O Sawombung Gate, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur
- 795010.
27. Shri Lisham Ranjal Singh, aged about 36 years, S/O
Lisham Nimaichand Singh, R/O Wangkhei
Thambalmakhong Lisham Leirak, P.O. Porompat, P.S.
Porompat, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795001.
28. Shri Waikhom Malemnganba Meitei, aged about 22
years, S/O W. Brojen Meitei, R/O Sabungkhok, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur
- 795101.
29. Ngangom Salamba Singh, aged about 37 years, S/O
Ngangom Chaoba singh, R/O Lamlai Mayai Leikai,
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 15
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
30. Sapam Romio singh, aged about 27 years, S/O
Sapam Ibocha Singh, R/O Phaknung Makha Leikai,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
31. Smt. Srimayum Mrinalini Devi, aged about 42 years,
W/O Shija Gurumayum Jadumani Sharma, R/O
Maibam Lotpa Ching, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, District
- Bishnupur, Manipur - 795134.
32. Khumukcham Khomdonsana Singh, aged about 22
years, S/O (Late) Kh. Modhu singh, R/O Samaram
Makha Leikai, P.O. Wangjing, P.S. Khongjom, District
- Thobal, Manipur - 795138.
33. Khaidem Sunil Singh, aged about 24 years, S/O Kh.
Khova Singh, R/O Pungdongbam Mayai Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur
- 795010.
34. Miss Pangambam Nirmala Chanu, aged about 26
years, D/O Pangambam Nimai Meitei, R/O Thoubal
Athokpam Makaha Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal,
District - Thoubal, Manipur - 795138.
35. Okram Ratankumar Singh, aged about 22 years, S/O
Okram Tomba Singh, R/O Thoubal, P.O. & P.S.
Thoubal, District- Thoubal, Manipur - 795138.
36. Ng. Mangangsana Meetei, aged about 30 years, S/O
Ng. Rajendro Meetei, R/O Yaingangpokpi, P.O. Litan,
P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795145.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 16
37. Chongtham Shanta Meetei, aged about 36 years, S/O
Ch. Biramangol meetei, R/O Yourabung Mayai Leikai,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
38. Irungbam Lanchenba, aged about 23 years, S/O
Irungbam (Ongbi) Sanatombi, R/O Pungdongbam
Makha Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District -
Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
39. Kshetrimayum Johnson Singh, aged about 25 years,
S/O Kshetrimayum Jeday Singh, R/O Sekta Awang
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal
East, Manipur - 795010.
40. Sandham Rojen Meetei, aged about 34 years, S/O
Sandham Ibocha Meetei, R/O Yourabung Khunou,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
41. Sagolsem Bimol Singh, aged about 39 years, S/O
Sagolsem Ibohalbi Singh, R/O Takhel Mamang Leikai,
P.O. Porompat, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
42. Thounaojam Iboyaima Meetei, aged about 44 years,
S/O Thounaojam Merajaoba Meetei, R/O Sawombung
Block Gatem, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District -
Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
43. Md. Sagir Khan, aged about 28 years, S/O Md. Tayeb
Ali, R/O Thoubal Moijing, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, District
- Thoubal, Manipur - 795138.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 17
44. Pheiroijam Rohen Singh, aged about 37 years, S/O
Pheiraoijam Ibochou Singh, R/O Nongada, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur
- 795010.
45. Khaidem Ibomcha Singh, aged about 40 years, S/O
(Late) Kh. Irabot Singh, R/O Pungdongbam Mayai
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal
East, Manipur - 795010.
46. Haobam Gobin Singh, aged about 41 years, S/O
(Late) Haobam Angangjao Singh, R/O Itam Nungoi,
P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East,
Manipur - 795010.
47. Ingudam Manihar Singh, aged about 41 years, S/O I.
Romon Singh, R/O Seijang Mayai Leikai, P.O.
Nongada, P.S. Lamlai, District - Imphal East, Manipur
- 795010.
.... Proforma respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. N. Kumarjit, AG
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 21.02.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 12.04.2022
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 18
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners
to quash the impugned orders dated 5.1.2017 and 1.3.2021 and the
notification dated 10.03.2021 and to direct the respondents to re-
appoint the petitioners by issuing appointment orders to the
petitioners to the post of Quality Inspector, Lower Division Clerk,
Office Assistant, Sore Handler and Peon-cum-Chowkidar as per the
notifications dated 16.12.2016 issued by the Director, Consumer
Affairs Food and Public Distribution), Manipur.
2. Heard Mr.A.Mohendro, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.N.Kumarjit, learned Advocate General for the
respondents.
3. Since the challenge in these writ petitions and the
issue involved are one and the same, all the writ petitions were
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
4. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petitions
are as follows:
On 16.12.2016, the Director of Consumer Affairs Food
and Public Distribution, Manipur invited applications from the
eligible and intending candidates for appointment to the posts of
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 19
Civil Supply Inspector, Store Keeper, Quality Inspector and Lower
Division Clerk/Office Assistant on temporary basis through
sponsoring of candidates by the concerned employment exchange.
On the same date, the Director had issued notification inviting
applications for the post of Store Handler and Peon-cum-
Chowkidar. The petitioners applied for different posts which were
advertised in the said two advertisements and they were
recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
for appointment in the Department of Directorate of Consumer
Affairs, Food and Public Distribution vide orders on 4.1.2017 and
offer forms were also issued to the petitioners against their selected
posts.
5. Further case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the
recommendation, they were appointed in their respective posts and
they joined in their posts and attended office for about three months.
However, the petitioners were not paid salary and when they
enquired, they were informed by the respondents that their
appointments had been cancelled and they were given a back-
dated cancellation order dated 5.1.2017. Till date no fresh
appointment order has been given to the petitioners despite
assurance given by the respondents.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 20
6. According to the petitioners, they have submitted
multiple representations to the respondent authorities and the Chief
Minister for revocation of the order dated 5.1.2017. But till date no
action was taken on the representations, however, the respondent
authorities proposed to consider direct recruitment for 154 nos. of
posts. Aggrieved by the said proposal, the petitioners have filed
W.P.(C) No.23 of 2021 seeking to reappoint the petitioners by
issuing appointment orders to the post of Quality Inspector, Lower
Division Clerk/Officer Assistant, Store Handler and Peon-cum-
Chowkidar as per the notification dated 16.12.2016 and also sought
restraint order not to fill up the post as proposed and keep the said
posts unfilled till the disposal of the writ petition.
7. By the order dated 25.2.2021, the said writ petition
was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and
dispose of the representation dated 9.11.2017 made by the
petitioners by issuing a speaking order within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, to the
shock, the Director (CAF & PD) issued notification dated 10.3.2021
inviting application from the eligible candidates for direct
recruitment for filling up the posts of Quality Inspector, Lower
Division Clerk/Office Assistant, Peon-cum-Chowkidar and Store
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 21
Handler in the Department of CAF & PD. Challenging the same, the
petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
8. In W.P.(C) Nos.247 and 464 of 2021, the petitioners
therein apart from challenging the impugned order dated 5.1.2017,
challenged the order dated 1.3.2021 rejecting the representation
dated 9.11.2017 of the petitioners.
9. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating
that pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2016, a DPC was
conducted on 4.1.2017 for appointment of suitable persons to the
posts of Quality Inspector, Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant,
Store Handler and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in Consumer Affairs, Food
and Public Distribution and on the basis of the select list dated
4.1.2017, appointment orders were issued on the same day,
thereby appointing 20 persons to the posts of Quality Inspector, 22
persons to the posts of Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant, 6
persons to the posts of Store Handler and 35 persons to the posts
of Peon-cum-Chowkidar against the newly created posts due to
creation of 7 new districts during 2016-2017.
10. It is stated that the Election Model Code of Conduct for
the 11th Legislative Assembly Election of Manipur was announced
and came into effect from 4.1.2017 and the Election Commission
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 22
instructed all Administrative Secretaries/All Head of Departments,
Government of Manipur to stop recruitment process. The Secretary,
CAF & PD vide its order dated 5.1.2017 cancelled the appointment
orders dated 4.1.2017 with immediate effect in keeping with the
Model Code of Conduct.
11. It is also stated that the joint representation dated
09.11.2017 submitted by the petitioners addressed to the
Commissioner of CAF & PD and Director (CAF & PD) for revocation
of the order dated 5.1.2017 was rejected and disposed of by the
orders dated 1.3.2021 and 23.3.2021 respectively in compliance
with the order of this Court dated 19.2.2021 and 25.2.2021 passed
in W.P.No.626 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.23 of 2021. According to
the respondent State, with the disposal of the representation of the
petitioners by a speaking order, the writ petitions become
infructuous and the petitioners have no right to challenge the
impugned notification dated 10.3.2021. It is stated that the
attendance of duty after the cancellation of appointment orders is
unauthorized attendance and prayed for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
12. Assailing the impugned orders and the notification in
question, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 23
pursuant to the appointment orders issued to them, they have
joined the respective posts on 4.1.2017 and they started to function
by attending to their duties for about three months from the date of
their joining without getting their pay and allowances. When they
were enquired about the same, the petitioners were informed that
their appointment has been cancelled vide order dated 5.1.2017 in
adherence to the Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election
Commission of India.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that it is not the fault of the petitioners who participated in
the recruitment process and were selected and if there are any
irregularities, it is from the side of the respondent authorities and
therefore, the petitioners cannot be blamed or penalized.
14. The learned counsel then submitted that assailing the
order of termination, one set of petitioners i.e. the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.247 of 2021 have field W.P.(C) No.626 of 2019 for
setting the order of cancellation order and to re-instate them into
service. By the order dated 19.2.2021, the said writ petition was
disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to consider
and dispose of the representation dated 9.11.2017 of the petitioners
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 24
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the
order.
15. The learned counsel next submitted that assailing the
termination order dated 5.1.2017, the petitioners in W.P.(C)
Nos.280 and 464 of 2021 have filed W.P.(C) No.23 of 2021 and by
the order dated 25.2.2021, the said writ petition was disposed of by
this Court by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of
the representation dated 9.11.2017 within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order along with the said
representations, which the petitioners have to submit within a period
of one week from the date of disposal of the writ petition. Pursuant
to the direction of this Court, the petitioners through their counsel
furnished copy of the order to the respondent authorities on
26.2.2021. However, without considering the claim of the petitioners
in proper perspective, the Director (CAF & PD) issued the impugned
order dated 1.3.2021 rejecting the representation of the petitioners.
16. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
since the impugned order dated 1.3.2021 does not contain the
details of the issue in clear, the same cannot be termed as a
speaking order. That apart the same has been passed by violation
of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order dated 1.3.2021
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 25
is a non-speaking order and hence, the same is liable to be
quashed.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners added that the
petitioners have been waiting for more than five years for their
appointment to their selected posts and inspite of being selected
and having been issued offer forms including medical examination,
still not been formally appointed after recalling the cancellation
order. But in the other Department whose appointment orders
cancelled due to Model Code of Conduct have been given
appointment. Thus, the act of the respondent authorities is not only
illegal, but also discriminatory to the extent that they have deprived
the petitioners of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the
provisions of the Constitution of India.
18. The learned counsel finally argued that the Director
(CAF & PD) issued notification dated 10.3.2021 inviting application
for direct recruitment to the posts of Quality Inspector, Lower
Division Clerk/Office Assistant, Peon-cum-Chowkidar and Store
Handles. Since the respondent authorities have no right to issue
notification dated 10.3.2021, the same is also liable to be quashed.
19. Per contra, the learned Advocate General submitted
that since the Model Code of Conduct for the 11th Legislative
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 26
Assembly Election of Manipur was announced and came into effect
on 4.1.2017, the Secretary of the CAF & PD vide its order dated
5.1.2017 cancelled the appointment orders dated 4.1.2017 issued
to the petitioners. Challenging the cancellation, the petitioners have
preferred writ petitions before this Court and this Court while
disposing of the writ petitions, directed the respondents to consider
and dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated
9.11.2017. He would submit that the Director of CAF & PD, after
considering the matter, has rejected the representation of the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.626 of 2019. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the order impugned dated 1.3.2021.
20. Coming to the challenge to the order dated 5.1.2017,
the learned Advocate General submitted that the order dated
5.1.2017 has been issued pursuant to the directions issued by the
Secretary of the CAF & PD based on the Model Code of Conduct
and therefore, there is no illegality in issuing it. The ground now the
petitioners stated for quashing of the impugned order dated
5.1.2017 is highly imaginary and the same has no basis.
21. Insofar as the impugned notification dated 10.3.2021
which is under challenge is concerned, the same has been issued
after following the procedures and there is no illegality in it. Since
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 27
the earlier selection process cancelled, there is no bar on the
respondent authorities in advertising the posts through the
notification dated 10.3.2021.
22. This Court considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials
available on record.
23. The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the
advertisement dated 16.12.2016, the petitioners applied for the
posts of Quality Inspector, Store Keeper, Lower Division
Clerk/Office Assistant, Store Handler and Peon-cum-Chowkidar
respectively and though they were selected by the DPC for
appointment and joined the service on 4.1.2017, by stating the
reason of commencement of the Model Code of Conduct, the
appointment of the petitioners was cancelled on 5.1.2017.
Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have submitted several
representations and one of the representations is dated 9.11.2017.
24. Since the representations of the petitioners have not
been considered by the respondent authorities, earlier the
petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.626 of 2019 and 23 of 2021
respectively. By the order dated 19.02.2021 and 25.02.2021, the
said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by directing the
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 28
respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated
9.11.2017 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of the order. Pursuant to the order of this Court passed in
the writ petitions, the respondent authorities rejected the
representation of the petitioners dated 1.3.2021 and 23.3.2021
respectively. The respondent authorities have also by notification
dated 10.3.2021, invited applications for filling up the aforesaid
posts by direct recruitment. Challenging the earlier cancellation
order dated 5.1.2017, the rejection orders dated 1.3.2021 and
23.3.2021 and the notification dated 10.3.2021, the petitioners have
filed these writ petitions.
25. On the other hand, the respondents contended that
pursuant to the direction issued by the Administrative Secretary of
CAF & PD to stop the recruitment process in view of the
commencement of the Model Code of Conduct, the appointment
orders issued to the petitioners dated 4.1.2017 have been cancelled
by way of issuing an order dated 5.1.2017. Thus, the petitioners
cannot say that there is illegality in cancelling the appointment
order. Further, pursuant to the direction of this Court in the writ
petitions, the representation of the petitioners dated 9.11.2017 has
been rightly considered by the Director and issued the impugned
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 29
orders dated 1.3.2021 and 23.3.2021 respectively. Therefore, there
is no illegality in the impugned orders. Furthermore, the petitioners
have no right to challenge the notification dated 10.3.2021.
26. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to
analyse the first notification issued by the Director (CAF&PD)
Manipur. On 16.12.2016, the Director CAF & PD) issued a
notification inviting applications for filling up the posts of Civil Supply
Inspector, Store Keeper, Quality Inspector, Lower Division
Clerk/Office Assistant Inspector, Store Handler and Peon-cum-
Chowkidar. The petitioners have applied for various posts and after
completion of the recruitment process of the said advertised posts,
the Director of CAF & PD issued orders dated 4.1.2017 appointing
the petitioners as Quality Inspectors, Lower Division Clerk/Office
Assistant, Store Handler and Peon-cum-Chowkidar respectively.
The petitioners have also joined duty on the forenoon of 4.1.2017.
However, by citing the Election Model Code of Conduct, on
5.1.2017 the appointment of the petitioners was cancelled with
immediate effect by the Commissioner (CAF & PD).
27. The petitioners contended that they started to function
by attending to their duties for about three months from the date of
their joining without getting their pay and allowances. However,
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 30
when the petitioners enquired about the same with the respondent
authorities, they were informed that their appointments have been
cancelled/terminated and a back-dated cancellation order dated
5.1.2017 was issued by the Commissioner (CAF & PD).
28. In reply, the learned Advocate General argued that
after the cancellation of their appointment order, attending the office
is unauthorized attendance and the cancellation of appointment
dated 5.1.2017 is not back-dated one and the respondent
authorities have acted in accordance with the directions on ban on
recruitment process due to implementation of the Model Code of
Conduct.
29. Admittedly, nothing has been produced by the
petitioners to prove that they discharged their duties for about three
months. Equally, the respondents have also not produced any
record to show that the petitioners have not attended the office for
three months as contended by them. Though the burden to prove
that they attended the office for three months without salary is
heavily on the petitioners, the respondent authorities are also duty
bound to establish their plea that really the petitioners have not
attended the office for three months as alleged by them.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 31
30. The respondents admitted that on 4.1.2017 that there
were 20 persons appointed to the post of Quality Inspector, 22
persons were appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Office
Assistant, 6 persons were appointed to the post of Store Handler
and 35 persons were appointed to the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar
in Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution against the newly
created posts due to the creation of seven districts during 2016-
2017. The respondents have also admitted that DPC was
conducted on 4.1.2017 for appointment of suitable persons to the
aforementioned posts and the results were declared and
appointment orders were issued on the same day. The respondents
have also admitted in their affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners
have joined duty on 4.1.2017.
31. While so, on 5.1.2017, the Commissioner (CAF & PD)
issued an order to the effect that the appointment orders issued on
4.1.2017 in respect of Quality Inspector, Lower Division Clerk
(Office Assistant), Store Handler and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the
Directorate of CAF & PD are cancelled with immediate effect.
32. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that pursuant to the decision of Cabinet, the written test
was held on 28.12.2016 followed with interview on 4.1.2017. In fact,
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 32
the interview was held at 1.00 A.M. and completed by 2.30 P.M.
and thereafter, the result was declared, followed by issuance of the
appointment order on the same day and the petitioners have also
joined duty on 04.1.2017 itself. The petitioners state that the
appointments were completed before the ban on appointment was
imposed and therefore, the petitioners cannot be faulted on any
count. This Court finds some force in the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
33. On a perusal of the letter of the Chief Electoral Officer,
Manipur to All Administrative Secretaries and All Head of
Departments, Government of Manipur, it is clear that the Chief
Electoral Officer called for a report by 12.00 noon on 5.1.2017 in
regard to the recruitment process initiated by different
Departments/Organisations under the control of the State
Government of Manipur. For proper appreciation, the letter of the
Chief Electoral Commissioner dated 4.1.2017 is extracted
hereunder :-
"This is to bring to your kind attention that Election
Commission of India vide Press Note No.ECI/PN/1/2017 and
ECI/PN/2/2016 dated 4th January, 2017 have announced the
schedule for General Elections to Legislative Assembly of
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 33
Manipur. Therefore, Model Code of Conduct comes into
effect immediately from now onwards and al the provision of
Model Code of Conduct will apply to the whole of Manipur
and will be applicable to all the Candidates/Political Parties
and State Government of Manipur. The Model Code of
Conduct shall also be applicable to Union Government in so
far as announcement/policy decisions pertaining to/for the
poll going States are concerned.
2. In view of the above, the recruitment process initiated by
different Departments/Organisations under the control of the
State Government of Manipur shall be stopped forthwith. It
has also been reported that certain Departments/HODs
(including Revenue, Forest & Environment, Education,
RD & PR, Works, Health & FW, Labour, Employment
Exchanges, CAF & PD etc.) are trying to resort to issuing
the backdated appointment orders which is clearly in
violation of Model Code of Conduct and it will invite
stringentaction against the defaulting officers. A
compliance report may be submitted to this office by
12.00 noon of 5th January, 2017 in this regard.
(emphasis supplied)
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 34
34. The respondents alleged that pursuant to the direction
of the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur dated 4.1.2017, they have
issued termination order dated 5.1.2017. The impugned termination
order dated 5.1.2017 reads thus:
"No.5/9/2016-CAF&PD: Whereas, this Department
conducted DPC for the posts of Quality Inspector, Lower
Division Clerk (Office Assistant), Store Handler and Peon-
cum-Chowkidar on 4th January, 2017 as scheduled
earlier.
And whereas, the DPC conducted the recruitment process
and obtained approval of the State Government for
declaring the result of the DPC on the same day i.e. 4th
January, 2017.
And whereas, while the DPC was going on, the Election
Commission of India announced Election Schedule for
some States including Manipur, by which time the Model
Code of Conduct came into force while the DPC continued
without being aware of announcement of the Election
Schedule. Subsequently, the Department declared the
result of the DPC.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 35
Now, therefore, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to
order that the appointment orders issued on 4th January,
2017 in respect of Quality Inspector, Lower Division Clerk
(Office Assistant), Store Handler and Peon-cum-
Chowkidar in the Directorate of Consumer Affairs Food
and Public Distribution, Manipur are hereby cancelled with
immediate effect in keeping with the Model Code of
Conduct issued by the Election Commissioner of India."
35. On a perusal of the letter of the Chief Electoral Officer,
Manipur it is clear that certain Departments/HODs, including CAF &
PD are trying to issue backdated appointment orders and such
appointments orders are in clear violation of Model Code of
Conduct. In the case on hand, as stated supra, on 4.1.2017 itself
the appointment orders were issued to the petitioners and their
appointment is based on the recommendation of the DPC and
therefore, how it can be termed that the respondent authorities
herein are trying to resort to issuing the backdated appointment
orders. The aforesaid has not been clearly established by the
respondent authorities. Despite the position aforesaid, the
Commissioner has issued the impugned order dated 5.1.2017.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 36
36. Aggrieved by the said order dated 5.1.2017, the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.247 of 2021 have filed W.P.(C) No.626 of
2019. By the order dated 19.2.2021, this Court disposed of the writ
petition. The order dated 19.2.2021 reads thus:
"Heard Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Th.Sukumar, learned
GA appearing for the respondents.
At the outset, the learned senior counsel Mr. BP
Sahu, who is appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the present writ petition may be disposed of by passing a
simple order directing the respondents to consider and
dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioners
to the respondents within a stipulated period.
Mr.Th. Sukumar, learned GA fairly submitted that
the present writ petition can be disposed of as prayed for
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
In view of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the respondents are
directed to consider and disposed of the representation
dated 9.11.2017, submitted by the petitioners to the
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 37
Commissioner (CAF & PD), Government of Manipur and
the Director (CAF & PD), Government of Manipur by
issuing a speaking order within a period of 1 month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the
copy of the said representations.
It is further made clear that the petitioner should
submit a copy of this order to the respondents along with
a copy of the said representation dated 9.11.2017 within a
period of 1 weeks from today.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ
petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be furnished to both the counsel
appearing the parties through their e-mail/whatsapp
during the course of the day."
37. Similar order was passed when another set of
petitioners approached this Court in the year 2021 by filing W.P.(C)
No.23 of 2021. As stated supra, the said writ petition was disposed
of by this Court vide order dated 25.2.2021.
38. Pursuant to the directions issued in W.P.(C) Nos.626
of 2019 and 23 of 2021, the Director (CAF & PD), Manipur passed
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 38
the impugned orders dated 1.3.2021 and 23.3.2021 respectively.
On a perusal of the aforesaid two orders, this Court finds that except
the order date, the contents of the orders are similar. For better
appreciation, the order dated 1.3.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.626
of 2019 is extracted hereunder:
"No.5/102/2019-CAF&PD: Whereas 20 (twenty) persons
were appointed to the post of Quality Inspector, 22 (twenty
two) persons were appointed to the pot of Lower Division
Clerks/Office Assistant, 6 (six) persons were appointed to
the post of Store Handler and 35 (thirty five) persons were
appointed to the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar in
Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Manipur
vide Order Nos.1/910/2015-CAF&PD dated 04/01/2017
against posts newly created post due to creation of 7
(seven) new districts during 2016-17.
2. Whereas, a DPC was conducted on 04.01.2017 for
appointment of suitable persons to the abovementioned
posts and the results were declared and appointment
orders were issued on the same date;
3. Whereas, Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur vide Orders
No.4/48/ELEC/MCC/SAE/2017 dated 04/02/2017 issued
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 39
a letter whereby recruitment process were banned w.e.f.
04/01/2017 ie., the effective date for commencement of
Model Code of Conduct in connection with Legislative
Assembly Elections of Manipur, 2017;
4. Whereas, vide Order No.5/9/2016-CAF&PD dated
05/01/2017 the Government of Manipur cancelled the
appointment Orders dated 04/01/2017 of Quality
Inspector, Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant, Store
Handles and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Directorate of
Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Manipur
with immediate effect in keeping with the Model Code of
Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India;
5. Whereas, joint representations dated 09/11/2017 were
submitted to the Commissioner (CAF&PD), Government
of Manipur and Director (CAF&PD), Manipur requesting
for revoking Government Orders No.5/9/2016-CAF&PD
dated 05/01/2017;
6. Whereas, in pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court's
Order dated 19/02/2021 passed connection in W.P.(C)
No.626 of 2019 (Athokpam Somorendro & 10 Ors. V. State
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 40
of Manipur & Anr.), the representations dated 09/11/2017
submitted by the petitioners praying for revocation of
Government Orders 5/9/2016-CAF&PD dated 05/01/2017
have been examined;
7. And whereas, the representations mentioned in para 3
above have been in the light of the Government of Manipur
Orders No.5/9/2016-CAF&PD dated 05/01/2017 and as
such their request cannot be acceded to. Accordingly their
representations dated 07/11/2017 are disposed off."
39. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 1.3.2021
passed by the Director (CAF & PD), Manipur is not in accordance
with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.626 of 2019.
In paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 1.3.2021 the Director
simply stated that "the representations mentioned in para 3 above
have been in the light of the Government of Manipur Orders
No.5/9/2016-CAF&PD dated 05/01/2017 and as such their request
cannot be acceded to. Accordingly their representations dated
07/11/2017 are disposed off". Though the date has been wrongly
mentioned as 07/11/2017, the same has been subsequently
corrected as 09/11/2017. Admittedly, in the impugned order dated
1.3.2021, there was no discussion about the representation dated
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 41
9.11.2017 and also there was no consideration of any material by
the authority concerned. That apart, paragraph 3 stated in
paragraph 7 of the order does not match. In fact, paragraph 3 of the
impugned order dated 1.3.2021 speaks about the letter of the Chief
Electoral Officer and the Model Code of Conduct. Thus, it is clear
that there is total non-application of mind by the Director while
issuing the impugned order dated 1.3.2021.
40. When this Court directed the respondent authorities to
consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioners
dated 9.11.2017, it is the bounden duty of the authority concerned
to consider the claim of the party and then pass an order. On a
perusal of the order of this Court dated 19.2.2021, it is clear that the
representations of the petitioners were to be disposed of by issuing
a speaking order. However the impugned order dated 1.3.2021
reveals that the same is not a speaking order and on the other hand,
as stated supra, there was total non-application of mind.
41. Normally, while passing the order, giving of reasons is
one of the fundamental of good administration. Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links
between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 42
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, held that
reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face
of the sphinx, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for
the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power
of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to
reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons
at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter
before Court. In the present case, there is total absence of speaking
order principle, which is a root of good administration and breach
thereof, is an arbitratory action on the part of the Director (CAF &
PD). No reason whatsoever has been given for rejection of the
representation dated 9.11.2017 of the petitioners.
43. As stated supra, a mere mention of an order issued by
the Government of Manipur cannot constitute a reason. While
arriving at a decision, the Director (CAF & PD) has to demonstrate
and discuss the cause and effect. Since the order impugned dated
1.3.2021 is in defiance of this Court's direction in W.P.(C) No.629
of 2017, there is no other option except to hold that the order dated
1.3.2021 is liable to be set aside.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 43
44. Similar is the view of this Court in regard to the order
dated 23.3.2021 passed by the Director (CAF & PD). Though in
paragraph 7 of the order dated 23.3.2021, the Director has stated
that the representations are examined and found not tenable in the
light of the Government Order dated 5.1.2017, no elaborate
discussion has been made while passing the order. The order also
states that due consideration was made. But the consideration
made by the authority has not been discussed in the order dated
23.3.2021. Mere mentioning "after due consideration" would not
amount to total application of mind and after consideration the order
has been passed. Thus, finding total non-application of mind and
the order dated 23.3.2021 passed is not in accordance with the
directions of this Court, the same is also liable to be set aside.
45. Coming to issuance of the impugned cancellation
order of appointment dated 5.1.2017, one thing is clear from
paragraph 3 of the impugned orders dated 1.3.2021 and 23.3.2021
respectively that by way of an order dated 4.2.2017 only the Chief
Electoral Officer, Manipur banned the recruitment process with
effect from 4.1.2017. When that being the position, how the
respondent Commissioner, CAF & PD could cancel the
appointment orders of the petitioners on 5.1.2017. Nothing has
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 44
been produced by the respondent authorities that there was
violation in the selection process.
46. As stated supra, the Director, CAF & PD himself
admitted that the appointment orders were issued on 4.1.2017 and
the same were on the due recommendation made by the DPC. It is
not the case of the Commissioner, CAF & PD that the Director, CAF
& PD in violation of the applicable law and in violation of the Model
Code of Conduct issued the appointment orders dated 4.1.2017 to
the petitioners.
47. When the Director, CAF & PD was empowered to
select and issue appointment orders to the petitioners, merely by
citing the Model Code of Conduct, the Commissioner, CAF & PD
has no authority to cancel the appointment orders of the petitioners
dated 4.1.2017. First of all, the applicability of the Model Code of
Conduct in this case is highly doubtful for the reason that before
issuance of the ban order, the selection was made and appointment
orders were issued to the petitioners and the petitioners have also
joined service.
48. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners started to function by attending to
their duties for about three months from the date of their joining
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 45
without getting their pay; the appointment orders of the petitioners
have been cancelled by simply referring to the Model Code of
Conduct; and, that they were handed over back-dated cancellation
order dated 5.1.2017, merits consideration in view of the content
that appears in paragraph 3 of the impugned orders dated 1.3.2021
and 23.3.2021 respectively.
49. At this juncture, learned Advocate General argued that
since the Model Code of Conduct for the 11th Legislative Assembly
Election of Manipur was announced and came into effect from
4.1.2017 and in view of the circular dated 4.1.2017 issued to stop
the recruitment process, the impugned order dated 5.1.2017 came
to be issued cancelling the appointment orders 4.1.2017 of Quality
Inspector, Lower Division Clerk/Office Assistant, Store Handler and
Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the Directorate of CAF & PD, Manipur with
immediate effect.
50. Countering the aforesaid argument of the learned
Advocate General, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the object of Model Code of Conduct is not to stop all
governmental activities in the State pending elections.
Notwithstanding the elections, the normal governmental functions
should go on. It is only where with the intention of influencing the
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 46
voters of the State the party in power declares any promises to the
people that the Model Code of Conduct comes into play.
51. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there is no fault on the petitioners in attending the
interview and it is for the authorities who are to be blamed in
proceeding with the recruitment process. However, in the instant
case, no action has been taken against any of such authorities and
instead the petitioners have been penalized for no fault of their own
which cannot be justified under any circumstances. This Court finds
some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
52. Simply because the recruitment process in the case
on hand was beneficial to certain public, it cannot be thrashed by
citing the Model Code of Conduct. Election Commission should
examine these aspects carefully before coming to the conclusion
whether the action infringes the Model Code of Conduct and shall
not interdict all governmental functions simply because it would
result in some benefit to the recruits, who are voters of the State. If,
without discrimination, the Election Commission takes a policy that
all governmental functions resulting in benefits to the people have
to be postponed, until after the elections that would affect the
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 47
interest of the State itself because in certain matters delay itself
would vitally affect the appointment/selection itself. Thus, this Court
is of the considered view that in the name of commencement of the
Model Code of Conduct, the respondent State cannot play with the
life of the petitioners, who were issued with the appointment orders
based on the recommendation of the DPC and pursuant to the
appointment orders, they have also joined duty.
53. In the present case the recruitment is pursuant to the
decision/policy of the respondent State to fill up the newly created
posts due to creation of seven new districts. The decision/policy
decision, as the case may be, is prior to the issuance of the election
notification and the Model Code of Conduct. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that since the policy decision/decision of the Cabinet
is prior to the issuance of the election notification as well as the
Model Code of Conduct, there is no question of cancelling the
appointment orders issued to the petitioners.
54. It is relevant to extract the Memorandum dated
4.1.2017 of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur, which
reads thus:
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 48
"MEMORANDUM
Imphal, the 4th January, 2017
Sub: State Assembly Elections, 2017- Application of
Model Code of Conduct.
No.4/1/MLA/Election-2017: The Election Commission of
India vide its Press Note No.ECl/PN/1/2017 dated
04/01/2017 has announced a two phase polling schedule
for the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly Elections,
2017. With the announcement of Election Schedule by
the Election Commission, the Model Code of Conduct
comes into effect w.e.f. 4th January and will apply to the
whole of Manipur State and will be applicable to all
candidates, political parties, the State and Union
Government as far as Manipur State is concerned. The
Model Code of Conduct covers the general conduct of
the Political Parties & Candidates, manner of holding
meetings, processions, conduct on the polling day, and
in the polling booth, the conduct of the party in power and
other instructions of the ECI including those on transfers
and use of discretionary funds like MPLADS. The details
of the Code of Conduct and the list of "DOs" and
"DON'Ts" are available on the websites of the Election
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 49
Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer,
Manipur at www.eci.gov.in and ceomanipur.nic.in
respectively and have been separately circulated for
general information and strict observance.
2. ln view of the enforcement of Model Code of Conduct,
attention of the authorities of all Departments, offices,
public sector undertakings and institutions receiving
grant-in-aid from the Government of Manipur is
particularly invited to the clause Vll (vi) of the revised
Model Code of Conduct which states as follows:
"From the time elections are announced by the
Commission, Ministers and other authorities shall not:
(a) Announce any financial grant in any form or promise
thereof or
(b) (except civil servants) lay foundation stones etc. of
projects or schemes of any kinds or
(c) Make any promise of construction of roads, provisions
of drinking water facilities etc. or
(d) Make any ad-hoc appointment in Govt., public sector
undertakings etc. which may have the effect of
influencing the voters in favour of the party in power."
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 50
3. Misuse of Official Vehicles: The ECI's consolidated
instructions contained in letter No.464/lNST/2014/EPS
dated 10.4.2014, among other things provides that there
shall be a total and absotute ban on the use of official
vehicles for campaigning, electioneering or election
related travel during elections (subject to exceptions
mentioned therein). The expression "official vehicle"
means and shall include, any vehicle used or capable of
being used for the purpose of transport whether propelled
by mechanical power or otherwise and will include trucks,
lorries, tempos, jeeps, cars, auto rickshaws, e-rickshaws,
buses belonging to central government, state
government/UT Administrations, Public Undertakings of
Central/State Government, Joint Sector Undertakings of
Central/State Govts,. Local bodies, Municipal
Corporations, Marketing Boards, Cooperative Societies
or any other body in which public funds, however small a
portion of the total, are invested.
4. The Commission has also directed that there shall be
a total ban on the transfer of all officers/officials
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 51
connected with the conduct of the elections. These
include but are not restricted to:-
(i) The Chief Electoral Officer and Additional/Joint/Deputy
Chief Electoral Officers;
(ii) Divisional Commissioners;
(iii) The District Election Officers, Returning Officers,
Assistant Returning Officers and other Revenue Officers
connected with the Conduct of Elections;
(iv) Officers of the Police Department connected with the
management of elections like range lGs and DlGs, Senior
Superintendents of Police and Superintendents of Police,
Sub-divisional level Police Officers like Deputy
Superintendents of Police and other Police officers who
are deputed to the Commission under section 28A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951;
(v) The transfer orders issued in respect of the above
categories of officers prior to the date of announcement
but not implemented till date should not be given effect to
without obtaining specific permission from the
Commission in this regard.
(vi) This ban shall be effective till the completion of the
election. The Commission further directs that the State
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 52
Government should refrain from making transfers of
senior officers who have a role in the management of
election in the State.
(vii) In those cases where transfer of an officer is
necessary on account of administrative exigencies, the
State Government may with full justification approach the
Commission for prior clearance.
5. All Departments of the Govt. of Manipur, Public Sector
Undertakings and quasi-Govt. Bodies are advised to
ensure strict compliance of the Model Code of Conduct
w.e.f. 4th January 2017 and till completion of the 11th
Manipur Legislative Assembly Elections, 2017. ln case of
any doubt on any point, specific references giving the
details may be made by FAX to Shri N.N. Butolia,
Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi on
his fax No.(011) 23052050 with a copy endorsed to the
Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur and Chief Electoral
Officer, Manipur.
Sd/-xxx
Chief Secretary
Government of Manipur"
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 53
55. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the written test
was held on 28.12.2016 before coming into force of the Model
Code of Conduct and the interview for the posts held on 4.1.2017
between 11.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., which was also admitted by the
respondents in their reply dated 7.1.2017 addressed to the
Additional Chief Election Officer, Manipur and upon due
recommendation of the DPC, the petitioners were given
appointment on 4.1.2017 with a direction to the petitioners to join
duty immediately and pursuant to the appointment orders, the
petitioners have also joined duty on the same date itself. The letter
of the Chief Secretary dated 4.1.2017 also does not speak about
the cancellation of the recruitment process which were completed.
While so, as stated supra, the application of Model Code of Conduct
2017 in the instant case does not arise, as on the date of issuance
of the Model Code of Conduct the petitioners were joined service.
Therefore, by citing the commencement of Model of Code of
Conduct, the instant appointment orders cannot be cancelled by the
Commissioner, CAF & PD. That apart, there was no violation in the
recruitment process and the selection made thereon.
56. There appears to be a doubt in the mind of this Court
that if really the Model Code of Conduct was issued while the DPC
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 54
was going on, the respondent authorities would not have acted
further. On the other hand, the respondent authorities have been
allowed to act further in regard to the selection process and even
by issuance of the appointment order. Subsequently, by citing the
Model Code of Conduct, the appointment orders cannot be
cancelled. The cancellation of appointment orders in respect of the
petitioners by way of the impugned order dated 5.1.2017 is only for
the purpose of not allowing the petitioners to discharge their
respective duties. The reason for cancellation of the appointment
orders of the petitioners is not acceptable and therefore, the same
cannot stand in the eye of law. That apart, before cancellation of
the appointment orders, the petitioners were not given an
opportunity of hearing. Since the cancellation order dated 5.1.2017
has been issued while the petitioners were in service, the
petitioners ought to have been heard before issuing the impugned
order dated 5.1.2017. In view of the above, the impugned order
dated 5.1.2017 is liable to be quashed as the same has been issued
in violation of the principles of nature justice.
57. Insofar as the impugned notification dated 10.3.2021
is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the Chief Secretary has issued an Office Memorandum dated
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 55
22.2.2021 thereby ordering that all the ongoing recruitment
processes, including daily wages, contract employment, muster roll,
direct recruitment, being undertaken by all the Departments shall
be put on hold with immediate effect until further orders in view of
the State's economy and precarious financial position of the State.
However, another Office Memorandum dated 4.3.2021 has been
issued by the Chief Secretary modifying the previous Office
Memorandum dated 22.2.2021 thereby ordering to continue which
have already been approved by the State Cabinet. However, the
declaration of result should be put on hold until further orders in
view of the State's economy and the precarious financial position of
the State.
58. He would submit that on 10.3.2021 a notification was
issued by the Director (CAF & PD) inviting application from the
candidates for direct recruitment of the post of Quality Inspector,
Lower Division Clerk, Office Assistant, Peon-cum-Chowkidar and
Store Handler in the Department of CAF & PD. According to learned
counsel for the petitioners, the Director ought not to have issued
such notification for filling up the posts. If the notification dated
10.3.2021 is proceeded with, the petitioners would be put to
irreparable loss and damage.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 56
59. Countering the argument, the learned Advocate
General submitted that with the cancellation of the appointment of
the petitioners on 5.1.2017 and rejection of their representation
dated 9.11.2017 vide orders dated 1.3. 2021 and 23.3.2021, the
petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned notification
dated 10.3.2021 and, thus, no rights of the petitioners have been
violated by the impugned notification. The aforesaid argument of
the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted for reasons
stated infra.
60. As stated supra, there are two sets of petitioners
herein. One set petitioners have challenged the impugned order
dated 1.3.2021 and 5.1.2017 respectively and the other set of
petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 5.1.2017 and
the notification dated 10.3.2021. As far as the second set of
petitioners are concerned, earlier they have filed W.P.(C) No.23 of
2021 for relief and this Court by the order dated 25.2.2021, directed
the respondent authorities to consider and pass orders on the
representation of the petitioner dated 9.11.2017 within a period of
one month. Accordingly, the Director of CAF & PD considered and
passed order on 23.3.2021 rejecting the representation of the
petitioners dated 9.11.2021. Thus, from the above, it is clear that
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 57
before considering the representation of the petitioners, the
impugned notification dated 10.3.2021 has been issued calling for
application to fill up the posts. The Director, CAF & PD ought not to
have issued such notification. That apart, the impugned notification
dated 10.3.2021 has been issued while W.P.(C) No.247 of 2021
was pending, which was filed to challenge the impugned
cancellation of the appointment order as well as the order rejecting
the representation dated 9.11.2017.
61. It appears that on 10.09.2021 this Court passed an
interim order not to finalize the recruitment process pursuant to the
notification dated 10.3.2021. The said interim order still continuing
and the respondent authorities have also filed vacation of the
interim order by filing miscellaneous cases contending that the
appointment of the 45 petitioners in terms of the order dated
4.1.2017 have already been cancelled by the Department on
5.1.2017 and the petitioners have never joined service. As such, the
petitioners have no right to challenge the fresh recruitment because
none of their rights are infringed in any manner whatsoever.
62. The learned Advocate General also submitted that the
petitioners have approached this Court challenging their
cancellation order dated 5.1.2017 after a lapse of more than four
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 58
years. The aforesaid submission of the learned Advocate General
cannot be countenanced for the reason that admittedly there was
no delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court.
Before filing the instant writ petitions, the petitioners have filed writ
petition being W.P.(C) NO.626 of 2019, wherein this Court directed
the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the
petitioners dated 9.11.2017. Therefore, the question of delay
alleged by the respondent State does not arise in this case.
63. The initiation of the recruitment process for the posts
against which the petitioners were recommended and thereafter
appointed is not justified and the same is violative of the
fundamental rights of the petitioners.
64. In the preceding paragraphs, this Court held that the
impugned order dated 5.1.2017 cancelling the appointment orders
of the petitioners and the impugned orders dated 1.3.2021 and
23.3.2021 respectively rejecting the representation of the
petitioners dated 9.11.2017 cannot stand in the eye of law and
therefore, the same are liable to be quashed. In view of such
conclusion arrived at by this Court, the impugned notification dated
10.3.2021 is also not sustainable in law and the same has been
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 59
issued in violation of the direction in W.P.(C) No.23 of 2021 dated
25.02.2021 as well as during pendency of W.P.(C) No.247 of 2021.
65. At the end, it is reiterated that subsequent to the
issuance of the order dated 5.1.2017, the Special Secretary
(CAF&PD) wrote a letter to the Additional Chief Election
Commissioner, Manipur wherein it was stated that the DPC was
duly concluded in terms of advertisement dated 16.12.2016 and the
petitioners and other similarly situated persons had already joined
their respective posts. While that being the position explained to the
Election Commission by the Special Secretary (CAF&PD), now the
CAF & PD Department cannot take a u-turn contrary to the
aforesaid stand and victimize the petitioners, whose fundamental
rights are arbitrarily infringed by the act of the respondent
authorities without following the due process of law.
66. Further, the petitioners have been waiting for more
than five years for their appointment to their selected posts. Despite
they being selected and having been issued offer forms and even
medical verification having been already completed, the petitioners
have still not been reappointed after recalling the cancellation
orders, but in other Departments whose appointment orders were
cancelled by citing the Model Code of Conduct have already been
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 60
given appointment orders even after the issuance of cancellation
order by recalling the same. However, in the case on hand
discrimination has been shown on the petitioners thereby depriving
their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
67. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of
the view that the impugned orders dated 5.1.2017, 1.3.2021,
23.3.2021 and the impugned notification dated 10.3.2021 are liable
to be quashed.
68. In the result,
(i) All the writ petitions in WP(C) No. 279 of
2021, WP(C) No. 247 of 2021, WP(C) No.
280 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 464 of 2021 are
allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 05.1.2017
passed by the Commissioner (CAF&PD),
Manipur is quashed.
(iii) The impugned orders dated 1.3.2021 and
23.3.2021 issued by the Director (CAF &
PD), Manipur are quashed.
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
P a g e | 61
(iv) The impugned notification dated 10.3.2021
issued by the Director (CAF & PD), Manipur
is also quashed.
(v) The respondent authorities are directed to
reappoint the petitioners by issuing
appointment orders to the respective posts
which they earlier held pursuant to the
notification dated 16.12.2016 and the
appointment order dated 4.1.2017.
(vi) The said exercise is directed to be completed
within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vii) The vacate stay applications filed by the
respondents stand dismissed.
(viii) There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
W.P.(C) No. 279 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 247 of 2021 with WP(C) No. 280 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 464 of 2021
