Hrangbung Millar Anal & Anr vs State Of Manipur & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 336 Mani

                                                                                     No. 62
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
      LHAINEI   Digitally signed
                by                           AT IMPHAL
      CHONG     LHAINEICHONG
                HAOKIP

      HAOKIP    Date: 2022.08.04
                15:25:07 +05'30'
                                        WP(C) No. 778 of 2019
      Hrangbung Millar Anal & Anr.
                                                            .....Petitioner/s
        - Versus -
      State of Manipur & Anr.
                                                                .... Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH 04.08.2022

[1] Heard Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents.

The only issue raised in the present writ petition is whether the

candidate in the waiting list is entitled to be appointed to future vacancies

which arose after completion of the selection process.

[2] Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the Director, Manipur Fire Services wrote a letter dated 22.06.2018 to the

Director, Employment Exchange, Lamphelpat, Imphal sending requisition

form for notifying a number of vacancies including 39 vacant post of drivers in

the Manipur Fire Services Department to be filled up by direct recruitment. It

has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the

notified 39 vacancies, 17 posts are reserved for ST, 18 are for Unreserved

candidates, 3 for OBC (Meitei) and 1 for OBC (Pangal).

[3] Pursuant to the notification issued by the Government, the petitioner

applied for the said post of driver against the ST quota. It has been submitted

that a Class-III DPC was held from 09.08.218 to 01.09.2018 for selection of

WP(C) No. 778 of 2019 Page 1 suitable candidates and on the recommendation of the said Class-III DPC

and on the approval of the State Government, the Director, Manipur Fire

Services, issued an order dated 16.10.2018 appointing altogether 39 selected

candidates including 17 ST candidates against the 17 advertised post of

drivers reserved for ST candidates. In the said appointment order dated

16.10.2018, two candidates, including the present petitioner was kept in the

waiting list against the 17 posts of driver reserved for ST candidates.

[4] The case of the petitioner is that just on the date of issuance of the

said appointment order, i.e., on 16.10.2018, the Director, Manipur Fire

Services issued another notification advertising a number of vacant posts in

the Manipur Fire Services including 42 vacant posts of drivers for filling up by

direct recruitments. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that among the 42 vacant posts of drivers, 13 posts are reserved

for ST candidates. It has been strenuously submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that as 13 posts of the drivers reserved for ST candidates

were available on the date of issue of the aforesaid appointment order, the

petitioner is entitled to be appointed against one of the vacant post of driver,

since the petitioner was at serial no. 1 of the waiting list. The learned counsel

for the petitioner accordingly submitted that necessary directions be given to

the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as

driver against one of the said 13 vacant posts of driver reserved for ST

candidates.

[5] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents submitted that all the 17 advertised posts of the driver reserved

for ST candidates have been filled up and accordingly, the petitioner has no

WP(C) No. 778 of 2019 Page 2 right to claim for his appointment against a vacancy which arose subsequent

to the completion of the earlier selection process. In this regard, the learned

Government Advocate draw the attention of this Court to the memorandum

dated 20.12.1995 issued by the Government of Manipur, wherein it is, inter-

alia, laid down as under:-

"A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit may, therefore, be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join or in the event of the resignation, discharge or death etc. of a candidate within the period of validity of the waiting list. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arise due to resignation, discharge or death etc. of a selected candidate after his appointment within the period the list is to operate under the rules, then the candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. He has thus no right of appointment except to the limited indicated above."

The learned Government Advocate also cited the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Dinesh Kumar Kashyap

V. South East Central Railway" reported in (2019) 12 SCC 798 wherein, it

has been held as under:-

"34. Still further, in exercise of power of judicial review, this Court is not to substitute the decision of the Railways and to direct candidates in the waiting list to be appointed. In a three- Judge Bench judgment reported as Kali Dass Batish case, it has been held that mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right. It has been also held that however wide the power of judicial review under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, there is self-recognised limit to exercise such power. The Court held as under:(SCC pp. 788-90, paras 15, 17-19)

"15. In this matter, the approach adopted by the Jharkhand High Court commends itself to us. The Jharkhand High Court approached the matter on the principle that judicial review is not available in such a matter. The Jharkhand High Court also rightly pointed out that mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right."

       WP(C) No. 778 of 2019                                                     Page 3
 [6]      After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing

for the parties and on careful perusal of the records, this Court found that the

petitioner was kept in the waiting list against the 17 post of driver reserved for

ST candidates which were notified on 22.06.2018 and on the

recommendation of the Class-III DPC held on 09.08.2018 to 01.09.2018 and

that all the said 17 posts of driver reserved for ST candidates have been duly

filled up by the recommended candidates.

[7] It is also an undisputed fact that the 42 posts against which the

petitioner is claiming for appointment also arose after completion of the

earlier selection process pursuant to the earlier notification dated 22.06.2018.

In view of such uncontroverted facts, this Court is of the considered view that

the petitioner has no right to claim for appointment against the future

vacancies only on the ground that his name was kept in the waiting list. This

Court is of considered view that the claim of the petitioner is squarely

covered by the memorandum dated 20.12.1995, issued by the Government

of Manipur and accordingly, this Court find no merit in the present writ

petition.

[8] In the result, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed, however, in

view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are to

bear their own costs.

                                                              JUDGE

Lhaineichong




         WP(C) No. 778 of 2019                                            Page 4