Manipur High Court
Singul Larson Anal vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 7 July, 2022
1
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN
KOM
TELEN Date:
2022.07.08
KOM 10:26:05
+05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No.719 of 2017
1. Singul Larson Anal, aged about 37 years, s/o S. Voltung,
appeared at Sl.No.17 in the Annexure II Wait list for Chandel
District bearing Roll No.592, a resident of Lambung Village,
PO & PS Chandel, Chandel District, Manipur;
2. Khartal Stephen Anal aged about 31 years, s/o KT. Voldil,
appeared at Sl.No.70 in the Annexure II Wait list for Chandel
District bearing Roll No.243, a resident of Thungching Village,
PO & PS Chakpikarong, Chandel District, Manipur.
3. HB. Rita Anal, aged about 36 years, d/o HB. Ruwngtham,
appeared at Sl.No.34 in the Annexure II Wait List for Chandel
District bearing Roll No.1185, a resident of Khambathel
Village, PO & PS Chandel, Chandel District, Manipur.
....... Petitioners
- Versus -
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 1
2
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissiner/Secretary (Tribal Affairs and Hills, Government
of Manipur.
2. The Chandel Autonomous District Council, Chandel,
represented by its Chief Executive Officer(CEO), Chandel
District, Manipur.
3. The Chairman, Autonomous District Council, Chandel,
Government of Manipur.
.... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners : Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr.Adv.
For the Respondents : Mrs. CH. Sundari, GA
Date of reserved : 10.06.2022
Date of order : 07.07.2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(0ral)
[1] This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioners as primary teachers along with appointed candidates
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 2
as per the letter dated 22.11.2016 issued by the Secretariat (Tribal Affairs
& Hills), Government of Manipur, as they are higher in order of merit as well
as similarly situated based on the letter dated 22.4.2010.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the Chief Executive Officer,
Autonomous District Council, Chandel, Manipur, requested the District
Employment Exchange to sponsor eligible candidates for direct recruitment
for appointment of primary teachers against 159 posts of primary teachers
and instructions was notified for public information vide letter dated
23.1.2010. As per the above said letter, 519 select list for the post of primary
teachers with further 74 wait list was notified as approved candidates. As
per the notification, written examinations and interviews thereto were
conducted and the select list and wait list were also submitted to the
Government for approval. By the letter dated 20.4.2010, the Government
conveyed approval of the DPC proceedings for appointment of 519 primary
teachers and 74 approved wait list primary teachers. The petitioners are all
candidates amongst the 74 wait listed primary teachers.
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 3
3. Further case of the petitioners is that from the said wait list, 14
candidates were later on appointed as primary teachers with effect from the
date of joining service vide separate orders dated 22.4.2010 and 533 newly
appointed primary school teachers who are enjoying the Government
service. Meanwhile, 60 wait listed candidates from Serial 15 to 74, which
includes the petitioners, have been kept waiting for their appointment despite
the fact that there are 843 sanctioned posts less 716 present strength of 127
posts of primary teachers lying vacant in the Autonomous District Council,
Chandel.
4. According to the petitioners, on the 14 appointed candidates
from the wait list, only 4 candidates i.e. Serial No.1 to 4 were appointed
against the plan education expenditure and the rest 10 i.e. from Serial No.5
to 14 were appointed against non-planned expenditure which still has 127
posts of primary teachers lying vacant against its head. Therefore, there is
no reason as to why the petitioners cannot be appointed against these 127
existing vacancy. Aggrieved by the act of the respondents, the petitioners
have submitted a representation on 3.2.2011 seeking appointment to the
post of primary teachers against the existing vacancies of 127 posts
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 4
available with the Autonomous District Council, Chandel. The petitioners
have also filed W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011 before the Gauhati High Court,
wherein they have filed M.C.No.311 of 2015. By the order dated 14.12.2015,
the Court directed the respondents to consider the representation dated
3.2.2011 followed by a reminder representation dated 10.8.2015 within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
5. Pursuant to the order passed in M.C.No.311 of 2015 in
W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011, the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) passed an order
on 12.2.2016 against the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners
filed W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016, wherein the Court ordered that the pendency
of the writ petition shall not preclude the respondents from considering the
case of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers. However, to the
utter shock, letter dated 22.11.2016 was issued approving 45 candidates for
appointment as primary teachers from the remaining 60 approved wait list
candidates from the letter dated 20.4.2010 by superseding the merit list
against the petitioners who are higher in order of merit as per 74 approved
wait listed candidates. Challenging the action of the respondent authorities
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 5
and to direct them to appoint the petitioners as primary teachers, they have
filed the present writ petition.
6. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the
appointments of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel in the year 2016
were not followed the seniority list on the basis of merit and, therefore, the
Department was of the view that the appointment of primary teachers in the
year 2016 under the ADC, Chandel should have been made strictly as per
the merit list of the approved wait list for appointment of primary teachers
DPC held on 2009-2010. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that out of 74 approved wait listed candidates, 14 were
given appointment as primary teachers on 22.4.2010 and 24.4.2010
respectively and, as such, there are 533 newly appointed primary school
teachers are enjoying the Government service. He would submit that 60 wait
listed candidates, including petitioners have been kept waiting of their
appointment, though there are 843 sanctioned posts out of which 127 posts
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 6
of primary teachers are lying vacant in the ADC, Chandel against non-
planned education expenditure vide Finance Department's letter dated
16.12.2010.
8. The learned senior counsel further submitted that out of 14
candidates from the wait list who were given appointment, only 4 were
appointed against the plan education expenditure, while the remaining 10
were appointed against the non-planning expenditure. After the appointment
of the 10 wait listed candidates against the non-planning expenditure, 127
posts of primary teachers are still lying vacant and, therefore, there is no
reason in not giving appointment to the petitioners.
9. The learned senior counsel submitted that aggrieved by the
act of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners, they have
submitted a representation on 3.2.2011. Since the said representation was
not considered, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011 praying
inter alia for direction directing the respondents to appoint them from the
approved wait list as primary teachers under ADC, Chandel as has been
done in similarly situated wait listed candidates against the available vacancy
of primary teachers. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have also filed
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 7
miscellaneous case praying for consideration and disposal of the
representation dated 3.2.2011 and this Court by the order dated 14.12.2015
directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation within
two months. However, an order has been passed on 12.2.2016, rejecting
the claim made in the said representation on the ground that the validity
period for wait list panel had lapsed.
10. According to the learned senior counsel, the order dated
12.2.2016 was passed without considering the letter of the Chief Executive
Officer, ADC, Chandel recommending the petitioners for consideration and
validity of their case for appointment as primary teachers against the existing
127 vacant posts in the ADC, Chandel during the operational period of the
wait list panel.
11. The learned senior counsel then submitted that aggrieved by
the order dated 12.2.2016, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.307 of 2016.
The petitioners also filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016
and this Court by the order dated 15.4.2016 observed that the pendency of
the writ petition shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 8
of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers. However, to the
shock and surprise of the petitioners, the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) issued
a letter dated 22.1.2016 according approval to 45 candidates for appointment
as primary teachers from the remaining 60 approved wait listed candidates
stated in the letter dated 20.4.2010, thereby superseding the merit list
against the petitioners who are higher in order of merit as per the list of 74
approved wait listed candidates.
12. The learned senior counsel urged that there are enough
vacancies for appointment of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel at the
relevant point of time and also at present. The respondent State has no
power to approve or cancel the whole or part or to reshuffle the order of merit
submitted by the DPC. The wait list has been approved in order of merit and
acted upon by the concerned Government Department vide letter dated
20.4.2010 by conveying approval of the 14 wait listed candidates from Serial
No.1 to 14 in order of merit. Arguing so, the learned senior counsel prays
for allowing of the writ petition and to direct the respondents to appoint the
petitioners are primary teachers under the ADC, Chandel without any further
delay.
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 9
13. Per contra, Mrs. CH. Sundari, learned Government Advocate
submitted that the appointment of primary teachers in the year 2016 under
ADC, Chandel has been made as per the merit list of the approved wait list
and that the appointment has not followed the seniority list on the basis of
merit. Thus, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted, as there
is no basis for seeking such relief.
14. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused
the materials available on record.
15. Before going to consider the claim of the petitioners, it is to be
mentioned that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the first respondent to the
writ petition is vague and the first respondent has not specifically denied or
controverted the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition.
16. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to
state the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the
act of omission and pick and choose method adopted by the respondents,
the petitioners and other persons have submitted a representation dated
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 10
3.2.2011. Since the said representation was not considered by the
respondents, the petitioners and others filed W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011 before
Gauhati High Court praying inter alia for a direction directing the respondents
to appoint them from the approved wait list as primary school teachers under
ADC, Chandel as similarly situated wait listed candidates were given
appointment from the wait list against the available vacancy of primary
teachers under ADC, Chandel. Thereafter, the said writ petition was
transferred to the Manipur High Court. Pending writ petition, the petitioners
filed M.C.No.311 of 2015 praying to consider the representation dated
3.2.2011. By the order dated 14.12.2015, this Court allowed the said
miscellaneous petition and the operative portion of the order reads thus:
"Accordingly, the present miscellaneous application is allowed
with the direction that the respondents shall consider the
representation dated 03.02.2011 followed by reminder
representation dated 10.08.2015 within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and issue
appropriate order thereof."
17. Pursuant to the direction dated 14.12.2015, the Under Secretary (TA
& Hills) passed an order dated 12.2.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 11
Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.(C) No.307 of 2016 came to be filed. A writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016 was also filed, wherein this Court on
15.4.2016 passed the following order:
"Heard Shri M.Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
Issue notice to the respondents returnable 18/5/2016
(Wednesday).
Shri N.Ibotombi, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Shri
A.Rommel, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of
Respondent No.1 and hence, no formal notice is called for in
respect of Respondent No.1.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners shall take
appropriate steps for serving notice upon Respondent Nos.2 to 33
by registered post with A.D.
The pendency of the writ petition shall not preclude the
respondents from considering the case of the petitioners for
appointment as primary teachers."
18. On a perusal of the wait list dated 20.04.2010, the names of
petitioners appear at Serial Nos.17, 34 and 70 and the wait list has been
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 12
acted upon and appointments were given by operating it from Serial No.1
to 14, which was evident from the appointment orders produced by the
petitioners along with the writ petition. However, while issuing the letter
dated 22.11.2016, thereby approving 45 candidates for appointment as
primary teachers from the remaining 60 approved wait list candidates from
the list dated 20.4.2010, the names of the petitioners have been omitted.
There is no special reason stated in the said letter dated 22.11.2016 that
how they approved the 45 candidates by omitting the petitioners.
Admittedly and as stated supra, the petitioners' serial numbers are 17, 34
and 70. While so, by superseding the merit list, the letter dated 22.11.2016
came to be issued. In fact, the candidates juniors to the petitioners were
approved for appointment in the letter dated 22.11.2016. When the
respondents earlier followed the wait list serial wise, what prevented them
from following the same serial system when the subsequent appointments
made. This, in fact, blatant discrimination against the equal and against
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
19. The contest made by the first respondent in the instant writ
petition is that the appointment of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel in
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 13
the year 2016 has not followed the seniority list on basis of merit and the
appointments of primary teachers in the year 2016 under the ADC, Chandel
have been made strictly as per the merit list of the approved wait list.
20. It is not in dispute that there are enough vacancies for
appointment of primary teachers under the ADC, Chandel at the relevant
point of time and also at present. Further, as rightly argued by learned
senior counsel for the petitioners, the respondent State has no power to
approve or cancel the whole or part or to reshuffle the order of merit
submitted by the DPC. Its power to cancel is limited to cases were the
selection has been vitiated by consideration of corruption, favoritism or
nepotism. In fact, the wait list has been approved in order of merit and
acted upon by the Department on 24.10.2016.
21. As stated supra, by operating the wait list, an approval of 14
wait listed candidates from Serial No.1 to 14 in order of merit has been
given and, accordingly, they were given appointment against the plan
education expenditure while the remaining 10 were appointed against the
non-planning expenditure and 127 posts of primary teachers lying vacant
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 14
at the relevant point of time. The said position of appointment and vacant
position has not been disputed by the respondents specifically.
22. Since the approved wait list has been acted upon and by
implication of such act the said list should by all account be rechristened as
select list considering the fact that there are 127 and more existing
vacancies of the primary teachers in the ADC, Chandel. It is also apparent
from the letter dated 22.11.2016, by adopting pick and choose method in
the name of the administrative policy by superseding the order of merit list,
the Commissioner (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur issued the said
letter dated 22.11.2016 by omitting the names of the petitioners.
23. When there were enough vacancies for appointment of
primary teachers under ADC, Chandel at the relevant point of time as also
at present, nothing prevented the respondent authorities to give
appointment to the wait listed candidates then and there, as DPC has
approved 74 wait listed candidates in the order of merit and the respondents
have also acted pursuant to the DPC list by initially appointing Serial No.1
to 14.
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 15
24. It is settled law that a waiting list would commence to operate,
when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on the top
of the merit list. The existence of a waiting list, allows room to the
appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise during the subsistence
of the waiting lit.
25. In Union Terrotory of Chadigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and
others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that while a candidate who finds a place in the select list may have no
vested right to be appointed to any post, in the absence of any specific rules
entitling him to the same, he may still be aggrieved of his non-appointment
if the authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a malafide manner.
26. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon the common order of this Court dated 6.6.2022 passed in W.P.(C)
No.982 of 2019 etc. batch, wherein in similar situation, this Court direct the
respondents therein to appoint to writ petitioners to the post of Forest Guard
in their respective category or reservation with effect from the date when
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 16
vacancies arose in terms of the order dated 15.12.2017 appointing 243
Forest Guards on regular basis.
27. No candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely
because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the
select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse
an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the
candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection
process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is
thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ
court. If any such decision is found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions
can be issued in the matter.
28. As stated supra, in the merit list the names of the petitioners
appear at Serial Nos.17, 34 and 70 respectively and the said merit list was
also acted upon by giving appointments to Serial Nos.1 to 14. While that
being so, the non-consideration of the petitioners in the merit list is totally
unacceptable. Further, when a challenge to the order dated 12.2.2016 has
been made, this Court in W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016 directed the respondents
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 17
to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers.
The aforesaid interim order does not preclude the petitioners from
considering appointment to the post of primary teachers. However, the
Commissioner (TA & Hills), by violating the said direction and also by
adopting pick and choose method, approved the 45 candidates by omitting
the petitioners whose names appear in the merit list. Such act of the
respondent authorities is unacceptable and the petitioners have made out
a case for consideration of their candidatures for appointment to the post of
primary teachers against the available vacancies under the ADC, Chandel
as similarly situated waitlisted candidates by the same DPC have already
been appointed vide order dated 22.4.2010, 24.4.2010 and 22.11.2016
respectively. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the
petitioners are entitled to appointment as primary teachers against the
available vacant posts.
29. In the result,
(a) the writ petition is allowed.
(b) The respondents are directed to appoint the
petitioners as primary teachers against the available
vacancies under the ADC, Chandel, Manipur.
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 18
(c) The said exercise is directed to be completed
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
(d) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John kom
John Kom
WP(C) No. 719 of 2017 Page 19
