Shri Th. Ashnikumar Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 251 Mani

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                         AT IMPHAL


WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 WP(C) No. 121of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 120 of 2019 with WP(C) No. 456 of 2019 with
WP(C) No. 1167 of 2018 with MC(WP(C) No. 143of 2021 with
MC(WP(C) No. 49 of 2020


1.    Shri Th. Ashnikumar Singh, aged about 27 years, s/o
Th.Nara Singh a resident of Charangpat Maning Leikai, PO & PS
and District Thoubal, Manipur.

2.    Smt L. Premi Devi, aged about 32 years, d/o L.Priyokumar
Singh a resident of SingjameiOkramLeikai, PO & PS Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur.

3.   Mr. Ningtinglung Dangmei, aged about 39 years, s/o late
D.Zaolung a resident of Lubanglong Village, PO & PS Khoupum,
Noney District Manipiur.

4.   Mrs. Kimchonghoi Sithou, aged about 30 years, d/o
Lamkholen Sitlhou a resident of Motbung, PO Motbung, PS
Supermeina, Senapati District, Manipur.

                                   ... Petitioners

Versus

1.    The State of Manipur through the Addl. Chief Secretary
(For & Envt)., Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building, PO
& PS and District Imphal West, Manipur 795001.

2.   The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HoFF,
Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong, PO Imphal, PS District
Imphal East, Manipur 795001.

                                   ... Respondents

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 1 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

For the Petitioners :: Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate & Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr.Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, Addl. Advocate General, Manipur.

Dates of hearing              ::     24.9.2021 & 28.9.2021

Date of judgment/order ::            06.06.2022



                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                            (C A V)

All these writ petitions, having common cause of action and relief sought being identical, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

[2] The Forest Department, Government of Manipur issued an Advertisement dated 6.8.2016 inviting applications for direct recruitment for the post of Forest Guards in Forest Department, Government of Manipur under Forest Guards Recruitment Rules, 2000 for 141 (one hundred and forty one) posts. The number of posts was increased to 255 (two hundred and fifty five) on the basis of a Cabinet decision. The petitioners being eligible, applied for the post and on completion of the recruitment process, the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Manipur issued a Notification dated 23.12.2016 declaring the results of successful candidates for recruitment of Forest Guards in the Forest Department, WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 2 Manipur. The names of the petitioners in WP(C) No.982 of 2019 appeared in the waiting list at Sl.No.1 (UR), Sl.No.2 (UR), Sl.No.19- (ST) and Sl.No.20 (ST).

The names of the petitioners in WP(C) No.1167 of 2018 appeared in the waiting list at Sl.No.3 (UR) and Sl.No.4 (UR).

Thereafter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HoFF, Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated 5.12.2017 addressed to the Addl.Chief Secretary (Forest and Environment), Government of Manipur on the subject of appointment to the post of Forest Guards in Manipur. The contents of the letter are reproduced hereinbelow:

"Government of Manipur Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Imphal: Manipur

No.2/44/2016/Forests(FG) Imphal, the 5th December, 2017

To The Additional Chief Secretary (Forest &Envt) Government of Manipur.

Subject:-Appointment to the post of Forest Guard in Manipur.

Sir, With reference to letter No.3/4/2015-For &Envt. (Pt-III) dated 14.11.2017 on the above subject regarding the current direct recruitment process of the Forest Guards in the Forest Department, Manipur, I am to say that the Offer Forms of the 255 candidates recommended for appointment to Forest Guards have been examined by a Committee consisting of the Senior Forest Officers and it has been found that out of the 255 candidates the Offer Forms and report on Medical Examination, Police verification, Educational Certificate verification of 248 candidates are proper and acceptable for appointment to Forest Guards. The details list of the 248 candidates is at Enclosure-I A attached herewith. Further, 1 (one) candidate namely GulistanRahaman bearing Roll No.1105 with Rank No.234 claims for ST status by virtue of her marriage to one ST member (Enclosure1-B). Her case is to be considered in the light of the O.M.No.A36011/1/2013- Estt (Res) dated 23.01.2014. Chapter 10.11 which states that:

Claims through marriage "No Person who was not a member WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 3 of SC/ST/OBC by birth will be deemed to be a member of a SC/ST/OBC merely because he/she has married a person belonging to SC/ST/OBC. On the other hand a person who is a member of a SC/ST/OBC would continue to be a member of that SC, ST or OBC, as the case may be even after his or her marriage with the person who does not belong to a SC, ST or OBC. The verification of the Educational certificate of 1 (one) candidate namely, Rejoicing Inbuon bearing Roll No.1337 with rank No.214 is pending at Board of Secondary Education Assam (Enclosure-IC). However, his case for appointment may be considered subject to verification report of the educational certificate by Board of Secondary Education, Assam. Further 2 (two) candidates 1-UR and 1-ST bearing Roll No.1919 and 1689 respectively joined other departments and their Offer forms are also not available and hence their case will not be considered for appointment (Enclosure-ID). 1 (one) Unreserved candidate bearing Roll No.1011 expired (Enclosure-IE). The educational Qualificationcertificates submitted by 2 (two) ST- candidates bearing Roll No.238 and 239 have been verified as "FAKE" by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and as such that case may not be considered for appointment (Enclosure-IF). Thus, out of 255 candidates, only 250 candidates including GulistanRahaman, Roll No.1105 (subject to approval by the Govt. on ST certificate) and Rejoicing Inbuon bearing Roll No.1337 are qualified for appointment to Forest Guards. 5 (five) posts consisting of 2-UR and 3-ST are found vacant due to rejection of the candidature of the 5 candidates at Enclosure-I D,E,F.

Therefore, it is requested that the list of 248 candidates at Enclosure-IA and 1 candidate at Enclosure-1 C may kindly be approved for appointment to Forest Guards. The case of the 1 (one) candidate at Enclosure-1B regarding ST Certificate may also be finalised.

Further, the 5 vacancies available due to rejection of the candidature at Enclosure-I, D,E,F consisting of 2-UR and 3-ST may be allowed to fill from the wait-list candidates in order of the rank as follows:

"

             Sl.No.   Roll   Name                  Category   Category   Gender
                      No.                                     allotted
             1.       1176   ThiyamAshinikumar     UR         UR         Male
                             Singh
             2.       1637   LaishramPremi Devi    UR         UR         Female
             3.       1038   NingtinglungDangmei   ST         ST         Male
             4.       967    KimchonghoiSitlhou    ST         ST         Female
             5.       864    N.LuntingmangBaite    ST         ST         Male

The 200 point Post Based Roster for 548 direct recruit Forest guards consisting of the existing 207 Forest Guards and 250 Forest Guards under recruitment is also enclosed herewith as Enclosure-II. All the 250 new recruit Forest Guards are accommodated in the Roster (457 out of 548). There are still 91 posts of Forest Guards lying vacant.

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 4 Enclosed: Enclosure-I and Enclosure-II. Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(K.Angami) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest &HoFF Government of Manipur."

[3] The Deputy Secretary, (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur, wrote back by letter dated 14.12.2017 addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, referring to the letter dated 5.12.2017 (reproduced hereinabove) conveying the approval of the Government for appointment of 248 (two hundred forty eight) candidates out of 255 (two hundred fifty five) candidates to the post of Forest Guards in respect of Forest Department, Manipur. Further, in the same letter, the decision of the Government of Manipur was conveyed as under:

"1. Acceptance of ST candidate bearing Roll No.1105 shall stand cancelled.

2. Acceptance/appointment pertaining to Roll No.1337 may be considered subject to outcome of the verification from Assam Board.

3. Concurrence for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list subject to fitting in the respective category and roster points.

You are, therefore, requested kindly to take necessary action under intimation to this Government."

[4] Consequently, by order dated 15.12.2017, issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, HoFF, Government of Manipur 248 (two hundred forty eight) candidates who are successful on the recommendation of the Recruitment Board and on approval of the State Government, which was conveyed vide letter dated 14.12.2017 were appointed as Forest Guards in the Forest Department, Manipur on regular basis.

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors
                                                                       Page 5
 [5]          WP(C) No. 982 of 2019

The petitioners in the present writ petition, whose names are in the waiting list for appointment due to rejection/disqualification of 5 (five) selected candidates were hopeful to get appointment. However, as there was no positive action from the concerned authorities, the petitioners No.1 and 2 submitted a representation dated 27.12.2017 addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, requesting for appointment to the post of Forest Guard from the waiting list. However, as there was no positive response they approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.737 of 2018 for considering their case for appointment against the unfilled vacant post in terms of the recommendation made by the competent DPC. In the said writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.737 of 2018 the State respondents filed an affidavit in opposition annexing an Order dated 28.12.2017 contending that the concurrence conveyed by the Government for filling up 5 (five) vacant posts from the waiting list was withdrawn. Therefore, the petitioners again filed WP(C) No.1025 of 2018 challenging the order dated 28.12.2017. WP(C) No.1025 of 2018 was disposed of by order dated 10.03.2019 directing the respondents to reconsider the withdrawal of approval order as per order dated 28.12.2017 to the post of Forest Guards.

In the meantime, the State respondents issued Advertisement No.1 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019 and 2 of 2019 dated 2.2.2019 along with Addendum dated 2.2.2019 for direct recruitment of 90 (ninety) posts of Forest Guard including 10 (ten) posts of Sports Quota in the Forest Department. Pursuant to the Advertisement, the State respondents constituted a Departmental Recruitment Board for making selection of WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 6 candidates to fill up the notified vacancies as advertised by a letter dated 7.11.2019 written by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests &HoFF, Government of Manipur and addressed to the Under Secretary, Forest & Environment, Government of Manipur. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the the present writ petition challenging the Advertisement Nos.1 of 2019 and 2 of 2019 with Addendum dated 2.2.2019 for direct recruitment of 90 (ninety) posts of Forest Guard and also for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the withdrawal of the approval of the case of the petitioners for appointment in terms of order dated 11.3.2019 passed in WP(C) No.1025 of 2019 against the vacant post of Forest Guards.

This Court by an order dated 4.12.2019 passed an interim order directing the respondents not to fill up 4 (four) posts of Forest Guard, 2(two) unreserved and 2 (two) Scheduled Tribes till the disposal of the writ petition.

[6] WP(C) No.1167 of 2018

The names of the petitioners in the present writ petition appears at Sl.Nos.3 and 4 of the waiting list in the Notification dated 23.12.2016, and they have filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as Forest Guards in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 6.8.2016 due to the fact that 9 (nine) posts of Forest Guards still remain unfilled/vacant due to non-appointment of 7 (seven) already selected candidates and also that 2 (two) selected candidates have resigned after joining service as Forest Guards.

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors
                                                               Page 7
 [7]          WP(C) No.120 of 2019

The petitioners who are also petitioners in WP(C) No.1167 of 2018 have filed the present writ petition challenging the Advertisement Nos.1 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019 and 2 of 2019 dated 02.02.2019 and also the Addendum dated 2.2.2019 coupled with the prayer to reserve 2 (two) posts of Forest Guard, or not to fill up 2 (two) posts of reserved vacancies which has occurred due to non-joining, resignation of selected candidates in consequence to the Advertisement dated 6.8.2016.

This Court by an order dated 20.02.2019 passed an interim order directing that the respondents shall not fill up 2 (two) posts of Forest Guard out of 140 (one forty) posts which have been advertised vide letter dated 10.08.2018 until further orders.

[8] WP(C) No.456 of 2019

The present writ petitioners who are also petitioners in WP(C) No.1167 of 2018 and 120 of 2018 have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 28.5.2019 and also with a prayer to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Forest Guards.

This Court by an interim order dated 14.6.2019 directed the respondents not to fill up 2 (two) posts of Forest Guards pursuant to the Advertisement Nos.1 of 2019 and Addendum dated 2.2.2019 until further orders.

[9] WP(C) No.121 of 2021

The petitioners in the present writ petition are also the petitioners in WP(C) No.1167 of 23018, WP(C) No.120 of 2019 and WP(C) No.456 of 2019 and they filed the present writ

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 8 petition praying for quashing and setting aside the Recruitment Notice dated 7.2.2020 in continuation of Advertisement No.1 of 1/2019 and No.2/2019 and any other consequential orders, recruitment process, appointment orders pursuant to the Recruitment Notice dated 7.2.2020 for appointment to the post of Forest Guards in the Forest Department, Government of Manipur.

This Court by an order dated 18.2.2020 passed an interim order directing the respondents not to declare the results of the DPC held on 6.2.2020 in respect of the Forest Guards till the next returnable date, which was extended from time to time.

[10] Heard Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.982 of 2019 and Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.1167 of 2018, 1WP(C) No.20 of 2019, WP(C) 456 of 2019 and WP(C) No.121 of 2021. Also heard Mr.LeninHijam, learned Addl. A.G, Manipur for the State respondents.

[11] Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners being eligible had applied for the post of Forest Guards pursuant to the Advertisement dated 6.8.2016. They participated in the recruitment process and the respondents by Notification dated 23.12.2016 had declared the list of successful candidates for the post of Forest Guards. Therein, the names of the petitioners appeared in the waiting list at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 19 and 20. Thereafter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, by letter dated 5.12.2017 addressed to the Additional Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur indicated that 5 (five) vacancies are still available due to rejection of candidates consisting of 2 (two) UR and 3 (three)

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 9 STs and, therefore, the said 5 (five) vacancies may be allowed to be filled up from the wait list candidates. In the said letter the names of the petitioners in WP(C) No.982 of 2019 were indicated. The State Government had, thereafter, vide letter dated 14.12.2017 convened its concurrence for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list, subject to fitting in their respective category and roster points. The respondents thereafter issued an order dated 15.12.2017 by which 248 (two hundred and forty eight) Forest Guards were appointed on regular basis. The petitioners were hopeful of getting appointed to the vacant posts due to rejection of some of the candidates. However, as there was no positive response they filed a representation dated 27.12.2017 requesting for appointment to the post of Forest Guards from the waiting list. However, as there was no response, they had filed WP(C) No.737 of 2018 before this Court praying for a direction to consider their case for appointment. In the said WP(C) No.737 of 2018 the State respondents filed affidavit in opposition annexing an Order dated 28.12.2017 by which the approval conveyed for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list was withdrawn. The petitioners had therefore, filed WP(C) No.1025 of 2019 challenging the order dated 28.12.2017 and this Court by an order dated 11.3.2019 had disposed of the WP(C) No.1025 of 2019 directing the respondents to consider the withdrawal of the approval order as per the order dated 28.12.2017 to the post of Forest Guards.

Learned senior counsel submits that in similar circumstance with regard to the appointment to the post of Deputy Ranger, the respondents have made an Advertisement for direct recruitment of 28 (twenty eight) posts of Deputy Rangers in the Forest Department. By Notification dated

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 10 16.12.2016 the respondents had declared the names of 28 (twenty eight) persons who are successful at the recruitment of Deputy Rangers in the Forest Department. In the said Notification, the names of three persons also appeared in the waiting list. Before giving appointment to the selected candidates, one post became vacant as one of the merit candidates surrendered her post and, accordingly, the State respondents had proceeded to issue Offer Form to one person from the waiting list by a letter dated 12.5.2017.

He also submits that the respondents issued an Advertisement dated 19.11.2016 for direct recruitment of 20 (twenty) posts of Range Forest Officers. Thereafter, by a Notification dated 20.5.2017 the number of 20 (twenty) Range Forest Officers were increased to 28 (twenty eight) posts. The Selection Committee recommended 28 (twenty eight) names of candidates who are successful for the post of Range Forest Officers along with 7 (seven) candidates in the waiting list. Thereafter, 7 (seven) candidates in the waiting list were also given appointment by an order dated 8.1.2019. He therefore, submits that in the present case too, when there was clear vacancy, enabling the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the vacant post as indicated in the letter dated 15.12.2017, which was also concurred by the State respondents by letter dated 14.12.2017,the action of the respondents in issuing the order 28.12.2017 by which the approval for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list was withdrawn would clearly indicate that the respondents are applying different yardsticks in respect of similarly situated persons, which is against the principle of equity and fairness. He also submits that the State respondents has failed to file counter affidavit in the present writ petition, and

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 11 therefore, applying the settled position of law, averments made by the petitioners in the present writ petition shall be deemed to have been accepted by the respondents and, therefore, the present writ petition should be allowed by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the vacant posts.

He places reliance in the cases of (1) A.K.Kraipak&Ors Vs Union of India &Ors reported in 1969 (2) SCC 262, (2) East Coast Railway &Anr Vs MahadevAppa Rao &Ors reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678, (3) R.S.Mittal Vs Union of India reported in (1995) 2 SCC 230, (4) Asha Kaul (Mrs) &Anr Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir &Ors reported in (1993) 2 SCC 573, (5) State of Jammu & Kashmir &Ors Vs Sat Pal reported in (2013) 11 SCC 737, (6) State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors Vs Mahesh Narain&Orsreported in (2013) 4 SCC 169 and (7) Bachhittar Singh Vs State of Punjab &Anrreported in AIR 1963 SC 395.

[12] Mr.M.Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.121 of 2020, 120 of 2019, 1167 of 2018 while adopting the submission made by Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.482 of 2019, also submits that the names of the petitioners also appear at Sl.Nos.3 and 4 of the Notification dated 23.12.2016. He submits that there were 5 (five) vacancies due to rejection of candidates as indicated in the letter dated 5.12.2017. He submits that the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, Forest Department, Manipur had issued appointment order on 15.12.2017 appointing 248 (two hundred forty eight) Forest Guards on regular basis on the recommendation of the Recruitment Board and on the approval of the State Government

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 12 vide letter dated 14.12.2017, despite the declaration of 255 (two hundred fifty five) successful candidates by Notification dated 23.12.2016. This would clearly indicate that there were 7 (seven) clear posts of Forest Guards which remain unfilled. He further submits that another two persons namely, Ningombam Sakhenbi Devi and Khaidem Anandkumar Singh, who were appointed as Forest Guards were terminated from service as they have resigned.

Therefore, coupled with the resignation of 2 (two) successful candidates, there were 9 (nine) clear vacancies of Forest Guards which still remain unfilled. Therefore, the petitioners were hopeful of being appointed to any of the 9 (nine) vacant posts. However, the respondents had withdrawn the approval for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list candidates in public interest.

He also submits that no justification/reasons have been cited in the order dated 28.12.2017 and in the absence of such reasons, the order dated 28.12.2017 is also not sustainable in the eye of law.

[13] Mr.Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. A.G, Manipur referring to the affidavit in opposition filed by the State respondents in WP(C)No.120 of 2019 submits that the validity period of a recommended/merit list is only for one year and the State may extend the validity period for another 6 (six) months. However, the State has never issued any order extending the validity period of the recommended list by the Notification dated 23.12.2016 for recruitment of Forest Guards. He also submits that the validity period of recommended list by the Notification dated 23.12.2016 expired on 22.12.2017 after which the State

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 13 respondents has no authority to give appointment to any of the wait listed candidates. It is also submitted that the approval for filling up the vacant post from the wait listed candidates was withdrawn by the Government by order dated 28.12.2017 in public interest. Further, as the validity period of the Notification dated 23.12.2016 had already expired, the Department has started process for recruitment of fresh candidates from the open market for the post of Forest Guards. He therefore, submits that no right accrues to the petitioners after the validity of the recommended list by Notification dated 23.12.2016 had expired on 22.12.2017 and furthermore, when the Government has withdrawn the approval given for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list by order dated 28.12.2017.

[14] I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties.

[15] As the State respondents have taken two grounds for justifying the issuance of the Advertisement Nos.1 of 2019 and 2 of 2019 as well as the Addendum dated 2.2.2019 on the ground that the validity period for appointment to the post of Forest Guards by the Notification dated 23.12.2016 had expired on 22.12.2017 and the State respondents have withdrawn the approval given for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list candidates in public interest by order dated 28.12.2017, this Court propose to answer the said two contentions made by the State respondents.

[16] The undisputed facts in these batch of writ petitions is that the Forest Department, Government of Manipur invited applications for filling up 141 (one hundred and forty one) posts

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 14 of Forest Guards by Advertisement dated 6th August, 2016. Notification dated 23rd September, 2016 was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Manipur declaring the names of candidates who were successful for the recruitment of Forest Guards, 2016 wherein, 255 (two hundred and fifty five) candidates were in the merit list and 27 (twenty seven) candidates were in the waiting list under Meritorious Categories. Order dated 15th December, 2017 issued by the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HOFF, Forest Department, Government of Manipur appointed 243 (two hundred and forty three) Forest Guards on regular basis on the recommendation of the Recruitment Board and on approval of the State Government. Issuance of letter dated 14th December, 2017 by the Deputy Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Manipur concurring for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list subject to fitting in the respective category besides two other decisions and issuance of Order dated 28th December, 2017 by the Deputy Secretary (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur withdrawing the Government approval under Sl. No. 3 of the letter dated 14-12-2017 for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list candidates in public interest.

[17] It is already settled position of law that the validity of the recommended list would expire only when the State Government accepts the recommendation and makes appointment on the basis of such recommendation. In the present case in hand, the recommendation of 255 (two hundred fifty five) candidates and 27 (twenty seven) wait list candidates were made by the Notification dated 23.12.2016. Thereafter, the

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 15 State respondents issued order dated 15.12.2017 by which 248 (two hundred forty eight) candidates were given appointment from amongst the 255 (two hundred fifty five) candidates. In the considered opinion of this Court, the validity of the names of 27 (twenty seven) wait listed candidates would start w.e.f. 15.12.2017, i.e. the date on which the appointment orders of 248 (two hundred forty eight) candidates were made to the post of Forest Guards on regular basis. Therefore, the recommended list would expire on 14.12.2018.

[18] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors Vs Sat Pal (supra) had observed as under:

"11. In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, the reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have been completed. 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 list. A waiting list commences to operate, after the vacancies for which the recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. In the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating the waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II for which the recruitment process was conducted was actually never filled up. For the reason that Trilok Nath had not assumed charge, one of the posts for which the process of recruitment was conducted, had remained vacant. That apart, even if it is assumed for arguments sake, that all the posts for which the process of selection was conducted were duly filled up, it cannot be disputed that Trilok Nath who had participated in the same selection process as the respondent herein, was offered appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II on 22.4.2008.

The aforesaid offer was made, consequent upon his

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 16 selection in the said process of recruitment. The validity of the waiting list, in the facts of this case, has to be determined with reference to 22.4.2008, because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22.4.2008. It is the said vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the impugned order dated 23.8.2011 (extracted above), that the waiting list was valid till May, 2008. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal position, in so far as the present controversy is concerned."

[19] The petitioners No.1 and 2 in WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 made their representation dated 27.12.2017 to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HOFF, Government of Manipur requesting for appointment to the post of Forest Guards from the waiting list stating that 5 (five) of the successful candidates (UR- 2 and ST-3) have either expired/withdraw/joined other department.

The two writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 1167 of 2018 also made representation dated 10-12-2018 requesting for appointment to the 9 (nine) vacant posts of Forest Guard from the waiting list. Both the representations were made during the validity of the waiting list. However, basing on the Order dated 28-12-2017, none of the petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed to the vacant post despite vacancy being available in their respective categories of reservation.

[20] The Order dated 28th December, 2017 by which the approval for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list was withdrawn in public interest has been considered by this Court. No reasons have been given except for the statement that the

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 17 withdrawal for approval for filling up the vacant post from the waiting list is in public interest.

In the considered opinion of this Court, when no reasons are stated whatsoever for withdrawal of the approval given for filling up the post from waiting list, clearly depicts none application of mind and such decision lacks the pre-requisite for making up a valid order. Therefore, Order dated 28th December, 2017 cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law particularly when the validity of the waiting list was in operation. It is also made clear that the wait listed candidates need not make any representation for appointment against vacancies which arises during the validity of the waiting list is subsisting. It is the bounden duty of the respondents to offer appointment order to the wait listed candidates to vacancies that arises when the waiting list is in operation.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have been denied justice for being appointed to the post of Forest Guards against their respective categories of reservation.

In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed and accordingly, the respondents are directed to appoint the 4 (four) petitioners in WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 and the 2 (two) writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 1167 of 2018 to the post of Forest Guards in their respective category of reservation w.e.f., the date when the vacancies arose in terms of the Order dated 15th December, 2017 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and HOFF, Government of Manipur appointing 243 (two hundred and forty three) Forest Guards on regular basis. This exercise should be undertaken and completed within a period of

WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors Page 18 2 (two) months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment of this Court.

All interim orders passed in the aforesaid Writ Petitions stand merged with this order.

Writ petitions are accordingly allowed.

No Cost.

JUDGE

Priyojit

Digitally signed by KH.

           KH. JOSHUA JOSHUA    MARING
           MARING     Date: 2022.06.07
                      23:39:41 +05'30'




WP(C) No. 982 of 2019 & Ors
                                                                         Page 19