Manipur High Court
2 vs The State Of Manipur on 7 June, 2022
1
Digitally
JOHN signed by
JOHN TELEN
TELEN KOM
Date:
2022.06.08
KOM 10:52:25
+05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No.367 of 2022
1. Shri Mutum Dinamani, aged about 30 years, s/o Dr. M.
Dinachandra, a resident of Khumbong Bazaar, Imphal West
District Manipur-795113.
2. Shri Sorokhaibam Romio Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o. S.
Bheigya Singh, a resident of Thoubal Charangpat, Thoubal
District, Manipur-795138.
3. Smt. Rajkumar Bidyalakshmi, aged about 24 years, D/o.
Rajkumar Akendrajit, a resident of Wangkhei Angom Leikai,
Imphal East District, Manipur-794005.
4. Shri Wahengbam Zenith Singh, aged about 29 years, S/o
Wahengbam Ningthoubi Singh, a resident of Lamphel Sana
Keithel, Imphal West.
5. Smt. Rina Ningthoujam, aged about 27 years, D/o. Bira
Ningthoujam, a resident of Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai,
Leirak Achouba, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795001.
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 1
2
6. Shri Kh. Anush Sheikh, aged about 25 years, S/o Haji Abdul
Helim, a resident of Kiyamgei Muslim Makha Leikai, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795003.
7. Smt. Asem Aruna Devi, aged about 29 years, D/o Asem Achou
Singh, a resident of Thoubal Wangmataba Sorok Makha,
Thoubal Sub-Division, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138.
8. Shri Joydeep Thokchom, aged about 31 years, s/o. Thokchom
Ingoshabi Singh, a resident of Heirok Part-I, Heitup Pokpi
Maning Leikai, Thoubal District, Manipur- 795148.
9. Shri Songthat William Haokip, aged about 28 years, S/o
Songthat Tongkai Haokip, a resident of Tingkai Khonou Aigijang
Village, PO Nambol, Kangpokpi District, Manipur-795134.
10. Shri Kabrabam Dasanta Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o K.
Nimai Singh, a resident of Lamdabung, Nongmeibung,
Porompat, Porompat Sub-Division, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795005.
......Petitioners
- Versus -
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 2
3
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner,
(Horticulture & Soil Conservation), Government of Manipur,
Secretariat building, Imphal West-795001.
2. The Commissioner/Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur,
Secretariat building, Imphal West-795001.
3. The Director, (Horticulture & Soil Conservation), Government of
Manipur, Sanjenthong, Imphal West-795001.
....Official Respondent
4. Rohit Sarangthem
5. Khuraijam Ashalata Devi
6. Ngangom Bishal Singh
7. Maisnam Paras Singh
8. Chirom Surajkumar Singh
9. Keisam Pradeep
10. Deepak Huidrom
11. Gurumayum Miranda
12. Gaichuipuilu Maringmei
13. R. Saveinai
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 3
14. Moirangthem Tijendra Singh
15. Sukham Joybi Singh
16. Thokchom Shanjip Singh
.....Private respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Y. Ashang GA R-1 to 3.
Ms. G. Pushpa, Adv R-4 to 16.
Date of reserved : 25.05.2022
Date of Judgment & Order : 07.06.2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash the
impugned order No.14/76/2021-HSC, dated 16.5.2022, issued during
the pendency of W.P. (C) No.61 of 2022; to direct the respondents not
to regularise or absorb contract employees under schemes/projects to
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 4
the vacant posts of Assistant Agriculture Officer in the Department of
Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Government of Manipur; and, to fill up
all the vacant posts of Assistant Agriculture Officer under direct
recruitment quota as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, through
Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) within a stipulated time.
2. According to the petitioners, they are unemployed
Graduates/ Post Graduates in Agriculture/Horticulture seeking
government job and they are duly qualified to be recruited to the post of
Assistant Agriculture Officer, Horticulture Department, Government of
Manipur.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Director Horticulture
& Soil Conservation, Manipur, vide notification dated 30.6.2018
announced Walk-in-interview to fill up 11 posts of Horticulture
Assistant/Field Consultant under Mission for Integrated Development of
Horticulture (MIDH) for engagement on contractual basis with
remuneration of Rs.20,000/- per month for one year. It is claimed that
some of the petitioners also appeared in the said interview and there
was no written test conducted. While so, during the first week of
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 5
January, 2022, the Confidential and Cabinet Department issued a
Cabinet Meeting Notice to consider absorption/regularisation of the
aforesaid 11 Horticulture Assistants/Field Consultants to the post of
Assistant Agriculture Officers. However, due to imposition of Model
Code of Conduct, no regularisation was effected till 15.5.2022.
4. It is further averred that for recruitment to the post of
Assistant Agriculture Officer, the Government of Manipur has framed
Rules which contemplate that the said post is Class II Gazetted post
and is to be filled up 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment
in consultation with Manipur Public Service Commission. It is alleged
that on an earlier occasion, the Commissioner (Hort. & S.C.) vide
proceedings dated 28.11.2016 regularised contract appointment of 18
Horticulture Consultant/Assistants, MIDH as Assistant Agriculture
Officers and the same is subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No.208
of 2017 filed by some other unemployed Agriculture Graduates, which
is pending consideration.
5. It is the say of the petitioners that they earlier approached
this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.61 of 2022 seeking a direction to the
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 6
respondent authorities not to fill up the vacant post of Assistant
Agriculture Officers by absorption from contract Field
Consultant/Horticulture Assistant. However, pending consideration of
the said writ petition, the respondents vide proceedings dated
16.5.2022, which is impugned in this writ petition, absorbed/ appointed
13 Horticulture Assistants/Field Consultants of MIDH on regular basis
in Horticulture and Soil Conservation Department, Manipur.
6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there are over
60 vacant posts of Assistant Agriculture Officers in the Department of
Horticulture and Soil Conservation which are meant for direct
recruitment and the respondents without adhering to the recruitment
rules and without making appointments through the Manipur Public
Service Commission (MPSC), are absorbing and appointing contractual
employees into regular vacancies. Therefore, the learned senior
counsel prayed this Court for granting interim stay of the impugned
order.
7. In the admission stage itself, the respondent Nos. 4 to 16
are appeared through their advocate Mrs. G Pushpa and filed their
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 7
counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 4
to 16, it is the case of the respondent authorities that some of the
petitioners did not participate in the earlier recruitment process and
some of them who participated failed and, therefore, they have no locus
standi to file the writ petition. If the three petitioners who participated in
the earlier recruitment process were aggrieved, they ought to have
challenged the appointment orders issued on 25.7.2018.
8. It is further averred that the recruitment was done as per
the policy decision of the Government of Manipur and it is not the case
of the petitioners that the private respondents are ineligible to be
appointed to the post of either Horticulture Assistant/Field Consultant,
which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer.
9. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents available on record for considering the interim order as
sought for by the petitioner.
10. A perusal of the Department of Horticulture and Soil
Conservation, Manipur, Assistant Agriculture Officer/Assistant Subject
Matter Specialist / Assistant Soil Conservator Officer / Farm manager /
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 8
Assistant Agriculture Officer (SC) / Research Assistant / Technical
Assistant / Assistant Agriculture Officer (SS) / Assistant Agriculture
Officer (Chemist) / Horticulture Inspector Recruitment Rules, 2012
makes it amply clear that the method of recruitment is: (i) 25% by
promotion and (ii) 75% by direct recruitment. That apart, it is stated
that "Promotion: From the cadre of Field Assistant / Assistant
Horticulture Inspector / Soil Surveyor / Observer for Silt Analyst having
Degree in B.Sc. (Agri/Hort) from a recognised University only with 3
(three) years regular service in the grade."
11. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the employees
appointed on contractual basis are being regularised and absorbed as
Assistant Agriculture Officers. All that the respondents claim is that
such regularisation and absorption is done based on the policy decision
of the Government.
12. It is not in dispute that the Recruitment Rules are in place
for appointment to the post in question. It is an elementary principle of
law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any
statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 9
this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) I Ch. D
426, which was followed in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936
PC 253.
13. In State of Orissa v Prasana Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 15
SCC 129, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"12. Even a policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India would
be subservient to the recruitment rules framed by the State
either in terms of a legislative act or the proviso appended to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A purported policy
decision issued by way of an executive instruction cannot
override the statute or statutory rules far less the constitutional
provisions.
13. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and
Others [(2004) 7 SCC 112], this Court has held:
'45. No regularisation is, thus, permissible in exercise of the
statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution
if the appointments have been made in contravention of the
statutory rules.'"
[emphasis supplied]
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 10
14. It is also well settled that an employee appointed on
contract basis cannot claim regularisation, absorption or permanent
continuance, unless he had been appointed in pursuance of a regular
recruitment in accordance with Recruitment Rules in an open
competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts.
15. In view of the law on the issue, this Court is of the view
that if recruitment by way of absorption or regularization is done
unhindered without adhering to the Recruitment Rules, solely based on
the policy decision, then it would render the Recruitment Rules
nugatory.
16. Considering both side arguments, the following order is
passed:
(i) Admit.
(ii) the impugned order vide order No.14/76/2021-
HSC, dated 16.5.2022 appointing the private
respondent Nos. 4 to 16, shall be subject to the
result of the writ petition;
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 11
(iii) All future recruitment to the post of Assistant
Agriculture Officer shall be strictly in accordance
with the Recruitment Rules of 2012;
(iv) The respondent authorities are directed to place
on record all the materials which formed the basis
for passing the order dated 16.5.2022; and
(v) Let notice be issued to the State respondents,
who may file their counter affidavits, if so advised,
before the next date of hearing.
17. List the writ petition on 25.07.2022.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
Wp(C)No.367 of 2022 Page 12
