Manipur High Court
Sharma 15:40:47 vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 8 June, 2022
Page |1
Digitally
SHAMUR signed by
AILATPA SHAMURAILA
TPAM SUSHIL IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M SHARMA AT IMPHAL
Date:
SUSHIL 2022.06.08 W.P. (C) No. 292 of 2019
SHARMA 15:40:47
+05'30' Keisham Dilipkumar Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L)
K. Birachandra Singh, a resident of Khurai Ahongei
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795005.
......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by
Secretary/Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.
2. The Manipur Public School Society represented by
the Secretary, Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
3. The Principal, the Manipur Public School,
Koirengei, Imphal, Manipur, P.O. Mantripukhri &
P.S. Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
...Respondents
WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019
Keisham Dilipkumar Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L)
K. Birachandra Singh, a resident of Khurai Ahongei
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795005.
.....Petitioner
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |2
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by
Secretary/Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.
2. The Manipur Public School Society represented by
the Secretary, Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
3. The Principal, the Manipur Public School, Koirengei,
Imphal, Manipur, P.O. Mantripukhri& P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
.....Respondents
4. S. Premabati, Principal, Manipur Pubic School,
Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri, & P.S. Heingang,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.
5. Kh. Jashobanta Singh, Post Graduate Teacher,
Manipur Pubic School, Koirengei, P.O.
Mantripukhri, & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795002.
6. S. Iboyaima Singh, Post Graduate Teacher,
Manipur Pubic School, Koirengei, P.O.
Mantripukhri, & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795002.
7. N. Gunamani Singh, Post Graduate Teacher,
Manipur Pubic School, Koirengei, P.O.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |3
Mantripukhri, & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795002.
8. E. Kunjakishore Singh, Post Graduate Teacher,
Manipur Pubic School, Koirengei, P.O.
Mantripukhri, & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795002.
...Proforma Respondents
WP(C) No. 471 of 2020
Keisham Dilipkumar Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o (L)
K. Birachandra Singh, a resident of Khurai Ahongei
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795005.
....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by
Secretary/Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.
2. The Manipur Public School Society represented by
the Secretary, Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
3. The Principal, Manipur Public School, Koirengei,
P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, Imphal East,
Manipur-795002.
.....Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |4
Contempt Cas(C) No. 20 of 2019
Ref: W.P.(C) No. 411 of 2017
1. Keisham Dilipkumar Singh, aged about 54 years,
S/o (L) K. Birachandra Singh, a resident of Khurai
Ahongei Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur -795010.
2. Khuraijam Jashobanta Singh, aged about 54
years, S/o (L) Kh. Brajabidhu Singh, a resident of
Nagamapal Lamabam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Lamphelpat, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Shri H. Deleep, IAS, Secretary/ Commissioner,
Education (S), Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.
2. Shri H. Deleep, IAS, Secretary, Manipur Public
School Society, Imphal, Manipur, New Secretariat,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.
3. Shri. M. Harekrishna, IAS, Secretary/
Commissioner, Education (S), Government of
Manipur, New Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Manipur-795001.
4. Shri. M. Harekrishna, IAS, Secretary, Manipur
Public School Society, Imphal, Manipur, New
Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.
.....Respondents/Contemnors.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |5
M.C.(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Ref:- Writ Petition (C) No. 471 of 2020
1. The Manipur Public School Society represented by
the Secretary, Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
2. The Principal, the Manipur Public School,
Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang,
Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
...... Petitioners/Applicants
1. Keisham Dilipkumar Singh, aged about 54 years,
S/o (L) K. Birachandra Singh, a resident of Khurai
Ahongei Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur-795005.
......Respondent
2. The State of Manipur represented by
Secretary/Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.
...Proforma Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. I. Denning, Advocate
Mr. I. Lalitkumar, Sr. Adv.
in all the writ petitions and
Cont.Cas(C) No. 20 of 2019
For the Respondents :: Mrs. Ch. Sundari, GA for R-1 in
in all the writ petitions;
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |6
Mr. M. Devananda, Adv. for R-
2 and R-3 in WP(C) No. 292 of
2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019
and WP(C) No. 471 of 2020;
For the respondent No. 4 in
Cont.Cas(C) No. 20 of 2019.
Dr. RK Deepak, Adv. for R-3 in
Cont.Cas(C) No. 20 of 2019.
Date of Hearing and
Reserving Judgment & Order :: 16.05.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 08.06.2022.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P.(C) No.292 of 2019 has been filed to quash the
order dated 27.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, Manipur Public
School Society, Imphal, directing the petitioner to refund the
excess amount which he had drawn by challenging the
corrigendum issued by the then Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur/Secretary, Manipur Public School
Society, Imphal dated 8.12.2006.
2. W.P.(C) No.1044 of 2019 has been filed to quash
the order dated 23.9.2019 issued by the Secretary, Manipur
Public School Society, Imphal, in respect of the respondents 4 to
8.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |7
3. W.P.(C) No.471 of 2020 has been filed to direct the
respondents to release the regular pay and allowances in terms
of the order dated 4.8.2016 issued by the Secretary, Manipur
Public School Society, Imphal, as well as the judgment and order
dated 16.10.2019 passed in W.A.No.12 of 2019 with interest at
the rate of 12% per month till the realization of the said amount.
4. Contempt Case No.20 of 2019 has been filed by the
petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the
respondents/contemnors for their intentional, willful and
deliberate disobedience of the order dated 8.10.2018 passed in
W.P.(C) No.411 of 2017. In the Contempt Case, the petitioner
has also filed M.C.(Contempt Case) No.102 of 2021 to implead
Shri M.Harekrishna, IAS as respondent No.3 and 4 in the
capacity as the Secretary/Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur and the Secretary of Manipur Public
School Society.
5. Since the parties and the issue involved are one
and same, all the writ petitions, contempt case and other related
miscellaneous petitions were heard together and disposed of by
this common order.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |8
6. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.292 of
2019 is that the impugned order dated 27.2.2019 directing him to
refund the excess amount which has been drawn by him by
challenging the corrigendum dated 8.12.2006 is vague and
arbitrary, as the same adversely infringes and affects the rights
of the petitioner. Moreover, the salary of the petitioner has not
been paid by the authorities for the last few months and he is
maintaining the family with his meagre earning and it has become
extremely difficult for him to sustain daily expenses for himself
and his family.
7. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1044 of
2019 is that vide order dated 23.9.2019, the Secretary, Manipur
Public School Society, Imphal has finalized and published the
seniority list of Post Graduate Teachers and Trained Graduate
Teachers of Manipur Public School. The petitioner assailed the
said order on the ground that there are only three categories of
teachers i.e. Post Graduate Teacher, Trained Graduate Teacher
and Rhyme Graduate Teacher and the fourth respondent
Premabati Devi is not a regular Principal nor a Post Graduate
Teacher. As such, placing her above the Post Graduate
Teachers as well as in a different category is bias, malafide and
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
Page |9
arbitrary. Similarly, placing the respondent 5 to 8 above the
petitioner is also arbitrary.
8. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.471 of
2020 is that though the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.12 of 2019 arising out of W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016 set
aside the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016, the concerned
authorities have failed to pay or release the entitled pay and
allowances as well as arrears thereof to the petitioner. Hence,
the respondent authorities may be directed to release the entitled
pay and allowances to the petitioner with interest at the rate of
12% per month.
9. The respondents have not filed counter-affidavits in
W.P.(C) Nos.292 and 1044 of 2019. However, the first
respondent filed counter-affidavit in W.P.(C) No.471 of 2020
stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner
is seeking direction to implement the judgment and order dated
16.10.2019 passed in W.A.No.12 of 2019. Filing a fresh writ
petition for implementation of the direction passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench, is not maintainable and therefore, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 10
10. The respondent Manipur Public Society has also
filed M.C.(WP) No.161 of 2021 to dismiss W.P.(C) No.471 of
2020 as not maintainable in its present form. The said petition
was also heard along with these writ petitions.
11. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, challenging the impugned order dated 27.2.2019 and
the impugned seniority list dated 23.9.2019 are summarized as
under:
W.P.(C) No.292 of 2019:
The impugned order dated 27.2.2019 is vague and
non-executable, inasmuch as there is no judgment
dated 28.1.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.1050 of
2016 against the petitioner. In other words, the
petitioner is not a party to the said judgment. As
such the direction of the concerned respondents
ordering the petitioner to refund the excess amount
is unfounded and baseless.
The salary of the petitioner was paid as per the
submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents in W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016 and the
petitioner has never played fraud,
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 11
misrepresentation or concealed the facts before the
authorities concerned.
It is on the recommendation of the Screening
Committee to place the present petitioner in the
senior scale of pay on the date of completion of 12
years of service i.e. 31.5.2020, which was counted
from the date of appointment as Assistant Teacher
with effect from 1.6.1988.
The impugned order does not qualify from any
tangent or angle to be specific on cogent reasons
and grounds and reasonable.
The corrigendum dated 8.12.2016, which was under
challenge in W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016, was set
aside by the Division Bench in W.A.No.12 of 2019
dated 16.10.2019.
W.P.(C) No.1044 of 2019:
The impugned order dated 23.9.2019 was
issued in violation of the procedure provided
under the applicable byelaws of Manipur Public
School Society and more specifically, in violation
of the order dated 25.6.2010 whereby
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 12
categorization of the teaching staff of Manipur
Public School was allowed.
The fourth respondent's name was found at Serial
No.1 of the Annexure-II of the order dated 25.6.2010
as Trained Graduate Teacher under category Head
Mistress is found under a different category with
designation as Principal. In other words, there are
only three categories of teacher i.e. Post Graduate
Teacher, Trained Graduate Teacher and Rhyme
Graduate Teacher and the fourth respondent is not a
regular Principal nor a Post Graduate Teacher. As
such placing her above those Post Graduate
Teachers as well as in a different category is
arbitrary.
Since the Division Bench of this Court set aside the
corrigendum dated 8.12.2016, placing the petitioner
with effect from 28.3.1995 is wrong and illegal.
The petitioner is the senior most Post Graduate
Teacher in the teaching staff of Manipur Public
School. However, in the final seniority list, the
petitioner has been placed at Serial No.5.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 13
W.P.(C) No.471 of 2020:
The petitioner was receiving his regular pay and
allowances as per the order dated 4.8.2016,
however, such regular pay and allowances was later
on modified by passing a corrigendum dated
8.12.2016. Subsequently, the corrigendum dated
8.12.2016 was quashed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in W.A.No.12 of 2019, dated 16.10.2019.
Therefore, the respondents ought to comply with their
own order dated 4.8.2016 as well as the judgment
dated 16.10.2019 passed in W.A.No.12 of 2019 as
the said judgment attained finality.
The action of the respondents in not releasing the
entitled pay and allowances and the arrears thereof
is nothing but unfair, unjust and unreasonable.
Since the income of the petitioner being an important
and essential requirement for him and his family for
sustenance of their life, the respondent authorities
may be directed to release the entitled pay and
allowances of the petitioner immediately.
The respondents, in fact, by not following relevant
Rules and Bye-laws are acting against the petitioner
and have caused mental agony to the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 14
12. Per contra, Mr. Devananda, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent School submitted that as far as
W.P.(C) No.292 and 1044 of 2019 are concerned, there is no
irregularity and illegality in issuing the impugned orders dated
27.2.2019 and 23.9.2019. Insofar as W.P.(C) No.471 of 2020 is
concerned, the learned Advocate submitted that the said writ
petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner seeking direction to
implement the judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed in W.A.No.12
of 2019. The learned Advocate submits that for implementation,
the petitioner cannot file a fresh writ petition and therefore, the
prayer to release his regular pay and allowances, including
arrears cannot be granted. Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents in
all the writ petitions argued the same point as raised by Mr. M.
Devananda.
13. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials available on record.
14. The petitioner is working as a Post Graduate
Teacher (Mathematics) in Manipur Public School, Koirengei and
he was initially appointed as an ad-hoc Assistant Teacher in the
said school for a period of three months on 22.7.1986 and,
thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on regular
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 15
basis on 23.7.1988 on the recommendation of the duly
constituted DPC. On 11.4.1980, the Selection Committee
approved that the pay scales of the Assistant Teacher and the
Senior Teacher be fixed in the scale of Rs.650-40-1050-50-1200
and Rs.950-50-12-60-1500 respectively. On 2.12.2019, the
Academic Sub-Committee took some resolutions, by which, it
was resolved to adopt the pay scales of three categories of
teachers, namely (i) Rhyme Teacher; (ii) Trained Graduate
Teacher and (iii) Post Graduate Teacher as per the State
Government norms and the existing pay for the current regular
teachers would remain unchanged except for necessary
increments as per the respective categories. It was further
resolved that the Assistant Teachers on regular basis would be
categorized giving the status of Post Graduate Teacher to those
teachers who were currently teaching the students of Class-XI
and XII as per the subject requirements and that all other
teachers teaching the students of Class I to X be given the status
of Trained Graduate Teacher.
15. The recommendation of the Academic Sub-
Committee was accepted by the Executive Committee of
Manipur Public School Society and, accordingly, the Secretary,
Manipur Public School Society issued an order dated 25.6.2010
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 16
categorizing the teaching staff of Manipur Public School into
three categories by enclosing a tentative seniority list of the
teaching staff, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at
Serial No.15 showing his date of regular appointment as
1.6.1988.
16. On 2.1.2013, the Secretary, Manipur Public School
Society, Koirengei published a notification thereby notifying to all
concerned the tentative seniority list of the teaching staff of the
School. It was further informed in the said notification that
submission of objections may be made on or before 18.1.2013 to
its concerned office and if no objections are received within the
stipulated date, it will be presumed that no objections have been
made or forwarded to such tentative seniority list dated 2.1.2013.
In the said list, the petitioner's name found place at Serial No.5
of the Post Graduate Teachers. During pendency of such
tentative seniority list, the Secretary has issued an order dated
29.7.2013 thereby allowing the fourth respondent, namely
Premabati Devi to look after the said School until a regular
Principal is posted or appointed. Assailing the order dated
29.7.2013, one Waikhom Somorendro Singh, a Post Graduate
Teacher, filed W.P.(C) No.541 of 2013 before this Court and by
the order dated 7.8.2013, the said writ petition was dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 17
17. On the recommendation of the Screening
Committee dated 22.7.2016, the Secretary, Manipur Public
School Society issued an order dated 4.8.2016 granting ACP to
the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of Manipur Public
School for having completed 12/15 years of regular service,
wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.3
showing the date of regular appointment as 1.6.1988 and the
completion of 12 years of service as on 31.5.2000 and
accordingly, the petitioner was recommended for scale of
Rs.8,000-13,500/-. However, the Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur issued a corrigendum dated 8.12.2016
modifying the date of completion of 12 years of service to be
calculated from 27.3.2007 and not from 1.6.1988. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016 inter
alia on the ground that the corrigendum was issued without any
basis as the petitioner has completed 12 years of service as on
1.6.1988. By the order dated 21.12.2018, the learned Single
Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the
petitioner did not have Post Graduate Decree on 1.6.1988 and
also held that there is no infirmity on the decision made by the
respondents to issue the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016 and thus
dismissed the writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 18
18. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge,
the petitioner has preferred W.A.No.12 of 2019. By the judgment
dated 16.10.2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge. Resultantly, the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016 stands
quashed. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench also
directed Manipur Public School Society to take an appropriate
decision in accordance with law after the petitioner being given
an opportunity of being heard.
19. It appears that in the order impugned dated
27.2.2019 in W.P.(C) No.292 of 2019 it has been stated that the
same was issued as per the order dated 28.1.2019 whereby the
petitioner was directed to refund the excess amount which he
had drawn by challenging the corrigendum issued by the then
Commissioner, Education (S)/Secretary, Manipur Public School
Society, Imphal dated 8.12.2006. Admittedly, there is no such
order dated 28.1.2019. On the other hand, the final order was
passed in W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016 only on 21.12.2018.
20. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while
considering the appeal preferred against the order dated
2.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016 set aside the
corrigendum dated 8.12.2016. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 19
judgment in the writ appeal are relevant and the same are quoted
hereunder:
"[7] It may be noted that the corrigendum has
referred to the order dated 04.08.2016 issued by
the Secretary, Education (S), Government of
Manipur wherein it has been specifically stated that
the teaching staff have been placed in the senior
scale of pay after verification of their service books,
integrity and ACRs for completion of 12/15 years of
regular service in the same grade. It is the
respondents which have issued the said order
granting benefits to the appellant and in other
words, a right thereof has accrued in favour of the
appellant. If the respondents felt that the benefits
had been erroneously granted to the appellant and
the same be withdrawn, they could have done so
by giving the appellant an opportunity of being
heard and the failure on the part of the respondents
in doing that, had infringed the fundamental rights
of the appellant guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. On top of that, no reason was
assigned by the respondents in the corrigendum.
Therefore, the contention of the counsel appearing
for the respondents that while issuing the
impugned order, the appellant's right has not been
violated at all, cannot be accepted by this Court, for
the reason that what is not there in the
corrigendum, cannot be explained in the affidavit
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 20
shown above. These points have not been
considered by the learned Single Judge and
therefore, its judgment and order is not tenable and
is liable to be quashed and set aside.
[8] For the reason stated hereinabove, while
allowing the writ appeal with no order as to costs,
the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
is quashed and set aside and consequently, WP(C)
No.1050 of 2016 is allowed with the direction that
the corrigendum dated 08.12.2016 stands quashed
and set aside. However, it is open to the MPSS to
take an appropriate decision in accordance with
law after the appellant being given an opportunity
of being heard."
21. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed any
counter-affidavit in W.P.(C) No.292 of 2019. In the absence of
any counter-affidavit filed refuting the averments of the petitioner
and in view of the grounds raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.292 of 2019 for setting aside the order dated 27.2.2019 and
also since the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016, which is the basis
for issuance of the impugned order dated 27.2.2019 has been
set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.12 of 2019, there is no alternative but to allow W.P.(C)
No.292 of 2019 and to set aside the impugned order dated
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 21
27.2.2019. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.2.2019
assailed in W.P.(C) No.292 of 2019 is set aside.
22. Coming to W.P.(C) No.1044 of 2019, the learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that the order impugned dated
23.9.2019 was issued in violation of the order dated 25.6.2010
whereby categorization of the teaching staff of Manipur Public
School was allowed. According to the petitioner, the name of
fourth respondent (Premabati Devi) found at Serial No.1 of the
said order as Trained Graduate Teacher under category Head
Mistress was found under a different category with designation
as Principal. In other words, there are only three categories of
teachers and the fourth respondent is not a regular Principal nor
a Post Graduate Teacher. As such, placing her above those Post
Graduate Teachers as well as in a different category is arbitrary.
23. To counter the said argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not produced
any materials. In fact, the aforesaid plea of the petitioner has
been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.12 of 2019 elaborately in paragraph 3.3 and paragraph
3.3 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"[3.3] The recommendation of the Academic Sub-
Committee was accepted by the Executive
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 22
Committee of the MPSS and accordingly, the
Secretary, MPSS issued an order dated
25.06.2010 categorizing the teaching staff of MPS
into three categories, enclosing therewith, a
tentative seniority list of the teaching staff wherein
the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl.No.15
showing his date of regular appointment as
01.06.1988. On the recommendation of the
Screening Committee in its meeting held on
22.07.2016, the Secretary, MPSS issued an order
dated 04.08.2016 granting ACPs to the teaching as
well as non-teaching staff of the MPS for having
completed 12/15 years of regular service. The
name of the petitioner appeared at Sl.No.3 at
Annexure-II of the said order dated 04.08.2016
showing the effective date of regular appointment
as 01.06.1988 and the completion of 12 years of
service as on 31.05.2000 and accordingly, the
petitioner was recommended for a scale of
Rs.8,0000-13,500/-. However, the Commissioner,
Education(S), Government of Manipur/Secretary,
MPSS issued a corrigendum dated 08.12.2016
modifying his date of completion of 12 years of
service to be calculated from 27.03.2007 and not
from 01.06.1988. Being aggrieved by the said
corrigendum, the writ petition being WP(C)
No.1050 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner on the
inter-alia grounds that the corrigendum was issued
without any basis inasmuch as the petitioner had
already completed 12 years of service as on
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 23
01.06.2000 calculating from the date of regular
appointment i.e., 01.06.1988, that it was not issued
on the basis of the recommendation of the
Screening Committee, that from the date of his
initial appointment as Assistant Teacher, the
petitioner had been enjoying the scale of pay of
PGT w.e.f. 01.06.1988 and that the corrigendum
was erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set
aside."
24. Thus, from the materials produced and also from
the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.12 of 2019, it is clear that it is only on the
recommendation of the Screening Committee to place the
petitioner in the senior scale of pay on the date of completion of
12 years of service i.e. 31.5.2000, which was counted from the
date of appointment as Assistant Teacher with effect from
1.6.1988. However, the Commissioner, Education (S)/Secretary,
Manipur Public School Society issued the corrigendum dated
8.12.2016 modifying his date of completion of 12 years of service
to be calculated from 27.3.2007 and not from 1.6.1988. As stated
supra, the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016 stands set aside by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 24
25. According to the petitioner, on 19.12.2018, the
Principal, Manipur Public School, Koirengei issued a circular
informing all staff members both teaching and non-teaching for
verification of the enclosed list for finalization. In pursuance of
such circular, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
2.1.2019 to the Secretary, Manipur Public School Society as well
as the Principal, Manipur Public School to review and correct the
circular dated 19.12.2018. In his representation dated 2.1.2019,
the petitioner has stated as under:
"That, the undersigned respectfully submits that in
the category of seniority list of PGT's the
undersigned name has been reflected at Sl.No.2 of
such list. It is beg to submit that the undersigned
stands senior to the Sl. No.1 of such list as the
undersigned has joined service only July, 1986 as
Assistant Teacher on adhoc basis whereas the
person/employee namely Kh. Jasobanta Singh
whose name appeared at Sl.No.1 of such list joined
the service in the year Sept. 1986. However, both
were regularized w.e.f. 01.06.1988 to the said
capacity vide order No.2/Adm/3/MPS-87 dated 28th
May, 1992 issued by the Secretary, Manipur Public
School Society, Imphal. On the other hand, if two
persons are regularized in the same year on the
same date; then, the employee with the older age
should get priority to stand senior than those whose
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 25
age is lower/younger than the said person. Thus,
the said factum needs to be corrected and reflected
in the final seniority list to be published."
26. It appears that on 10.1.2019, the Principal, Manipur
Public School, Koirengei, issued a notification thereby publishing
a tentative seniority list of teaching staff of Manipur Public
School, Koirengei, and objections were called for by 19.1.2019
with a condition that if no objection is received within the
stipulated date, it will be presumed that there is no objection to
the tentative list. Pursuant to the notification dated 10.1.2019,
the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 14.1.2019 for
reviewing and necessary correction in the notification dated
10.1.2019. In his representation/objection dated 14.1.2019 to
the notification dated 10.1.2019, the petitioner has stated as
under:
"That, the undersigned respectfully submits that in
the list of PGT vide Notification dated 10/01/2019,
the name of Th. Surjit Singh has been added newly.
However, the said person had joined the service on
adhoc basis in the said School and was later on
regularized n the same date l.e. 01/06/1988 like the
undersigned. And further submits that the said
person had rendered his service as TGT till 2008,
as he was not qualified to be included in the GT list,
and further clarifies that the subject in which he had
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 26
expertise i.e. Physical Education was only offered
in 2008; as the same was opened to Class XI and
XII in the year 2008 only. s such, the person whose
qualification was counted from 2008 onwards
cannot stand senior the undersigned. Moreover,
the categorization of teachers was done w.e.f.
01/01/1996 and the undersigned had became a
PGT teacher since then, however, the said person
became PGT only after the said subject, Physical
Education, was only offered to Class XI and XII in
The year 2008. Therefore, the said tentative
Seniority List Vide Notification dated 10th January,
2019 needs to be reviewed and corrected.
3. That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted that
the post of Principal has not been able to fill up on
regular basis by the concerned authority till date
and the Notification dated 10th January, 2019 has
been purportedly issued by the Principal of Manipur
Public School, Koirengel without including herself
in the list of seniority list of TGT's. As such, the said
person whose name is reflected in the list of TGT
as per the Order dated 25/06/2010 and he
Notification dated 02/01/2013 could not stand as
Principal without including herself in the list of
teaching staffs of Manipur Public School,
Koirengei. And issuance of such Notification dated
10th January, 2019 by the i/c Principal of Manipur
Public School, Koirengei is highly objectionable
and the same needs to be corrected and to be
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 27
interfered with by the concerned authorities. And
moreover, the seniority list is to be notified by the
concerned Secretary who is the authorized person
in this connection. Thus, the said Notification dated
10th January, 2019 is to be interfered with by the
authorities by considering the objections of the
undersigned and further require to be reviewed and
corrected in accordance with applicable and
admissible relevant rules etc.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances narrated
above, the said Notification dated 10th January,
2019 suffers from various irregularities and defects,
as such, the undersigned raised objections to the
same in the manner as submitted in the above
foregoing paras and further respectfully submits
that the same is highly required to be reviewed and
corrected by the authorities by considering the
objections of the undersigned in accordance with
applicable and admissible relevant rules etc.
27. The petitioner has raised a specific objection as to
the tentative seniority list dated 10.1.2019, inter alia, questioning
the authority of the Principal to publish such tentative seniority
list by stating that the seniority list is to be notified by the
concerned Secretary only. On a perusal of the impugned order
dated 23.9.2019 publishing the final inter-se seniority, it is found
that the same has been issued by the Secretary, Manipur Public
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 28
School Society, Imphal. The impugned order dated 23.9.2019
reads thus:
"NO.4/ACCTT/52/MPS-2016/2017: Whereas, a
tentative Seniority list of PGT's and TGT's of
Manipur Public School has been issued vide
Notification No.1/MPS/VP/2012 dated 10th
January, 2019, inviting claims and objections from
the teachers.
Whereas, the claims and objections received from
the teachers have been taken into consideration
and in accordance with the appointment orders, the
final inter-se seniority list of PGT's and TGT's of
Manipur School is published as enclosure given."
28. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 23.9.2019
does not speak about the consideration of the objections
specifically. In the impugned order, it has been simply stated that
the claims and objections received from the teachers have been
taken into consideration. Mere stating of consideration of the
claims and objections received is not enough and the authority
that is bound to publish the final seniority list ought to have
specifically stated the objections and its consideration in the final
order and then publish the final seniority list. However, in the
case on hand, the respondent authorities have failed to follow the
said procedure.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 29
29. There is also material to show that the petitioner is
a senior most Post Graduate Teacher in the teaching staff of
Manipur Public School. However, in the final seniority list of Post
Graduate Teachers, the petitioner has been placed at Serial No.5
and the respondents 4 to 8 have been placed above the
petitioner, which is the incorrect placement, in view of the
discussions held supra. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the impugned order dated 23.9.2019 thereby publishing the final
seniority list in respect of the respondents 4 to 8 is not in
accordance with law and hence, the same is liable to be set
aside.
30. It also appears that earlier the petitioner and one
Khuraijam Jashobanta Singh have filed W.P.(C) No.411 of 2017
for direction on the respondents to fill up the vacant posts of the
Vice Principal and the Principal and also direct the respondents
to finalize the final seniority list of the employees of Manipur
Public School. By the order dated 8.10.2018, the learned Single
Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the
respondents therein to take appropriate and immediate steps to
ensure that the preparation of Recruitment Rules in respect of
the posts of Vice Principal and Principal is completed within a
reasonable time, preferably within three months from the date of
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 30
the order and that after the Recruitment Rules having been
finalized, appropriate steps be taken by the respondents to
finalize the seniority list of the employees of the Manipur Public
School.
31. Alleging disobedience, the writ petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.411 of 2017 filed Contempt Case No.20 of 2019
contending that the respondent authorities have failed to
implement the order dated 8.10.2018 and therefore, the
respondents/contemnors are liable to be punished.
32. Defending the Contempt Case, the learned counsel
appearing in the Contempt Case submitted that pursuant to the
direction dated 8.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.411 of 2017, the
Secretary, Manipur Public School Society vide order dated
23.9.2019 prepared the seniority list for Post Graduate Teachers
and Trained Graduate Teachers of Manipur Public School. He
also stated that vide notification dated 26.10.2020, the Secretary
has published the Recruitment Rules for the employees of the
Manipur Public School for the post of Principal and the Vice
Principal.
33. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that though the respondents are directed to frame the
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 31
Recruitment Rules within a period of three months from
8.10.2018 and thereafter to finalize the seniority list of the
employees of Manipur Public School, such direction of this Court
has been violated by the respondent/contemnors and the
respondents/contemnors issued the order only on 23.9.2019
prior to framing of Recruitment Rules and that the Recruitment
Rules were framed and published on 26.10.2020.
34. The validity of framing of Recruitment Rules as
directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation cannot be
gone into in the present writ petitions. Regarding the order dated
23.9.2019 thereby publishing the final seniority list is concerned,
in the earlier paragraph, this Court held that the same is vitiated
and has been published without considering the objections in
proper manner. Though the compliance order dated 23.9.2019 is
vitiated since compliance of the order dated 8.10.2018 in W.P.(C)
No.411 of 2017 has been made, the Contempt Case No.20 of
2019 is liable to be dismissed. It is reiterated that the merits of
the order dated 23.9.2019 has been dealt with in the earlier
paragraphs while deciding W.P.(C) No.1044 of 2019 which has
been filed challenging the order dated 23.9.2019.
35. Insofar as W.P.(C) No.471 of 2020 is concerned,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 32
corrigendum dated 8.12.2016 has been quashed by the Division
Bench in W.A.No.12 of 2019 dated 16.10.2019, the respondents
ought to release the pay and allowances, including the arrears
thereof as per the order dated 4.8.2016 as well as the judgment
dated 16.10.2019 in W.A.No.12 of 2019.
36. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the School questioned the very maintainability of W.P.(C)
No.471 of 2020 by contending that the petitioner is seeking
direction to implement the judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed in
W.A.No.12 of 2019 by way of the present writ petition and filing
of fresh writ petition for implementation cannot be entertained.
This Court finds no force in the said submission of the learned
counsel, particularly maintainability of the writ petition.
37. There must be a cause of action for filing the writ
petition, for which the petitioner has stated that the respondents
are to be directed to release the pay and allowances as per the
judgment dated 16.10.2019 in W.A.No.12 of 2019 and as per
their own order dated 4.8.2016.
38. The order dated 4.8.2016 reads thus:
"No.4/Acctt/1/MPS-2010 : On the recommendation
of the Screening Committee in its meeting held on
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 33
22nd July 2016, the Head Mistress Post Graduate
Teachers (PGT's), Trained Graduate Teachers
(TGT's) Graduate Teachers (GT's) and A.C.P. for
Group - III and IV employees contained in
Annexure I to VI are placed in the senior scale of
pay and ACP I/II with effect from the dates shown
against their names after verification of their
service books, integrity and ACR's for completion
of 12/15 years of regular service in the same grade.
Fixation of their pay under F.R.22(I)(a)(I) in the
senior scale and ACP are allowed vide Govt.
Orders No.38/8(I) 195-SE(H/S) dated 14.7.1997
and No.1/115/98-PIC dated 11.1.1999 and
7.9.1999 and Govt. orders No.16/28/2000 - FD
9PIC) of dated Imphal the 22nd June 2005."
39. As stated supra, regarding the order dated
4.8.2016, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.12 of 2019
held that on the recommendation of the Screening Committee in
its meeting held on 22.7.2016, the Secretary, MPSS issued an
order dated 4.8.2016 granting ACPs to the teaching as well as
the non-teaching staff of the MPS for having completed 12/15
years of regular service. The name of the petitioner appeared at
Serial No.3 at Annexure-II of the said order dated 4.8.2016
showing the effective date of regular appointment as 1.6.1988
and the completion of 12 years of service as on 31.5.2000 and
accordingly, the petitioner was recommended for a scale of
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 34
Rs.8,000-13,500/-. When the Division Bench itself has
considered the order dated 4.8.2016 in its judgment, this Court
again cannot go into the merits of the order dated 4.8.2016 and
findings regarding the order dated 4.8.2016 passed by the
Division Bench is binding on the instant writ petitions and also on
all parties.
40. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that prior to the corrigendum dated
8.12.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Education (S)/Secretary,
Manipur Public School Society, the petitioner was receiving his
regular pay and allowances as per the order dated 4.8.2016.
However, such regular pay and allowances as per the order
dated 4.8.2016 was subsequently modified by passing the
corrigendum dated 8.12.2016 by the respondent authorities.
After that the petitioner was receiving his pay and allowances as
per the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016.
41. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that
after the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016 and since the
Division Bench set aside the order in W.P.(C) No.1050 of 2016
thereby quashing the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016, the
petitioner is entitled to receive his regular pay and allowances as
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 35
per the order dated 4.8.2016. This Court finds some force in the
said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
42. Since the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016 has been
quashed by the Division Bench of this Court, payment of pay and
allowances as per the corrigendum dated 8.12.2016 is not
correct and the same has to be rectified and the respondents are
to release the pay and allowances as per the order dated
4.8.2016. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to the
regular pay and allowances in terms of the order dated 4.8.2016
as well as the judgment dated 16.10.2019 in W.A.No.12 of 2019,
including arrears.
43. The argument of the learned counsel for the
Respondent School that when there is no appeal filed by either
of the parties against the judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed in
W.A.No.12 of 2019, filing of fresh writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.471 of 2020 for implementation of the direction of the Division
Bench of this Court is not maintainable, cannot be countenanced
and W.P.(C) No.471 of 2020 is very well maintainable in the facts
and circumstances set out in the said writ petition.
44. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order dated 27.2.2019 directing to
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 36
refund the excess amount which the petitioner has drawn by
challenging the corrigendum dated 8.12.2006 and the impugned
order dated 23.9.2019 thereby publishing the inter-se seniority
list in respect of the respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.1044 of
2019 are liable to be set aside. Further, the petitioner is entitled
the regular pay and allowances in terms of the order dated
4.8.2016 issued by the Secretary, Manipur Public School Society
as well as the judgment dated 16.10.2019 in W.A.No.12 of 2019.
In view of the compliance made, Contempt Case No.20 of 2019
is liable to be dismissed.
45. In the result,
(i) W.P.(C) No.292 of 2019 is allowed and the
impugned order dated 27.2.2019 bearing
No.7/111/MPS-86:/5144 issued by the
Secretary, Manipur Public School Society,
Imphal is set aside.
(ii) W.P.(C) No.1044 of 2019 is allowed and the
impugned order dated 23.9.2019 issued by the
Secretary, Manipur Public School Society,
Imphal in respect of the respondents 4 to 8 is
set aside.
(iii) W.P.(C) No.471 of 2020 is allowed.
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
P a g e | 37
(iv) The respondents are directed to release the
regular pay and allowances to the petitioner in
terms of the order dated 4.8.2016 issued by
the Secretary, Manipur Public School Society,
Imphal as well as the judgment dated
16.10.2019 passed in W.A.No.12 of 2019,
including arrears, if any.
(v) The direction (iv) aforesaid is to be complied
within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) In view of the maintainability of W.P.(C)
No.471 of 2020 and allowing of the writ
petition, M.C.(W.P) No.161 of 2020 filed by the
Manipur Public School Society in the said writ
petition, is dismissed.
(vii) Contempt Case No.20 of 2019 is dismissed.
Consequently, M.C. (Contempt Case) No.102
of 2021 is closed.
(viii) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2019, WP(C) No. 1044 of 2019, WP(C) No. 471 of 2020, Cont.Cas(C) No.
20 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 161 of 2020
