Manipur High Court
Shri Manglien Gangte vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 10 May, 2022
Page |1
Digitally signed
KABOR by
KABORAMBAM
AMBAM LARSON
Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
LARSON 2022.05.11
11:12:33 +05'30' W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Shri Manglien Gangte, aged about 30 years S/o Luthang Gangte,
a resident of New Lambulane, 1st Street, Near VBA Church, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Secretary/Commissioner/Principal Secretary, (Tribal Affairs,
Hills & Scheduled Castes), Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat
(South Block) P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795001.
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner, (Finance), Govt. of Manipur, Old
Secretariat (South Block) P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director of Tribal Affairs & Hills and Scheduled Caste
Department, Manipur, Near Telephone Office, Babupara, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Joint Director, Tribal Research Institute, Chingmeirong,
Imphal West District, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |2
5. Shri John Galdingam D., aged about 38 years old, S/o D.
Tanchung, a resident of Longjang Thangal Village, Nungba
Sub-Division, P.O. & P.S. Khoupum, Tamenglong District,
Manipur now at present staying at Mahabali Kabui Village, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795001.
..... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. H. Samarjit, GA
Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2022.
Date of Judgment & Order : 10.05.2022.
JUDGMENT &ORDER
(CAV)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the
appointment order of the fifth respondent as Research Officer dated
13.7.2016 and also the regular appointment issued dated 24.12.2016 as
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |3
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer under the Tribal Research
Institute, Manipur.
[2] The case of the petitioner is that on 18.12.2015, an
advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Research Officer in
the Tribal Research Institute (for short, "TRI") on contract basis for the pay
scale of Rs.13,700/- per month. Pursuant to the said advertisement, 15
candidates have appeared in the DPC and the fifth respondent, who is the
brother-in-law of the then Director, Tribal Affairs & Hills and Scheduled Caste
Department, Manipur was appointed by adopting pick and choose policy and
also extended favouritism to him by the third respondent. Pursuant to the
engagement order dated 13.7.2016, the fifth respondent has been continuing
to work as Research Officer in the TRI. While so, by an order dated
24.12.2016, the Secretariat of Tribal Affairs and Hills Department (TRI)
created as many as 10 different posts such as 1 post of Administrative
Officer-cum-Research Officer, 1 post of Accountant, 2 posts of Computer
Operator-cum-Office Assistant, 1 post of Driver, 3 Office Attendants, 1
Sweeper and 1 Chowkidar respectively.
[3] Further case of the petitioner is that soon after the creation of the
said 10 posts on 24.12.2016, the Commissioner (Tribal Affairs & Hills/TRI)
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |4
has immediately issued another order on the same day thereby regularising
the said newly created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer
having pay scale of Rs.9300- 34800+GP 5400 in favour of the fifth
respondent. According to the petitioner, the said regularisation was made
without any DPC and the post of Research Officer cannot be converted into
the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer and such conversion
is against the service jurisprudence. It is averred that when the petitioner
enquired, he was informed that the Recruitment Rules for the said post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is yet to be made and the re-
designation of the said post is under process. While that being so, the post of
Research Officer has been redesignated and regularised in favour of the fifth
respondent. Hence, the writ petition.
[4] The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the
designation of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer has been done
with the approval of the Government in conformity with the operational
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. The
fifth respondent was regularised as Administrative Officer-cum-Research
Officer as per the decision of the State Cabinet in its sitting held on
14.12.2016 and with the concurrence of the Finance Department and also the
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |5
Department of Personnel. Therefore, there is no infirmity in regularising the
fifth respondent as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
[5] It is stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the fifth
respondent is brother-in-law of the Director is baseless and false and in fact,
the fifth respondent is not related to each other. The fifth respondent was
appointed in pursuance of the recommendation made by the duly constituted
DPC held on 2.7.2016. It is also stated that the TRI obtained approval of the
Committee of Officers in its meeting held on 10.12.2015 under the
Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for engagement of Research Officer in
the TRI on contract basis for one year, subject to the recruitment through
open advertisement and payment of remuneration as per the FD/PIC norm.
Accordingly, the Selection Committee held interview on 2.7.2016 and
interviewed 11 candidates who attended the interview and recommended the
fifth respondent. Since the writ petition is bereft of any foundation and prima
facie motivated, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
[6] As far as the contractual engagement of the fifth respondent as
Research Officer is concerned, the first respondent in its affidavit-in-
opposition stated that the petitioner being unsuccessful as per the DPC result
held on 2.7.2016, he has no right to question the same.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |6
[7] The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that
as per the State Cabinet decision taken on 29.12.2012, FD(PIC) had allotted
U.O.No.317/2012-2013/FD(PIC) dated 18.3.2013 to the contractual
engagement of 9 different categories of posts, including one post of Research
Officer in the TRI without post creation and generally, contractual engagement
is done from time to time in different department/officers under Government of
Manipur with or without post creation. It is stated that in pursuance of the
decision taken by the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 14.12.2016, FD(PIC)
had allotted U.O.No.416/2016-2017-FD(PIC) dated 22.12.2016 to the creation
of 10 different categories of posts, including one post of Administrative
Officer-cum-Research Officer and the same Cabinet has also approved the
regularisation of the fifth respondent against the newly created post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
[8] The fifth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the
State Government from time to time fills up posts in order to mend the
requirements of the departments, hence, the prayer of the petitioner is
misconceived and is not maintainable since the fifth respondent was engaged
on contract basis by the order dated 13.7.2016 and was later regularised by
the order dated 24.12.2016 by the Government after due process of law. It is
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |7
stated that the writ petition is filed on afterthought and no grounds were raised
to explain the lapse of time taken to approach this Court. It is stated that the
petitioner an unsuccessful candidate is venting out his frustration against the
fifth respondent on afterthought and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
[9] Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Jotendro, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the U.O. number mentioned in the
appointment order dated 13.7.2016 being U.O.No.317/2012/ FD(PIC), dated
18.3.2013 utilized for appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer
is a fake U.O. number borrowed from Finance Department and, as such, the
appointment itself is fake, which amounts to cheating of the Finance
Department, thereby loosing the State exchequer by appointing the fifth
respondent on 13.7.2016 and in this regard, an enquiry is required to verify as
to whether the said U.O. number is fake or not by giving a specific direction to
the Principal Secretary/Commissioner (Finance), Government of Manipur as
to whether such U.O. number has been given by the Finance Department in
favour of the fifth respondent or not so as to enable to find out the factual
position of the said U.O. number and if found fake, an appropriate action
should be taken whosoever involved in the said fraudulent preparation of
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |8
U.O., as the Deputy Secretary, Finance/PIC)-cum-State Public Information
Officer, Government of Manipur has informed in his letter dated 10.7.2018
that there is no such record with U.O.No.317/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18.3.2013
regarding contractual engagement of Research Officer in TRI, Manipur.
[10] The learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the
operational guidelines for the scheme "Grant-in Aid to Tribal Research
Institutes" published in 2014, there is no post of Research Officer and as such
the TRI has manipulated the said advertisement without having any
sanctioned post for the post of Research Officer when the fifth respondent
was appointed.
[11] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner urged that since the
fifth respondent is the brother-in-law of the Director, TA & Hills and TRI and in
order to give him the said regular post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research
Officer, the said post has been created and without holding any DPC through
MPSC, the same has been given regularisation in favour of the fifth
respondent and, as such, the same requires to be quashed and the fifth
respondent should be reverted to his post of Research Officer on contract
basis and the said post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer may
be filled up by holding proper DPC through MPSC so as to enable to offer a
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |9
fair chance to all the eligible candidates, who are willing to apply for the said
post including the petitioner.
[12] Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent State submitted that with regard to U.O. number
mentioned in the appointment order dated 13.7.2016 being
U.O.No.317/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18.03.2013 allotted for appointment of the
fifth respondent, the Department has committed a bona fide mistake while
incorporating the U.O. number issued by FD (PIC). The Finance Department
(PIC) allotted U.O.No.317/2012- 2013/FD(PIC) dated 18.03.2013 to the
contractual engagement of nine different categories of posts, including one
post of Research Officer and the same has been subsequently rectified in its
subsequent order dated 22.12.2018.
[13] The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the
regularisation of the fifth respondent as Administrative Officer-cum-Research
Officer was as per the decision of the State Cabinet dated 14.12.2016 and in
concurrence with the Finance Department and the Department of Personnel
and also in conformity with the guidelines.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 10
[14] As far as the initial appointment of the fifth respondent as
Research Officer is concerned, the learned Government Advocate submitted
that the fifth respondent was appointed pursuant to the recommendation of a
duly constituted DPC held on 2.7.2016 and the allegation of the petitioner that
since the fifth respondent is the brother-in-law of the then Director, TA & Hills
he has been given the appointment, is baseless.
[15] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent
submitted that the prayer of the writ petition is misconceived and the same is
not maintainable as the fifth respondent was initially engaged on contractual
basis by the order dated 13.7.2016 and was subsequently regularised by the
order dated 24.12.2016 by the Government after due process under law.
[16] The learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition has
been filed after a lapse of time and no valid grounds have been given for the
delay. Therefore, on the ground of delay, the writ petition is liable for
dismissal. He would submit that the fifth respondent is no way related to the
then Director as alleged by the petitioner and approaching this Court with
mischievous allegations amount to contempt of court.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 11
[17] The learned counsel for the fifth respondent next submitted that
as per the decision of the State Cabinet dated 29.12.2012 the contractual
engagement of 9 different categories of posts, including one post of Research
Officer with monthly income of Rs.13,700/- in TRI without post creation was
made and that the contractual engagement was done from time to time in
different department/office under the Government of Manipur with or without
post creation. He would submit that thereafter, in pursuance of the State
Cabinet decision dated 14.12.2016, the FD (PIC) allotted U.O.No.416/2016
dated 22.12.2016 to create 10 different categories of posts, including one post
of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-
34800+GP 5400 and the same Cabinet approved the regularisation of the fifth
respondent in the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer and
consequent upon the approvals from the Finance Department and
Department of Personnel, the order of regularisation dated 24.12.2016
impugned herein was issued. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders
impugned and thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
[18] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused
the materials available on record.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 12
[19] The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the
advertisement, 15 candidates have appeared in the DPC for the post of
Research officer. The fifth respondent, who is the brother-in-law of the then
Director was appointed by adopting pick and choose method by the third
respondent. As per the contract, the fifth respondent has no right to claim any
right for regular appointment on the basis of his engagement as Research
Officer. Further grievance of the petitioner is that while so working as
Research Officer on contract basis, the Secretariat of the TA & Hills
Department has created 10 different posts, including one post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer, on 24.12.2016. Soon after the
creation of 10 posts, the Commissioner, TA & Hills issued another order on
the same day, thereby regularising the fifth respondent to the said newly
created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer having the pay
scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP 5400. This according to the petitioner is without
holding any DPC.
[20] On the other hand, it is say of the official respondents that there
was no pick and choose policy in the case of engagement of the fifth
respondent at the initial stage and only in pursuance of the State Cabinet
decision and in conformity with the guidelines, more particularly, in
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 13
concurrence with the Finance Department and Department of Personnel, the
fifth respondent was regularised as Administrative Officer-cum-Research
Officer.
[21] As could be seen from the records, it is evident that the TRI
obtained approval of the Committee of Officers in its meeting held on
10.12.2015 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur for engagement of Research Officer in the TRI on contract basis for
one year, subject to the recruitment through open advertisement and payment
of remuneration as per FD/PIC norms. It is also seen from the records that the
Joint Director placed an advertisement inviting eligible candidates vide
notification dated 18.12.2015 and the Government constituted a Selection
Committee comprising the following members:
(1) George K Maram, Joint Secretary (TA & Hills) as Chairman
(2) Robita Yumnam (MCS), Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of
Manipur
(3) Z. Solomon, Joint Director (TRI), Member Secretary.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 14
The Selection Committee held interview on 2.7.2016 and interviewed
11 candidates who attended the interview and recommended the fifth
respondent as Research Officer.
[22] The petitioner himself stated in the writ petition that altogether 15
candidates applied, out of which 4 candidates were absent. The marks
obtained by the candidates have also been furnished by applying RTI and the
fifth respondent obtained 18 ½ marks in total in the said DPC and the
petitioner obtained 12 ½ marks. Having participated and failed in the selection
process, now the petitioner questioning the initial selection of the fifth
respondent as Research Officer. Such course adopted by the petitioner is
impermissible.
[23] It is to be pointed out that having obtained the RTI information
the petitioner stated that the U.O. number mentioned in the appointment order
dated 13.7.2016 of the fifth respondent is fake and as such, the appointment
is not valid. According to the petitioner, the State Public Information Officer in
his letter dated 10.7.2018 stated that there is no such record with
U.O.No.37/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18.032013 regarding the contractual
engagement of Research Officer in TRI, Manipur.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 15
[24] Regarding the allotment of U.O. number in the appointment
order dated 13.7.2016 issued in favour of the fifth respondent, the Secretary,
Finance Department, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has stated as under:
"6. That, with reference to para No.11 of the writ petition, it is
submitted that in regard to the U.O. No. mentioned in the
appointment order dated 13/7/2016 being
U.O.No.317/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18/3/2013 allotted for
appointment of the said Private Respondent No.5, the
Administrative Department appears to have committed a
bonafide mistake while incorporating U.O. No. issued by FD
(PIC). FD (PIC) had allotted U.O.No.317/2012- 2013/FD(PIC)
dated 18/3/2013 to the contractual engagement of 9 (nine)
different categories of posts including 1 (one) post of Research
Officer @ Rs.13,700/- (i.e. Rs.9300 + GP Rs.4400) in the Tribal
Research Institute (TRI) without post creation. AD (TA & Hills)
has accordingly rectified the same in its subsequent orders dated
22/12/2018 as per FD (PIC)'s U.O. No."
[25] Thus, the U.O. number mentioned in the appointment order of
the fifth respondent dated 13.7.2016 has been subsequently rectified as
U.O.No.317/2012-2013/FD(PIC) and the concerned Finance Department also
after knowing the mistake has corrected the U.O. number. Merely mentioning
of the wrong U.O. number, the appointment of the fifth respondent cannot be
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 16
questioned by the petitioner. The U.O. number is being allotted by the
Finance Department to show that the appointment is with the concurrence of
the Finance Department. The respondent Finance Department has not
disputed the initial appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer.
Therefore, the wrong mentioning of U.O. number in the appointment order is
not a ground to challenge the initial appointment of the fifth respondent as
Research Officer.
[26] As rightly argued by learned Government Advocate, the
contractual engagement is done from time to time in different departments
under the Government of Manipur with or without post creation. The initial
appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer is also based on the
recommendation made by the duly constituted DPC. When the fifth
respondent was engaged on the recommendation of the DPC and the
petitioner having himself participated and defeated in the selection process,
cannot now question the selection of the fifth respondent as Research Officer
at this distance point of time and this Court finds no infirmity in the order of
appointment dated 13.07.2016 issued in favour of the fifth respondent.
[27] The plea of the petitioner is that since the fifth respondent is the
brother-in-law of the then Director, he has been shown favouritism in
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 17
engaging/appointing in the post of Research Officer is also without any basis.
Such mischievous allegation raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained as
the same has been raised to maintain the writ petition.
[28] Coming to the regularisation of the fifth respondent in the post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is concerned, the learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that soon after the creation of 10 posts,
including the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer dated
24.12.2016, the official respondent regularised the fifth respondent in the said
post, which is contrary to the service jurisprudence. According to the
petitioner, the fifth respondent was appointed as Research Officer in the pay
scale of Rs.9300/- plus GP Rs.4400/- and it means that the pay scale of the
Research Officer is only Rs.13,700/-, whereas the pay scale of the
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is Rs.9300-34800+GP 5400/-.
There is a vast difference in the grade pay. Hence, the post of Research
Officer can never be converted into the post of Administrative Officer-cum-
Research Officer, which is higher grade pay to the post of Research Officer
and as such the conversion and regularisation to the said post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is illegal and that too without
holding any DPC.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 18
[29] Countering the aforesaid argument of the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate argued that pursuant to the decision taken in the State
Cabinet in its sitting held on 14.12.2016, the FD (PIC) had allotted
U.O.No.416/2016 for creation of 10 different categories of post including one
post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer in the pay scale of
Rs.9300-34800+GP 5400/- and the same Cabinet had also approved to the
regularisation of the fifth respondent against the newly created post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
[30] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the first respondent, it has
been stated as under:
"6. .... Thereafter, in pursuance to the decision taken by the State
Cabinet in its sitting held on 14/12/2016, FD (PIC) had allotted
U.O.No.416/2016-2017-FD(PIC) dated 22/12/2016 to the creation of 10
(ten) different categories of post including 1 (one) post of Administrative
Officercum-Research Officer in the pay scale of Rs.9300- 34800+ GP
5400/- and the same Cabinet decision had also approved to the
regularisation of the Private Respondent No.5 against the post newly
created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
On advice of the DP and as per the Manipur Public Service
Commission Regulations, 1972, regularisation of Administrative Officer-
cumResearch Officer (TRI) was exempted.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 19
Designation of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer has
been done with the approval of the Govt. i.e. State Cabinet (highest
decision making body of the state) in conformity with the Operational
Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India."
[31] Along with the affidavit-in-opposition, the first respondent has
also annexed the xerox copy of the file note, wherefrom, this Court finds the
decision of the Cabinet dated 14.12.2016 as under:
"Cabinet Decision taken on 14.12.2016
AGENDA No.5 Proposal for creation of 10 (ten) different
categories of posts as special case with regularization of the
present 10 (ten) nos of contractual employees of Tribal Research
Institute (RTI)
DECISION : Approved.
Sd/-
Chief Secretary (Cabinet)
Government of Manipur"
[32] Thus, from the above document, it is clear that the conversion of
the post - Research Officer as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer
and the regularisation of the fifth respondent in the post of Administrative
Officer-cum-Research Officer are all based on the decision of the State
Cabinet.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 20
[33] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner at this juncture
urged that the Recruitment Rule for the post of Administrative Officer-cum-
Research Officer has not been framed and the redesignation of the post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is under process and therefore, it
is quite surprise that how and under what circumstances the said post of
Research Officer has been re-designated and regularised in favour of the fifth
respondent has not been properly explained by the respondent State and
therefore, the impugned order dated 24.12.2016 is to be quashed.
[34] It is the specific case of the respondent State that the
Government vide Order No.30/14/2016-TA&H (TR) dated 24.12.2016 created
one post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer in TRI, Manipur as
approved by the State Cabinet in its meeting with exemption from consultation
with MPSC. When the petitioner complains that the consultation of the MPSC
is required before regularisation of the fifth respondent, it is his bounden duty
to prove the same. However, the petitioner has not produced any material.
[35] The learned Government Advocate contended that due to time
constraint, Recruitment Rules for the post of Administrative Officer-cum-
Research Officer could not be framed before obtaining approval from the
State Cabinet. When the respondent State themselves stated that there is an
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 21
exemption from consultation with the MPSC and Recruitment Rules could not
be framed before obtaining approval from the State Cabinet for the post of
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer, it is quite contrary to take a
different view now. As is seen from the agenda and the decision on it, it is
clear that not only the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer
alone regularised, but also, as a special case, the Cabinet regularised 10 nos.
of contractual employees of the TRI. Nothing on record to show that the other
different categories have challenged the said regularisation. In the absence of
any contra evidence, this Court is of the view that the act of the respondent
authorities in regularising the fifth respondent in the post of Administrative
Officer-cum-Research Officer is in accordance with the State Cabinet's
decision and this Court finds no fault in it.
[36] Though the initial selection as Research Officer and
regularisation as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer of the fifth
respondent were made in the year 2016, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition only in the year 2018 after a delay of nearly two years.
[37] According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the writ
petition is filed on afterthought and no ground was raised to explain the lapse
of time taken to approach this Court by the petitioner. Apart from delay, the
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 22
learned counsel for the fifth respondent also submitted that the petitioner has
raised frivolous and vexatious pleas in the writ petition and therefore, the
same is liable to be dismissed with costs. In support, the learned counsel
placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Priya Wart B.K.D.Dubaldhan and others v. State of Haryana and others,
(1982) 2 SCC 142; Delhi Development Authority v. Kapil Mehra and
others, (2015) 2 SCC 289 and New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 186.
[38] In the decision in Priya Wart B.K.D.Dubaldhan (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the special leave petitions deserve to be
dismissed with costs because these are not merely devoid of substance, but
verge on sharp practice on the Court. The dismissal has necessarily to be
completed by cost which is quantified at Rs.3000 in each special leave
petition.
[39] In Delhi Development Authority (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court, while dismissing the special leave petition after observing that the well-
crafted and well-reasoned judgment of the learned Judge of the Delhi High
Court does not suffer from any legal error and there is no merit in the
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 23
petitioner's challenge to the same, imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh for forcing
unwarranted litigation upon the respondents 1 to 3 therein which they have
suffered for almost two decades.
[40] In Ravindra Kumar Singhi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed as under:
"18. Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheet of paper but a
solemn statement made before a person authorized to
administer oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had
breached such solemn statement made on oath."
[41] Admittedly, there is a delay in approaching the Court by the
petitioner. Further, when the petitioner himself participated in the selection
process in the post of Research Officer and having defeated in the selection
and later on filing a writ petition raising vexatious and frivolous pleas
questioning the selection/appointment of the fifth respondent is unacceptable.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is not imposing costs while dismissing the writ petition.
[42] For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there
is no infirmity in the contractual engagement of the fifth respondent as
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 24
Resource Officer and the subsequent regularisation of the fifth respondent as
Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer. There is no merit in the writ
petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
[43] Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
-Larson
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
