Manipur High Court
Smt. Laimayum Sanatombi Devi vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 2 July, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 568 of 2009
Smt. Laimayum Sanatombi Devi, W/o Aribam Saratkumar Sharma of
Wangkhei Keithel Ashangbi, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Indira Gandhi National Open University through its Director, Maidan
Garhi, New Delhi, 110068.
2. Registrar (Admn.), Indira Gandhi National Open University, Maidan
Garhi, New Delhi.
3. Asst. Registrar (Rectt.), Indira Gandhi National Open University Maidan
Garhi, New Delhi.
4. Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University Regional
Centre, Asha-Jina Complex, North AOC, Imphal.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner : Ms. H. Malemleima, Adv., Mr. N. Bipin, Adv. &
Mr. A. Arunkumar, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. Wungpam Lungmi, Adv.
Date of reserved : 01.04.2025
Date of Judgement : 02.07.2025
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Ms. H. Malemleima, learned counsel along with Mr. N.
Bipin, learned counsel and Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Wungpam Lungmi, learned counsel for the respondents.
[2] The petitioner herein is aggrieved by letter dated 15.06.2009
issued by Assistant Registrar (Rectt.), Indira Gandhi National Open
University (IGNOU) Maidan Garhi, New Delhi to the Regional Director,
IGNOU Regional Centre, Asha Jina Complex, North AOC, Imphal, thereby
rejecting the request of the petitioner for relaxation of age for appointment
to the post of JAT (Junior Assistant cum Typist).
The brief facts of the present petition is as follows:
[3] Vide order dated 05.09.1990, the petitioner was appointed
as part time Assistant at IGNOU, Imphal Study Centre with the conditions
that her assignment will be effective from 01.08.1990 for a term of one
year and allowance @ Rs. 400/- per month and she would not claim any
request for regularization.
[4] Vide order dated 20.02.1996, her term of appointment was
extended up to 31.12.1996 at the remuneration of Rs. 500/-.
[5] Vide another order dated 20.12.2000, the petitioner was
appointed as attendant on contract basis at IGNOU, Regional Centre
Imphal on a consolidated salary of Rs. 3,596/- per month for a period of 6
months w.e.f. 21.12.2000 (FN). Similarly, vide office orders dated
21.06.2001 and 01.07.2001, her contractual appointment as attendant
was extended from time to time.
[6] Thereafter, vide engagement letters dated 08.01.2008 and
09.07.2009, the petitioner was appointed as JAT on contractual basis
initially for a period of 6 months with consolidated salary of Rs. 6,000/-
per month with the conditions that she would not claim for permanency.
[7] Thereafter, IGNOU, Regional Centre, Imphal issued an
advertisement dated 10.01.2007 for recruitment of various posts including
2(two) posts of Junior Assistant cum Typist (JAT) (01 reserved for SC) in
the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and the essential qualification for the said
post is 'Matriculation or equivalent with two years' experience in Clerical
post in a Govt./ Semi-govt./ Public under-taking/ Reputed private company
with typing speed of 30 w.p.m. in English. The typing speed in respect of
any of the National Language will be as prescribed by the Central Govt./
State Govt. and a Bachelor's degree from a recognized University with
typing speed of 30 w.p.m. is desirable with age limit as 27 years. The
petitioner applied for the post of JAT
[8] Vide letter dated 21.02.2008 issued by the Dy. Registrar
(Estt.), IGNOU Maidan Garhi, New Delhi to the Regional Director, IGNOU
Regional Centre Imphal informed that the petitioner was selected for the
post of JAT and requested for post-based reservation roster for Direct
Recruitment/ Local Recruitment followed by the State Govt. of Manipur be
called for. Accordingly, the Regional Director, IGNOU Regional Centre
Imphal sent a letter dated 25.02.2008 to the Dy. Registrar (Admn.),
IGNOU New Delhi submitting the requisite documents with respect to the
petitioner who was selected for the post of JAT in IGNOU, Regional Centre
Imphal.
[9] Vide letter dated 09.06.2008 issued by the Dy. Director,
IGNOU New Delhi to the Regional Director, Regional Centre Imphal
informed that the petitioner was overaged for the post of JAT and she was
45 years old at the time of submission of her application form. The
maximum age as per advertisement is 27 years, 3 years relaxation for OBC
and 6 years for working in IGNOU Regional Centre and the maximum age
in the case of the petitioner would be 37 years (27 years as per advt.+ 3
years for OBC + 6 years for working in Regional Centre).
[10] The Regional Director, IGNOU Imphal Regional Centre sent
a letter dated 04.07.2008 to the Dy. Director, EDNERU, IGNOU New Delhi
stating that the petitioner was nearly 45 years (i.e. 44 years 9 months 11
days) at the time of submission of her application form but she joined
IGNOU in the year 1990 and her total service at the Regional Centre will
be 16 years. The maximum age relaxable will be 46 years and she will be
eligible & qualified for the post of JAT and she may be given chance of
service in IGNOU.
[11] Vide another letter dated 26.02.2009 issued by the Registrar
(Admn.), IGNOU New Delhi to the Regional Director, IGNOU Regional
Centre Imphal stating that the maximum permissible age limit for the
petitioner was 36 years (i.e. 27+3+6). Hence, she was overaged and
found not eligible for regular appointment as per the University rules.
[12] The Regional Director, IGNOU RC Imphal sent a letter dated
25.03.2009 to the Registrar (Admn.), IGNOU New Delhi stating that the
maximum age eligible for the petitioner is 45.5 years (i.e. the maximum
age as per advertisement is 27 years, 3 years relaxation for OBC, 6 years
for service in Regional Centre and 9 years 5 months for service in Imphal
Study Centre) and requested to consider her case in light of the said
explanations and issue orders.
[13] Vide impugned letter dated 15.06.2009 issued by Assistant
Registrar (Rectt.), IGNOU New Delhi to the Regional Director, IGNOU RC
Imphal informed that the request for relaxation of age with respect to the
petitioner could not be acceded and she was not found eligible for
appointment to the post of JAT.
[14] It may be noted that IGNOU New Delhi issued an
advertisement no. 41/2009 for recruitment of various posts for the IGNOU
Headquarters and Regional Centre across the country including the post
of Junior Assistant cum Typist (Group-C). The detailed of the 64 posts of
JAT in that advertisement is reproduced herein below:
Name of post Post Educational & Professional
Code Qualification
Junior Assistant- 05 Essential
Cum- Typist (Group- Matriculation OR its equivalent with two
C) years experience in a clerical post in a
Govt./Semi Semi-Govt./Public
undertaking/ Reputed private company
with a typing speed of 40 w.p.m. in English
OR 35 w.p.m. in Hindi on computers.
Desirable
A Bachelor's Degree from a recognized
University with typing speed of 40 w.p.m.
in English OR 35 w.p.m. in Hindi on
computers.
Age Relaxation
The applicant should not exceed age limit above, as on the fast date of
receipt of application. However, this age is relaxable as per Govt. of India
standing instructions for the following categories.
i) For SC/ST candidates 5 years
ii) OBC candidates 3 years
iii) Departmental candidates with Upto 42 years of age
3 years of continuous service (in case of SC/ST candidates upto
47 years of age)
(For appointments of Group-C
posts)
iv) Physically Handicapped 10 years
(15 years for SC/ST candidates
and 13 years for OBC)
v) Ex-serviceman Service rendered in
Army/Navy/Air Force plus 3 years
vi) Government employees 5 Years
including Departmental
candidate for Group-A post.
vii) Central Government Civilian 40 Years
employees for Group 'C' Posts (45 years for SC/ST and 43 years
(those who have rendered not for OBC)
less than 3 years continuous
service on regular basis)
viii) For Resident of J&K during the 5 Years
01.01.1980 to 31.12.2989
[15] It is the case of the petitioner that she has worked in IGNOU
for 17 years and relaxation given by IGNOU Headquarter, New Delhi for
only 6 years is without any basis and the impugned order dated 15.06.2009
rejecting her request for relaxation of age is liable to be set aside only on
this ground.
[16] It is prayed that the communication letter dated 15.06.2009
containing that the petitioner was not eligible for age relaxation and not
found eligible for appointed to the post of JAT be set aside and for
declaring from the period 05.09.1990 to 20.12.2002 be computed as for
the purpose of age relaxation.
[17] The respondent filed counter affidavit inter-alia stating that
IGNOU Regional Centre Imphal issued an advertisement dated 10.01.2007
for various posts including the post of JAT. The qualification for the said
post was Matriculation or equivalent with two years' experience in clerical
post in a Govt./ Semi Govt./ Public Undertaking/ Reputed private company
with typing speed of 30 w.p.m. in English and Graduate is desirable. Out
of 2 posts of JAT, one post has reserved for SC and one for UR and the
last date of receipt of application form was on 30.01.2007.
[18] Since, the application for one, Shri Haobijam Biswarjit Meitei
of SC seat was rejected on the ground of non-production of work
experience/No Objection Certificate from the Employer and the seat was
treated as General.
[19] The petitioner applied for the post of JAT with Form No.
074078 against the UR seat as an OBC candidate and having more than
16 years' experience (10 years in IGNOU Study Centre, Imphal and more
than 6 years in Regional Centre, Imphal). As per record, she was qualified
in the skill test and short listed for the post of JAT at IGNOU RC, Imphal.
The petitioner was 45 years at the time of submission of application form
under OBC category and as per the decision of 89th meeting of the Board
of Management (BOM) held on 26.02.2007 aged relaxation at Regional
Centre was approved that age relaxation was not extended for Study
Centres and it should be confined to working in the Regional Centres only.
Accordingly, the petitioner was eligible only for 6 years relaxation of age
and in total 36 years and as such, she was age bar for the post of JAT.
[20] The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit stating that the
decision of the 89th meeting of BOM held on 26.02.2007 has no statutory
force and not allowing age relaxation for the service in Study Centres and
the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
[21] Initially at Imphal, there was no Regional Centre and the
petitioner served in IGNOU Study Centre and this bifurcation of staff of
Regional Centre and Study Centre is irrational and illegal.
[22] Since, the age certificate for the petitioner is not on record,
vide order dated 08.10.2024, this Court permitted the petitioner to file
additional documents bringing on record showing her date of birth and the
respondents was also permitted to file recruitment rules prevailing in the
year 2007 on record.
[23] Pursuant to this direction, the petitioner filed additional
affidavit dated 27.03.2025 bringing on record the matriculation certificate
which shows the date of birth of petitioner as 01.02.1962 and the same is
taken on record. However, the respondents have not filed recruitment
rules prevailing in the year 2007.
[24] However, during the course of hearing, the respondents
produce a copy of the IGNOU, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010 and
the same is taken on record.
[25] Vide order dated 14.12.2009, this Court directed the
respondents to keep 1(one) post of JAT vacant subject to the final outcome
of this writ petition and should not be filled up till disposal of this writ
petition and the same is reproduced herein below:
"14.12.2009
Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 4.
With regards to the interim prayer, I have heard the learned
counsel and perused the Advertisement No. 41/2009 which is
annexed as Annexure-A/12 to the writ petition. The prayer of the
petitioner is to keep one post vacant in the category of Jr.
Assistant-cum-Typist from the said Annexure-A/12. It is indicated
that there are 219 vacancies. Considering this number of
vacancies in the said post it would serve the ends of justice if the
respondents are directed not to fill up one post of Jr. assistant-
Cum-Typist subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. The
respondents are hereby directed that one post Jr. Assistant-cum-
Typist shall not be filled up till disposal of this writ petition."
[26] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have wrongly rejected tenure of service rendered by the
petitioner in IGNOU Study Centre Imphal and have taken into
consideration only 6 years tenure served by her in Imphal Regional Centre.
As per counter affidavit filed by the petitioner the same was in terms of
the decision of the 89th meeting of BOM held on 26.02.2007 where age
relaxation can be claimed for service in IGNOU Regional Centre Imphal.
[27] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if that be
the case, the application of the petitioner should have been rejected at the
very threshold without compelling her to appear in the test and once
shortlisted for selection, she cannot be rejected on the ground of non-
applicable of tenure of her service in the IGNOU, Study Centre Imphal.
The same would be barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiesces.
[28] It may be noted that earlier IGNOU Regional Centre was
stationed at Shillong only and IGNOU Imphal was only as Study Centre.
Later on, IGNOU Regional Centre was established.
[29] Ms. H. Malemleima, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the discrimination of staff serving in the Study Centre and
Regional Centre is irrational, arbitrary and without any substances. The
employee at the Regional Centre as well as Study Centre are working for
the IGNOU. This classification lacks intelligible differentia as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases such as State of West Bengal v.
Anwar Ali Sarkar: AIR 1952 SC 75 & Binoy Viswan v. Union of
India: (2017) 7 SCC 59.
[30] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
the matriculation certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.02.1962
and the last date of submission of application form is on 30.01.2007. The
age of the petitioner was 44 years 11 months and 29 days on the last date
of submission of form. The permissible maximum age for the petitioner
with applicable relaxation will be 46 years [i.e. 27 years as per
advertisement + 3 years for OBC + 16 years for working in IGNOU (10
years as Study Centre as well as 6 years as Regional Centre)].
[31] It is submitted that the candidature and appointment of the
petitioner to the post of JAT was wrongly rejected by the respondents by
impugned letter dated 15.06.2009 by considering the period of 6 years
only working in Regional Centre for the purpose of age relaxation. Since
one post of the JAT was kept unfulfilled vide order dated 14.12.2009
passed by this Court, the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner
against this post.
[32] However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
consists that the petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation.
It is informed that she is still being utilized in the IGNOU Regional Centre
Imphal and this Court may mould the relief by directing the respondents
to consider her for pensionary benefit with arrear of the pay and allowance.
[33] On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that as per the decision of the 89th meeting of BOM dated
26.02.2007, the relaxation of age for working only in Regional Centre is
applicable and there cannot be no relaxation in age for period working in
the Study Centre. Since, the petitioner has worked only 6 years in Regional
Centre and the maximum eligible age of her will be 36 years (i.e. 27 years
as per advertisement + 3 years for OBC + 6 years for working in IGNOU).
Since she was almost 45 years on the date of submission of the application
form, hence her candidature cannot be considered as exceeding the
maximum age as prescribed for the category as per rules.
[34] It is submitted that her candidature was lightly rejected by
the respondents-authority and the learned counsel for the respondents
relies on the following judgement:
i) 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 600 Para 7
(Jai Singh Dalal and Ors. -vs- State of Haryana and Anr.)
- Recruitment can be stop at any time before appointment
and the candidates has not vested right of appointments.
ii) AIR 1991 SCC 1612 Para 7
(Shankarsan Dash -vs- Union of India)
- All vacancies are not required to be filled up.
It is prayed that the writ petition may be rejected at this stage.
[35] This Court has considered the materials on record,
submissions made at the bar and decisions cited by the learned counsel
for the parties.
[36] It is admitted fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is
01.02.1962 and the age has to be calculated as on the last date of
submission of application form is 30.01.2007. The petitioner was 44 years
11 months and 29 days as on the last date of submission of form. The
maximum age permissible as per the advertisement dated 10.01.2007 is
27 years for the post of JAT.
[37] It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner worked in
IGNOU, Study Centre Imphal for 10 years and for another 6 years in
IGNOU Regional Centre Imphal. In other words, at the time of the
submission of the application form, the petitioner has been working in the
IGNOU for more than 16 years from the date of initial appointment i.e.
05.09.1990 till last date of application form submission i.e., 30.01.2007
[10 years in IGNOU Study Centre and 6 years in IGNOU Regional Centre
Imphal]. She claimed a total relaxation of age up to 46 years, i.e., 27 years
as per advertisement, 3 years for OBC, 16 years for working in IGNOU and
the maximum age relaxable would be 46 years in her case.
[38] It is also admitted fact that her application was accepted and
she appeared in the test for the post of JAT and she was declared as
selected for appointment.
[39] However, during the verification of the age relaxation in
IGNOU Headquarter, New Delhi, it was stated that only 6 years would be
relaxable to the petitioner for working in the IGNOU Regional Centre alone,
thereby the maximum age relaxation is 36 years. Since her age was 45
years on the last date of submission of application form and her
candidature was rejected by the impugned communication letter dated
15.06.2009 issued by IGNOU Headquarter, New Delhi.
[40] The admissibility of 6 years age relaxation is as per the
decision of the 89th meeting of BOM held on 26.02.2007 whereby, it was
resolved and approved to relax age only for the period working in the
Regional Centre.
[41] This Court has minutely perused the materials on record,
especially the decision of the 89th meeting of BOM held on 26.02.2007
whereby, relaxation is applicable only for the period working in Regional
Centre.
[42] It will be relevant to reproduced the proceeding of the 89th
meeting of Board with respect to the age relaxation for the Regional Centre
is reproduced as below:
"ITEM NO. 5 TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE
MATTER OF AGE RELAXATION RELATING TO THE
RECRUITMENT OF STAFF IN GROUP B, C AND D IN THE
REGIONAL CENTRES AT NORTH-EAST REGION, SIKKIM,
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
BM 89.5.1 The item was taken up for consideration. The
Secretary informed the Board that at its 83rd Meeting, the Board
approved the recommendations of the Establishment Committee
made at its 42nd Meeting held on 11-07-2005 relating to the
local/regional recruitment to the vacant positions under Group B,
C and D categories at the Regional Centres in the North- East,
Sikkim, Jammu and Kashmir. Pursuant to the above decision,
further steps were initiated in the matter and necessary guidelines
were issued to the concerned Regional Directors. This was
followed up further and the Regional Directors issued
advertisements in the local Press. The Regional Centres have been
engaging persons on daily wage basis on contract for some years
to man the day to day activities at Regional Centres. In response
to the advertisements issued by the Regional Centre, Jammu, the
staff working as Regional Centre on contract/daily wage basis sent
their representation on 15-01-2007 to the Vice-Chancellor stating
that they have been working in the Regional Centre for last 5 to
8 years in that capacity and have requested for their regularization
which as per the Recruitment Rules is not permissible. Similar
position also prevails in the Regional Centres in North-East
Region, Sikkim and Kashmir. Keeping the above situation in view
and the fact that the staff at these Regional Centres have served
the University for long periods and have gained experience, it was
proposed that the contractual staff working at these Regional
Centres, who fulfill the eligibility criteria, may be given the
opportunity to apply and compete along with outside candidates
providing them age relaxation to the extent of their service at
these Regional Centres provided that each spell of such service is
more than six months.
BM 89.5.2 The Board considered and approved the
proposal."
[43] On the minute examination of the proceedings of the BOM
with respect to the relaxation of age, it is seen that the decision was related
to the relaxation of age for Group- B, C and D employees working in the
Regional Centre. Since the agenda was regarding the relaxation of age for
employees working in the Regional Centre, and the decision was obviously
confined to for that purpose only.
[44] It will be preposterous to conclude that the 89th meeting of
the Board, IGNOU has rejected the claim for relaxation of age for the
contract staff working in the Regional Centre. This Court is of the view that
if agenda includes relaxation of the age for the contract employees in
Study Centre, the same decision as in the case of the contract employees
in Regional Centre would have been arrived in the Board meeting.
[45] It is settled proposition of law that there can be reasonable
classification of unequals into equals under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. However, the classification should have an intelligible differentia
and classification should be in consonance with the object to be achieved.
Kindly see Anwar Ali (supra) and Binoy Viswam (supra) in this regard
to mention a few.
[46] In the present case, the object is to give relaxation to the
employee working in the IGNOU for applying in regular appointment in the
Institute. The relaxation is not intended to confine to the contract
employees working in the Regional Centres only. The respondent has
miserably failed to explain the act of differentiating between contract
employees working in the Regional Centre and the Study Centre for the
applicability of the age relaxation. On the other hand, the 89th meeting of
BOM held on 26.02.2007 did not at all consider the case for age relaxation
of age for the contract employees working in the Study Centre. It will be
wrong to conclude in absence of anything specific in this regard that the
BOM has rejected the case of contract employees working in the Study
Centre.
[47] This Court is of the firm opinion that the rejection for the
period of working by a contract employee of the IGNOU working in the
Study Centre for the purpose of age relaxation, is without any logic and
the same is not in consonance with the object of giving relaxation to the
contractual employees of the IGNOU. The logic of denying the benefit of
age relaxation to the contract staff working in the Study Centre is devoid
of any merit and impermissible; and the same amounts to treating equals
unequally without any intelligible classification.
[48] Accordingly, the impugned communication/letter dated
15.06.2009 is held to be in violation of the principle of equality enshrined
in the Article 14 of the Constitution and the same is set aside and the
petitioner is to be appointed notionally as JAT wef 15.06.2009 (the day her
candidature was rejected by the impugned communication dated
15.06.2009) against 1(one) seat kept reserved, vide order dated
14.12.2009 passed by this Court.
[49] However, during the pendency of the present writ petition
and for no fault of her, the petitioner has already attained the age of
superannuation as her date of birth in matriculation certificate is
01.02.1962.
[50] In a recent judgment of J. Ganapatha and Ors. vs. N.
Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and Ors.: MANU/SC/0387/2025: 2025
INSC 395, Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the concept of moulding of
relief as an exception in a proceeding based on the facts and circumstances
of the case, even if the relief granted was not actually prayed for or the
relief prayed for cannot be granted due to subsequent development. While
applying the rule, utmost care ought to be taken so as not to cause
injustice and prejudice to any party. In the circumstances, this Court has
moulded the relief in the changed circumstances to do complete justice to
the parties. This Court holds that the petitioner will be entitled the
pensionary and other service benefits entitled as per rules without arrears
of the pay and allowance. This direction has to be issued in the peculiar
facts of this case.
[51] With these observations, this WP(C) No. 568 of 2009 is
disposed of. Interim orders, if any, stand merged with the final order.
[52] Before parting, this Court expresses its acknowledgement of
the contributions and the hardworking of 2(two) young lawyers namely,
Ms. H. Malemleima, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Wungpam
Lungmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in assisting the
Court in disposing the present writ petition which has been pending for
more than 16 years. Their hard work and research will continue in other
cases and will be an inspiration to their colleagues in the profession.
OINAM by OINAM
THOIBA Date:
2025.07.02 JUDGE
MEITEI 15:03:44
+05'30'
FR/NFR
Thoiba
