Konthoujam Somorjit Singh vs State Of Manipur

Sl. No

.","Name of post

to be

created",Subject,"No. of post to be created in 4 (four)

colleges",,,,"P a y scale

(P.B.

+AGP/G

B)

(1),(2),(3),(4),,,,(5)

,,,MC,SKW,SEMC,WMGC,

,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,

2.,"Asstt.

Prof.",English,6,5,6,5,"Rs.

15,600-

39,100 +

AGP Rs.

6,000

3.,-do-,Manipuri,6,5,5,7,

4.,-do-,Thadou-Kuki,2,-,1,-,-do-

5.,-do-,Hindi,-,1,2,-,-do-

6.,-do-,Economics,5,4,5,2,-do-

7.,-do-,Education,6,4,4,3,-do-

8.,-do-,Geography,6,4,-,3,-do-

9.,-do-,History,7,3,5,4,-do-

10.,-do-,"Political

Science",4,3,6,4,-do-

11.,-do-,Human Right,-,1,-,-,-do-

12.,-do-,Philosophy,-,4,-,2,-do-

13.,-do-,Sociology,6,3,4,3,-do-

14.,-do-,Commerce,5,4,-,-,-do-

15.,-do-,Home Science,5,6,-,6,-do-

16.,-do-,Physics,6,3,3,6,-do-

17.,-do-,Chemistry,6,5,6,4,-do-

18.,,Botany,6,4,4,6,-do-

19.,,Zoology,5,6,6,6,-do-

20.,-do-,Mathematics,4,4,4,4,-do-

21.,-do-,Statistics,3,3,2,4,-do-

22.,-do-,Anthropology,6,-,6,4,-do-

23.,-do-,Computer Sc.,-,5,2,-,-do-

24.,-do-,Geology,4,3,-,4,-do-

25.,-do-,Biotechnology,-,5,-,-,-do-

26.,-do-,"Food

Technology",-,5,-,-,-do-

27.,-do-,"Environmental

Sc.",-,-,3,-,-do-

28.,-do-,Physical Edn.,1,1,1,-,-do-

TOTAL,,,100,92,76,78,= 346

On obtaining the concurrence from Finance Department (PIC), the Secretariat: Higher & Technical Education Department, Manipur created",,,,,,,

adequate numbers of posts- teaching and non-teaching, vide order dated 25-02-2020 for appointment in the said Colleges. Consequent upon the",,,,,,,

creation of posts, the Secretariat: Higher & Technical Education Department, Manipur issued an order dated 10-08-2020 appointing 317 teaching staff",,,,,,,

and 154 non-teaching staff as Government servants in their respective grades.,,,,,,,

[2.9] In respect of the instant College, out of ninety-two posts, only 85 teachers were given appointment leaving aside the case of six teachers, i.e., the",,,,,,,

petitioner and five others. The reason why he was not given appointment which he came to know from the letter dated 22-08-2020 of the Director of,,,,,,,

University and Higher Education, Manipur, was that the Principal of the College vide its letter dated 01-07-2020 informed it that the petitioner was",,,,,,,

under suspension intentionally suppressing the fact that the suspension order had been cancelled vide order dated 20-10-2018. The petitioner submitted,,,,,,,

a detailed representation dated 26-08-2020 supported by relevant documents to the Director, followed by another representation dated 03-09-2020",,,,,,,

clarifying that he was no longer under suspension. On 03-09-2020 itself, the Principal of the College also forwarded the clarification for consideration",,,,,,,

of the case of the petitioner. In spite of furnishing all the clarifications, the State Government was not ready to consider the case of the petitioner for",,,,,,,

appointment, when two of his juniors had already given appointment vide order dated 10-08-2020.",,,,,,,

[2.10] Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds",,,,,,,

that out of four posts created for the subject of Philosophy by the State Government, only three posts had been filled up leaving the fourth one unfilled",,,,,,,

denying an appointment to the petitioner. Due to false report of the Principal of the College submitted on 01-07-2020, the petitioner had been deprived",,,,,,,

of his right of appointment as the Assistant Professor in Philosophy. The petitioner has a legitimate grievance. The case of the petitioner was left out,,,,,,,

on the false report of the Principal of the College.,,,,,,,

Such a deliberate act of the Principal of the College and inaction of the State respondents thereon, is a clear cut case of discrimination being violative",,,,,,,

of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.",,,,,,,

[4] In the Affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it has been stated that as reported by the then Principal of the College, since the petitioner",,,,,,,

was under suspension, he was not appointed by the State Government as the Assistant Professor in Philosophy. The Verification Committee,",,,,,,,

constituted to examine the service records of the teachers, is considering the cases including that of the petitioner. After a proper examination of the",,,,,,,

findings made by the Verification Committee, the State Government will take appropriate decision. Surprisingly, it has further been stated that the",,,,,,,

petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition in view of the submissions made herein. The allegations were made against the,,,,,,,

authorities other than the authority represented by the answering deponent and it is for them to answer the allegations. There is no cause of action and,,,,,,,

the petitioner, in view of the submissions made therein, is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.",,,,,,,

[5] Denying the averments made in the affidavit, it has been stated by the petitioner in his rejoinder that the statements made in para No. 2 of the writ",,,,,,,

petition are all facts supported by the documentary evidences appended to the writ petition. These documents are all ones issued by the State,,,,,,,

Government. The respondents themselves are required to prove that these documents were not issued by them. The statements made in the affidavit,,,,,,,

should be viewed seriously. The respondents should not do anything which might deny the petitioner of getting an appointment, when the College was",,,,,,,

taken over by the Government vide order dated 29-01- 2020 and all the faculty members of the College had already been given the appointment vide,,,,,,,

Government order dated 10-08- 2020. The respondents No.1 and 2 cannot say that they did not have the knowledge of the existence of the order,,,,,,,

dated 20-10-2018 because a copy of which was endorsed to them by the office of the Principal of the College. The affidavit cast a shadow of non-,,,,,,,

application of mind which made inordinate delay and deprived the petitioner of getting an appointment. It is a clear- cut case of discrimination meted,,,,,,,

out to the petitioner. No further verification is required at all. It is nothing but to make further delay in giving appointment to the petitioner. The entire,,,,,,,

affidavit is a mere denial based on no reason and not supported by any reliable documents.,,,,,,,

[6.1] It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed by the Governing Body of the College as a Lecturer in Logic vide order dated 06-03-,,,,,,,

1992 issued by the Secretary, Governing Body. The College was a Government Aided College and as per Manipur education Code, 1982, the",,,,,,,

Lecturers could be appointed against the posts of approved teachers (Lecturer) sanctioned by the State Government. Ten posts of approved teacher,,,,,,,

(Lecturer) of different subjects were initially sanctioned by the State Government vide orders dated 14-12-2011 & 23-12-2011, followed by two",,,,,,,

Government orders dated 11-05-2016 and 26-07-2016 sanctioning twenty additional posts of approved teachers without specifying the subjects. The,,,,,,,

Governing Body vide its resolution dated 03-12-2016, identified twenty different subjects including the subject of Philosophy against the said twenty",,,,,,,

approved posts. Pursuant thereto, the Principal of the College vide its letter dated 05-12-2016 submitted a proposal to the Director, University &",,,,,,,

Higher Education, Manipur for approval which was modified by it unilaterally without the consent of the Governing Body vide its letter dated 13-12-",,,,,,,

2016 omitting the subject of Philosophy with the result that the subject of Philosophy was not included in the approval being conveyed by the State,,,,,,,

Government vide its order dated 15-4-2017.,,,,,,,

[6.2] The petitioner submitted a representation on 04-05-2017 to the Hon’ble Minister, Education for cancellation or modification of the",,,,,,,

Government order dated 15-04-2017 but without it being considered, an advertisement dated 03-07-2017 was issued inviting applications for",,,,,,,

appointment of twenty Assistant Professors without the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy. When the petitioner questioned it by way of a writ,,,,,,,

petition being WP(C) No.480 of 2017, this Court passed an order dated 07-07-2017 suspending the advertisement dated 03-07-2017. In the meantime,",,,,,,,

as the petitioner did submit the said representation to the Hon’ble Minister, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 06-07- 2017 of the",,,,,,,

Governing Body of the College which was suspended by this Court vide its order dated 19-07-2017. The Secretary, Governing Body vide its letter",,,,,,,

dated 02-05-2018 requested the petitioner for withdrawal of the pending cases with a caveat that if he failed to comply with the decision, the",,,,,,,

necessary action would be taken against him. This letter was kept suspended by this Court vide its order dated 07-05-2018 passed in WP(C) No.379,,,,,,,

of 2018. The petitioner was again placed under suspension vide order dated 22-09-2018 of the Governing Body of the College on the allegation that he,,,,,,,

had misappropriated the UGC fund. When it being challenged in WP(C) No.926 of 2018, this Court passed an order dated 05-10-2018 suspending the",,,,,,,

suspension order dated 22-09-2018. On 20- 10-2018, the suspension order dated 22-09-2018 was cancelled by the Governing Body itself of the",,,,,,,

College.,,,,,,,

[6.3] In the meanwhile, the State Government took a policy decision for taking over Government Aided Colleges and in reply to its letter dated 20-08-",,,,,,,

2016, the Principal of the College vide its letter dated 01-09-2017 submitted the details of the approved and un-approved employees wherein the",,,,,,,

names of four Assistant Professors of Philosophy including that of the petitioner, were shown. The College was taken over by the State Government",,,,,,,

vide order dated 29-01-2020 along with ninety-two posts with the concurrence of the Finance Department (PIC) as conveyed vide UO dated 30-12-,,,,,,,

2019. Out of ninety-two posts, only 85 teachers were appointed excluding the petitioner and five others. The petitioner was not appointed, as it was",,,,,,,

reported by the Principal of the College vide its letter dated 01-07-2020 that he was under suspension, although the suspension order had already been",,,,,,,

cancelled vide order dated 20-10-2018 of the Governing Body. Despite two representations being submitted by the petitioner, he was not given",,,,,,,

appointment at all.,,,,,,,

[7] From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the College and in particular, the Governing Body and the Principal, were not happy",,,,,,,

with the manner in which they had been dragged to the Court by the petitioner. The provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be,,,,,,,

invoked by any person for the enforcement of his fundamental rights or legal rights by approaching the High Court. In the present case, if the",,,,,,,

petitioner felt that his fundamental rights or legal rights were infringed, he could approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance. Nobody could",,,,,,,

stop him from doing that. Whether his petition could be entertained or not lies in the discretionary power of the High Court. The Governing Body of,,,,,,,

the College made some attempts to punish the petitioner by placing him under suspension but in vain. Even on 02-05-2018, the Government Body",,,,,,,

wrote a letter dated to the petitioner requesting him to withdraw all the cases with a caveat that if he failed to do so, action would be taken against",,,,,,,

him. Probably when the petitioner failed to withdraw the cases, what the Governing Body did, was that it got a letter dated 01-07- 2020 written by the",,,,,,,

Principal to the Director, Higher & Technical Education, Manipur informing that the petitioner was under suspension with a remark that the Court had",,,,,,,

stayed the suspension order. What was the motive of writing such a letter, was best known to the Principal of the College. Had the petitioner been",,,,,,,

dismissed from service at the time when the proposal was sent to the State Government for approval, it would have been a different matter. The",,,,,,,

suspension order dated 22-09-2018 had been cancelled by the Governing Body itself vide its order dated 20-10-2018. The unfortunate part is that even,,,,,,,

after the suspension order having been cancelled by the Governing Body itself, it was not informed to the State Government with the result that when",,,,,,,

the State Government made appointments of eighty-five teachers out of ninety-two posts, the petitioner was not included therein. On enquiry from the",,,,,,,

authority, the petitioner was informed that he was not appointed as the Assistant Professor in Philosophy on the ground that he was under suspension.",,,,,,,

In fact, the suspension order had been cancelled one and half years prior to the taking over the College by the State Government on 29-01-2020. The",,,,,,,

manner in which the case of the petitioner had been dealt with by the College and in particular, the Governing Body and the Principal, is unfair and",,,,,,,

unreasonable. The Governing Body and the Principal of the College appear to have done it deliberately to see that the petitioner is not given an,,,,,,,

appointment. The stance of the State Government as indicated in its affidavit, is that the petitioner was not appointed as per the report of the Principal",,,,,,,

that he was under suspension. However, it may be noted that in its letter dated 01-07-2020, the Principal of the College had mentioned clearly that the",,,,,,,

suspension order had been stayed by the Court, although he failed to mention that the suspension order had been cancelled by the Governing Body.",,,,,,,

The State Government appears to have not understood the contents of the letter fully and correctly. In any case, the fact remains that the petitioner",,,,,,,

was not under suspension at the time when the College was taken over by the State Government vide its order dated 29-01-2020 and when the,,,,,,,

appointment order dated 10-08-2020 was issued by the State Government. For no fault of his, the petitioner had been ill-treated in the manner as",,,,,,,

aforesaid, for which the respondents are absolutely liable. The omission/ commission on the part of the State Government as regards the appointment",,,,,,,

of the petitioner, is highly unfair and unreasonable which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The further stand of the State",,,,,,,

Government is that the Verification Committee is examining the case of the petitioner and after the receipt of the report from the Verification,,,,,,,

Committee, his case would be considered. From the pleadings as aforesaid, it is seen that the verification that is required to be done by the Verification",,,,,,,

Committee, is nothing but the examination of the documents available with the State Government and in particular, the document to see whether the",,,,,,,

petitioner was under suspension at the relevant time. This exercise could have been done by it immediately after the receipt of the representation,,,,,,,

dated 28-08-2020 of the petitioner which the State Government failed to do so. It is never the case of the State Government that the petitioner was not,,,,,,,

eligible for appointment as the Assistant professor in Philosophy nor was he working as the Lecturer in the College, when the College was taken over",,,,,,,

by it. Further, it is not the case of the State Government that the post was not available at the time of taking over the College and on the contrary, out",,,,,,,

of four posts of Assistant Professor in Philosophy sanctioned by the State Government for the College as contended by the petitioner which is not,,,,,,,

specifically denied by the respondents, only three persons had been appointed so far. It may further be noted that the petitioner in his representations",,,,,,,

had clearly mentioned that at the time when the appointment order was issued on 10-08-2020, he was not under suspension and moreover, the",,,,,,,

Principal of the College in its letter dated 03-09-2020 had furnished clarification requesting the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner.,,,,,,,

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the same treatment that has been meted out by the State Government to similarly situated teachers including his",,,,,,,

juniors by issuing the appointment order dated 10-08-2020. There is no reason whatsoever as to why he should be denied the appointment as the,,,,,,,

Assistant professor in Philosophy.,,,,,,,

[8] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the State Government shall",,,,,,,

consider case of the petitioner within two months from today and issue an order appointing him as the Assistant Professor in Philosophy within two,,,,,,,

weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to back wages, if any and his seniority shall be counted from the date on which",,,,,,,

his junior had been appointed. There shall be no order as to costs.,,,,,,,