Lourembam Ibemhal Devi vs State of Manipur and Another

P.G. Agarwal, J.—This application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Petitioner, Ms. Lourembam Ibemhal Devi, stating inter alia that pursuant to notification, she had applied for the post of Inspector (Sericulture) and she appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee, for short DPC, on 2.3.92. The Petitioner was placed at SI. No. 1 of the waiting list and thereafter on 6.7.93 a letter of offer of appointment was issued to the Petitioner. However, no letter of appointment was issued to the Petitioner in view of the ban of appointment. The Petitioner approached the authority concerned but to no effect although two posts of Inspector (Sericulture) are lying vacant. The Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court praying for a direction to the Respondents to appoint her against the vacancies which occurred at the relevant time.

The Respondent State has filed affidavit in opposition stating inter alia that the recommendation bf the DPC remains valid for a period of one year and six months after extension, as per the Government instructions and office memorandum validity of the said panel 1992 has expired and the Petitioner was merely selected and she is not entitled to any relief. The law is well settled that inclusion of a name in a select list or the waiting list does not confer any enforceable right for appointment after the expiry of the period of validity. However, in the present case I find that the matter did not remain in the realm of select panel only. Annexure-A/4 dated 6.7.93 is a letter of offer issued by the Director of Sericulture to the Petitioner offering her the post of Inspector (Sericulture) as per the terms mentioned therein. The said letter of offer was accepted by the Petitioner. The genuineness of the said letter is not in dispute. The learned Addl. G.A., Mr Kh. Nimaichand Singh, had produced a copy of the office memorandum dated 29th April, 1999 which contains instructions regarding the panel for promotion. Clause 8.12.1 and 2 reads as follows:

8.12.1: The panel for promotion drawn up by DPC for "Selection/non-selection" posts would normally be valid for one year. It should cease to be in force on the expiry of a period of one year and six months or when a fresh panel is proposed, whichever is earlier.

8.12.2: The date of commencement of the validity of panel will be the date on which the DPC meets. In case the DPC meets on more than one day, the last date of the meeting would be the date of commencement of the validity of the panel. In case the panel requires, particularly or wholly, the approval of the Commission, the date of validity of panel would be the date (of Commission''s letter) communicating their approval to the panel. It is important to ensure that the Commission''s approval to the panel is obtained, where necessary, with the least possible delay.

The above guidelines has come into force with effect from the date of publication in the Manipur Gazette, which was published on 9.6.99 only. Apparently these rules/guidelines were not applicable at the time when the panel was prepared. Further, as per Clause 8.12.2, the validity of the panel would be the date of communicating the approval. The last date of meeting of the DPC was 2.3.92 and the approval was conveyed by the Government vide Annexure-A/2 dated 16th December, 1992. Thus, as per Clause 8.12.2 the said panel was validity till 15th December 1993. The letter of offer was issued on 6th July, 1993, that is, much before the expiry of the said period of one year. As a matter of fact, the letter of offer was issued within one year six months of the last date of meeting of the DPC and as per Clause 8.12.1 the panel ceased to be in force on expiry of one year six months only. I, therefore, find no force in the submission of Mr. Kh. Nimaichand Singh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State that the letter of offer was issued after the expiry of the validity of the panel. The question that the name of the Petitioner appears in the waiting list only also looses its significance once a letter of offer was issued to her which goes to show that because of certain happenings/'' contingencies her name got updated to the main list.

Mr F.A. Khalid, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, further submits that the above panel, Annexure-A/1 and A/3, was acted upon by the State of Manipur by issuing letter of appointment to one Shri Kh. Dhaneshor Singh on 24th December, 1999, Annexure-A/8 is the copy of the letter of appointment. Further, one H. Sahisekhar Sharma whose name appears in the above panel, approached this Court in C.R. No. 556/97 and as per direction given by this Court in that case on 12.8.99, the Government of Manipur has appointed said H. Sahisekhar Sharma as Superintendent (Sericulture) on the basis of the selection made on 29.2.92. It may be mentioned that the name of Shri Sahisekhar Sharma also appears in the waiting list No. 1 for the post of Superintendent (Sericulture) and a letter of offer was also given to him. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the decision in the above C.R. No. 556/97 covers the present case. The above decision was not challenged by the State of Manipur by way of Appeal and the learned Counsel for the Respondent-State has failed to distinguish the above case from the present one. I find sufficient force in the submission that the Petitioner being a similarly situated person is entitled to similar relief.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent- State has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Md. Kalimuddin and others, and in the case of Govt, of Orissa and Ors. v. Haraprasad Das and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 375 wherein it was held that more empanelment or inclusion of one''s name in the selection list does not give him a right to be appointed. As stated above, this is not the case of mere empanelment. The State had acted beyond the preparation of list by offering the post/appointment to the Petitioner by issuing the letter of offer. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is a case of Promissory Estoppel and in view of the promise made by the State issuing the letter of offer to her, the Petitioner did not make any attempt to get a alternate job and remained in the expectation that one day she will be appointed in the Government job. She had legitimate expectation after the receipt of the offer letter and as such the principles of Promissory Estoppel are applicable in the present case. This Court had the occasion to consider the above principles in the matter of appointment on the post of Probationary Officer of the State Bank of India in the case of Bidhan Chakma v. General Manager, State Bank of India, 1987 2 GLR 389. It was held that the principles of Promissory Estoppel applies in such situation and the Government is wounded by the said principles.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Respondents to issue formal letter of appiontment to the Petitioner within a period 2 (two) months to enable her to join the post of Inspector (Sericulture). The Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the competent authority.

No order as to costs.