Manipur State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs Wahengam Somorendra Singh and Others

Ranjan Gogoi, J.—All the 5 writ appeals having raised common question of law and being directed against a common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, are being taken up for consideration together and are being disposed by this common judgment and order.

The facts lie in a short compass as may be stated as hereinbelow.

Sometime in the mounts of April and May, 1994, the then Managing Director of the Manipur State Road Transport Corporation, appointed the respondents/writ petitioners against various post like, Security men, Checkers, Line Checkers, Conductors, Peons and Traffic Inspectors. All the aforesaid appointments were stated to be made on officiating basis against existing vacancies. The appointments made were subject to regularisation by Departmental Promotion Committee. Immediately thereafter, the Managing Director who conferred the aforesaid appointments, demitted office on 14.5.1994 on the expiry of his tenure of contract appointment. The appointment orders of the respondents/writ petitioners were received by the authority of the Corporation in different batches from 17.5.1994 onwards. On examination of the matter, all such appointments were found to have been unauthorisedly made, contrary to the resolutions of the Board/authorised committee taken earlier which Imposed an embargo on continuation of ad hoc/officiating appointments after completion of tenure of such appointments of the concerned incumbents. Furthermore, the appointments of the respondents/writ petitioners were found to have been made without following any known procedure. The new incumbent in the office of the Managing Director in the aforesaid circumstances, and on being authorised by the Chairman of the Corporation, by order dated 16.6.1994, after reciting the detailed facts as noted hereinabove, passed an order treating the aforesaid appointments as nonest. Aggrieved, the respondents/writ petitioners had instituted the writ petitions in question out of which the instant appeals have arisen.

A perusal of the pleadings advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners would go to show that the primary thrust of the challenge in the writ petitions is that the impugned order of cancellation dated 16.6.1994 is a blanket order disclosing no application of mind to the facts to each individual case and that the same has been passed without any notice of opportunity to the affected employees.

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Corporation in each of the writ petitions contending that the appointments in question were all unauthorised. The relevant resolutions were enclosed to the affidavit filed. The writ appellants (the respondents in the writ petitions) in the affidavits filed before the Court in the original writ proceedings also contended that the appointments in question were made by the then Managing Director on the eve of his retirement without being so authorised and furthermore, the said appointments were made without following any known procedure or acceptable norms. The respondents/writ petitioners, it was contended, were virtually handpicked for appointment. It may be noticed that the aforesaid facts, as stated in the affidavit of the writ appellants have not been controverted by the respondents/writ petitioners.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.1997, disposed of the writ petitions in question by holding that the blanket order of termination dated 16.6.1994 and that too, without any notice or prior opportunity was not contemplated in law and, therefore, was liable to be interfered with. The learned Single Judge accordingly, directed re-instatement of the writ petitioners in service. Aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present appeals.

Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has urged that the order of the learned Single Judge interfering with the terminations made by the authority of the Corporation, on the grounds and reasons cited, is wholly untenable and needs to be re-considered by the appellate Court. Learned counsel has argued that the present is a case of large scale illegal appointments made by the holder of a public office prior to his demitting office and all appointments in question having been made by violating the relevant resolutions taken by the Board of Directors/authorised committee of the Corporation and the appointments having been made without following any norms or known procedure, the learned Single Judge ought not to have found fault with termination of the services of the respondents/writ petitioners. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appointments of all the respondents/writ petitioners being contrary to the norms and procedure laid down and the respondents having been virtually handpicked by the then Managing Director of the Corporation, no requirement of prior notice can be spelt out in the facts of the present case to warrant any interference with the cancellations of such appointments. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this court in the case of State of Assam and Ors. v. Smti Pratima Das and Ors., reported in 1997 3 GLT 71. It is the further arguments of the learned counsel for the writ appellants that the full facts of the case as noted above including the resolutions in question were placed before the learned Single Judge and that the said materials were not at all considered by the learned Single Judge prior to coming to the impugned conclusion.

There is none to represent the respondents/writ petitioners in the present appeals.

The uncontroverted facts of the case, as unfolded by the materials on record, reveal that the writ petitioners were appointed in the posts in question by the then Managing Director of the Corporation just on the eve of his demitting office. All such appointments were made in the months of April and May 1994 and the incumbent in the office of the Managing Director had completed his tenure of contract service on 14.5.1994. Though the appointments in question were stated to be on officiating basis against existing vacancies, the resolutions dated 9.3.1994 and 18.3.1994 (enclosed as Annexures-X/5 and X/6 respectively to the writ appeals) would go to show that there was an embargo on such appointments. That apart, the uncontoverted facts of the case further demonstrate that the writ petitioners were handpicked for being conferred the benefit of the appointments in question. The power and jurisdiction of the then Managing Director of the Corporation to make the appointments in question as well as mode and manner of making the said appointments is open to serious doubt. There is no rebuttal materials from the side of the petitioners in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. In such a situation, the illegalities in the appointments of the respondents/writ petitioners, as pointed out in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, must be taken to have been established. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, the respondents/writ petitioners are the beneficiaries of the spoils system and their appointments being illegal and contrary to the laid down norms and procedure, cannot claim any right to the posts to which they are appointed so as to entitle to them any notice prior to the impugned terminations. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the terminations made in the instant batch of cases. Accordingly, the writ appeals will have to be allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.5.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge is reversed and the writ petitions shall stand dismissed.