Paom in lun Chongloi vs State of Manipur and Anr.

Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2.

The fact, stated in short, of the petitioner''s case is that the petitioner''s father, Late Khopkhosei Chongloi, was working as Forest Guard at Divisional Forest Office, Northern Forest Division, Kangpokpi of Forest Deptt., Govt. of Manipur and died while he was in that capacity on 24.11.2001.

Both parties agree that there is a scheme framed by the Govt. of Manipur for appointment of the dependents of the Govt. employees who died in harness on compassionate ground. It is also admitted by both the parties that the petitioner being the eldest son of late Khopkhosei Chongloi who diedinharness on 24.11.2001 is eligible for appointment under the said scheme framed by the Govt. of Manipur popularly known as ''DieinHarness Scheme''. It is also said that the petitioner filed a representation dated 7.8.2002 (AnnexureA/8 to the writ petition) for appointment of the petitioner to any post under the dieinharness scheme but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the case for appointment of the petitioner under the dieinharness scheme has not been considered and disposed of finally till date. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The respondents also filed their affidavitinopposition stating that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as there are many applicants for appointment under the said dieinharness scheme. The respondents also annex a list of applicants for appointment under the dieinharness scheme maintained by the Forest Department as AnnexureD/2 to the counter affidavit of the respondents. Another difficulty on the part of the respondents for making appointment of the petitioner under the dieinharness scheme is that only 5% of the vacancies are to be filled up under the said dieinharness scheme.

Taking into consideration of the case of the petitioner as well as the case of the respondents stated in their affidavitinopposition, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the said dieinharness scheme as per the turn, i.e. as per the seniority position of the petitioner in the list of the applicants for appointment under the said dieinharness scheme as when the vacancy arises within the 5% of the vacancies reserved for appointment under the dieinharness scheme.

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.