State Of Manipur vs Khundrakpam David Chand

R.S., CJ

[1] Heard Mr. N.Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State and Mr.B.P.Sahu,learned senior counsel for the respondents.

[2] The State is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge directing the present appellants to complete the process of selection and appoint the respondents/petitioners as Veterinary Field Assistant because all proceedings have come to an end and the interim order of the Court has been closed and writ petition has been disposed of and therefore, there was no restraint on the State to complete the selection process. The relevant paragraphs of the order of learned Single Judge are at para Nos.5 and 6 which read as follows:-

"5. It is not In dispute that pursuant to the Notification dated 29.11.2018, the process of selection was initiated and after the process of selection having been completed, Offer Forms were issued to the petitioners and even the Medical Verification had also been done. But as has been stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, because of the interim order dated 09.12.2016 passed by this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 977 of 2016, the appointment orders could not be issued by the State Government. But it may be noted that the said writ petition being W.P.(C)No. 977 of 2016 had been disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 02.11.2017 with the direction that the State respondents should consider the cases of the petitioners therein. Since the said writ petition had been disposed of, the interim order dated 09.12.2016 passed by this Court therein stood merged with the main order. The net result is that there is no any Court's order which prevents or restraints the State Government from issuing appointment orders in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, it has been submitted by the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners that the appointment orders can now be issued by the State respondents as there is not bar from issuing them in favour of the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has some force and substance for the reason that the process of selection was almost complete, except for issuing appointment orders and there Is no material on record to show that the said process of selection had been either withdrawn or cancelled by the State Government. If that be the case, the State Government being an institution and a welfare State, has to act fairly and reasonably and therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioners shall be denied the appointment orders. In fact, the petitioners may not have the right to be appointed automatically as Veterinary FieId-Assistant but the State Government is duty bound to complete the process of selection for which only the appointment orders are yet to be issued by it. Therefore, the non-issuance of appointment order, without any cogent and valid reasons, in favour of the petitioners is unfair and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

[6] In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction that the State respondents shall issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners within a period of 3 (three) months from the date receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

[3] The sole ground on which the learned Advocate General pleaded for setting aside order of the learned Single Judge is that the question of appointing the respondents/writ petitioners cannot be considered because of the ban issued on 31.10.2018 Annexure-X/4.

[4] Learned senior counsel for the respondents, however, pleaded that even as per the record, the only reason for withholding the appointment was the interim order passed in W.P(C) No.293 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No.977 of 2016. That, interim order has been disposed of finally on 2.11.2017. Hence, from that date, there is no restraint on the Government to comply as directed by the learned Single Judge. He therefore pleaded the appeal should be dismissed.

[5] In appeal, the facts are as follows:-

"[3.2] The Director, Vety. & A.H. Services, Manipur issued a Notification dated 07.09.2016 inviting applications from amongst the eligible and qualified candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant as against 10 (ten) posts reserved in various categories under the Veterinary Department, Manipur. The petitioners being eligible applied for it. After the selection process being completed, the Director, Veterinary & A. H. Services, Manipur issued a Notification dated 29.11.2016 declaring that the petitioners were selected for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant. By the said Notification, the petitioners were informed to report to the Directorate of Veterinary & A. H. Services, Sanjenthong for collection of offer forms and other necessary documents for issuance of appointment orders. On 30.11.2016 the Directorate of Veterinary & A.H. Services, Manipur issued offer forms/ memoranda in favour of the petitioners by which the petitioners were asked to convey their acceptances for appointment to the said post.

[3.3] Two writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 293 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No. 977 of 2016 came to be filed by some persons questioning the validity and correctness of the Notification dated 29.11.2016 issued by the Director, Vety. & A.H., Manipur. The case of the petitioners therein was that sometime in the year 1999, they applied for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant for which a D.P.C was held from 15th June, 1999 to 19th June, 1999 and the result thereof could not be declared in view of the Government order dated 06.11.1999 issued by Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur to the effect that the existing vacancies would be frozen until further orders in public interest. The stand taken by the State Government in the said writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 293 of 2016, as is evident from the court's order dated 02-11-2017, was that since the petitioners therein had become over-aged, they could not be considered for appointment as Veterinary Field Assistant."

[6] We have considered the decision the learned Single Judge and also the contention of the learned Advocate General and Mr. B.P.Sahu, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

[7] As stated earlier, it is the sole ground of the state that in terms of Annexure-X/4, office memorandum dated 31st October, 2018, ban on recruitment holds the field and therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the petitioners to be appointed to the said posts. The learned AG refers to para No.5 of the affidavit filed on 30.8.2018 in the writ petition and Para No.5 reads as follows:-

"5. That, with reference to Paras No.8 & 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted that in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court's Order passed in W.P(C) No.293 of 2016 and W.P.(C)No.977 of 2016, Department has made the proposal and submitted to Cabinet Department for approval. Since, there is a general ban on all recruitments, Cabinet decision is mandatory for any recruitment. Accordingly, Department has submitted the proposal for Cabinet approval and Cabinet approval is awaited."

[8] A perusal of the reply affidavit dated 30.8.2018 makes it evident that there was a ban on that day was an incorrect statement and factually incorrect because Annexure-X/4 is dated two months thereafter i.e.. 31st October 2018. On the date when the State filed the reply affidavit dated 30.8.2018 stating that there was a ban, there was no ban order. When there was no ban in force, the direction of the learned Single Judge is justified. Therefore, the statement made by the State in reply affidavit is incorrect and the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the respondents/petitioners to be considered for the said appointment.

[9] The plea of ban was not supported by document. This document is filed in the appeal but without leave of the Court. Nevertheless, we hold that this document, which has been subsequently filed in appeal, was not there before the learned Single Judge and in any event, even on the date the reply affidavit was filed i.e., on 30.8.2018, there was no ban order issued by the Government. A mere statement on affidavit will not amount to a ban. Learned Single Judge was therefore justified in passing the direction as above. There was no restraint on the appellant State because as indicated earlier by the learned Single Judge, two writ petitions were disposed of on 2.11.2017 itself directing the State Government to dispose of the issue on its merit. There was no ban at that point of time.

[10] Mr. Sahu, learned senior counsel was at pains to point out that in many cases appointments were made even after the so called ban, Annexure-X/4. We are not concerned with the same because in the present case, admittedly, the State Government filed a reply affidavit stating that there was ban when there was none. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge could not be faulted on the ground that there was a ban order. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.