State of Manipur vs N. Sanahanbi Devi and Others

A.K. Patnaik, J.—This batch of writ appeals has been referred to us by his Lordship the Chief Justice because of differences in the opinions of learned brother Sri J. N. Sarma, J and learned brother Sri P.K. Sarkar, J, in their two separate judgments delivered on 13.6.97.

The facts briefly are that a large number of adhoc/substitute teachers were working in different schools in the State of Manipur. By a letter dated 4.4.87, the Director of Education (Schools), Government of Manipur sent a requisition to the Director of Employment, Manipur for direct recruitment of undergraduate teachers in 63 vacancies in different Government schools of Manipur. In response to the said requisition candidates were sponsored by the Director of Employment and a DPC/selection committee for selection of undergraduate teachers was held during the period from 11.5.89 to 26.5.89. The said committee recommended 106 candidates for appointment to the post of undergraduate teacher as well as several candidates in the waiting list. The proceeding of the said DPC/selection committee was sent by the Director ofEducation (Schools) to the Secretary (Education) Government of Manipur, in his letter dated 12.12.89 for approval of the Government. The Government approval was conveyed to the Director of Education (Schools) in the letter dated 29.12.89 of the Under Secretary (Education) Government of Manipur. In the said letter it was mentioned that the DPC had recommended 106 candidates but the vacancies to be filled up on direct recruitment basis should be 53. Accordingly, as per the said letter, out of 106 candidates recommended by the DPC/selection committee for regular appointment, 53 were to be appointed on regular basis and the remaining 53 were to be appointed purely on officiating basis. By the said letter dated 29.12.89. the Government also conveyed its approval to the waiting list subject to the condition that not more than 10% of the candidates would be in the panel of waiting list. When the appointments were sought to be made of the aforesaid 106 candidates recommended by the DPC/selection committee, the ad hoc/substitute teachers who were working in different schools for several years moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution through their Association called "All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers'' Association" for their regularisation and for interim orders restraining the State Government to make appointments pursuant to the said recommendation of the DPC/selection committee and the Government approval. This Court however refused to grant any interim relief and in the circumstances the said Association filed SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court. By order dated 23.10.90, which is reported in All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers'' Association Vs. State of Manipur, the Supreme Court, inter alia, directed that all substitute/ad hoc teachers who had put in 5 years of service or more as on 1.10.90 would be regularised without any DPC and the substitute/ad hoc teachers who had rendered less than 5 years of service as on 1.10.90 would be allowed to appear before the DPC constituted exclusively for them and those who were selected by the DPC would be regularised immediately. By the said order dated 23.10.90 the Supreme Court further directed that all substitute/ad hoc teachers who were on service as on 23.10.90 would be allowed to continue till the DPC declared its result of selection and the services of those who did not appear before the DPC or could not be selected by the DPC could be terminated unless their services were required for a further period. With regard to the selection of candidates already made by the aforesaid DPC/selection committee, the Supreme Court clarified by the said order dated 23.10.90 that if there were additional vacancies in addition to those which had been occupied by the substitute/adhoc teachers, they might straightway be appointed against those vacancies and the remaining if any might be appointed after the DPC completed the process of selection of substitute/adhoc teachers for regularisation depending upon the vacancy position.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 23.10.90 of the Supreme Court all substitute/adhoc teachers who had put in 5 years of service as on 1.10.90 were regularised without any DPC and for all adhoc/substitute teachers who had put in less than 5 years of service as on 1.10.90, a DPC was held and in the said DPC 1039 substitute/adhoc teachers were found suitable for regular appointment, but 510 substitute/adhoc teachers were found unsuitable and were accordingly terminated by order dated 29.6.91 of the Director of Education (Schools). Simultaneously a requisition was sent by the Director of Education (Schools) to the Director of Employment. Government of Manipur, for recruitment of 560 teachers through a Class-III DPC to be held during the first week of August, 1991. Simultaneously also the 106 candidates who had been recommended by the DPC/selection committee held during 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 and whose selection had been approved by the State Government in its letter dated 29th December, 1989 were appointed to 106 posts of undergraduate teacher by order dated 15.7.91 of the Director of Education (Schools). None was however appointed from amongst the candidates in the waiting list recommended by the said DPC/selection committee. Thereafter, a written test was held on 39.9.91 for 560 posts of teacher for which a requisition was sent by the Director of Education (Schools) in his letter dated 27.6.91 to the Director of Employment. In these circumstances, some of the candidates who were in the waiting list as recommended by the aforesaid DPC/selection committee held during the period from 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 filed Civil Rule No 4336/91 in which an interim order was passed on 10.10.91 directing the State Government not to make any appointment of undergraduate teacher until the hearing of interim matter on 23.10.91 The said Civil Rule on transfer to Imphal Bench of this Court was registered and renumbered as civil Rule No 4/92. In the meanwhile, 160 out of the aforesaid 510 terminated teachers through their Association styled ''All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers'' Association, Imphal" Submitted a representation against their termination to the Minister, Education, Government of Manipur and on 26.11.91 the Minister Education, made a note to the effect that he had discussed the matter with the Chief Minister and that he had agreed and decided to regularise the services of the substitute teachers whose particulars were listed Annexure-A/14 and that orders for regularisation of teachers would be issued from the Government level. When none of the 168 terminated teacher''s who were included in Annexure-A/14 as referred to in the note of the Minister, Education, in the file dated 26.11.91 was regularised, they filed Civil Rule No 77/92 before this Court and on 6.4.92 this Court passed an interim order directing the State Government to implement the order dated 26.11.91 of the Government. Pursuant to the said interim order dated 6.4.92,165 out of the 168 substitute/adhoc teachers who had been terminated after they were found unsuitable by the DPC/selection committee were given appointment by order dated 21.7.92, 18.8.92, 24.8.92, 7.9.92 and 8.9.92 of the Director of Education (Schools). Thereafter, the aforesaid Civil Rules No 4/92 and 77/92 were heard along with several other Civil Rules and disposed of by a common judgment of a learned single judge of this Court on 15.12.92. By the said common judgment dated 15.12.92, the learned single judge directed that as soon as the ban on appointment of teachers was lifted and within the period of six months thereafter the State Government would first appoint the teachers selected by the DPC and thereafter the teachers who could not qualify would be appointed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned single judge dated 15.12.92, the State of Manipur filed the present writ appeals which we have today disposed of by separate judgments.

The case of the state-Appellants in these writ appeals is that none of the Respondents in whose favour the learned single judge has issued direction for appointment in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.92 was actually appointed on adhoc/substitute basis as teachers and that their appointments were all fictitious and fake appointments Mr. Ashok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur, pointed out that in the judgments delivered on 13.6.97 in this batch of appeals which have been classified as ''D'' category cases both learned brother Sarma J and learned brother Sarkar J. have recorded a finding that the appointments of the Respondents were all fake and fictitious appointments and that they were not entitled to any relief in the writ petitions and that their writ appeals against the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 15.12.92 are to be allowed. Learned Advocate General further contended that this Division Bench cannot now sit in appeal over the concurrent finding of the two learned Judges in their respective judgments delivered on 13.6.97 and only the points of difference between the two brother judges in the said judgments can be decided upon by this Division Bench.

Mr. I. Lalitkumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for some of the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that when the aforesaid appeals were heard by the earlier Division Bench comprising learned brother Sarma J and learned brother Sarkar J, the Respondents were not represented and as result the two brother judges have recorded an erroneous finding that the appointments of the Respondents in this batch of appeals categorized as Category-''D'' cases were factitious and fake and on this ground allowed the appeals of the State Against the impugned judgment and order of the learned single judge dated 15.12.92.

We have carefully perused the judgments dated 13.6.97 of learned brother Sarma J. and learned brother Sarkar J. We find that at page-25 of the judgment, learned brother Sarma J came to a finding that the records produced by the learned Advocate General did not contain any letter of appointment and that they were forged/fictitious and that on tne basis of the forged/fictitious appointment, the Respondents/writ Petitioners were not entitled to get any relief and on the basis of this finding allowed the appeals and dismissed the 29 Civil Rules out of which the present appeals arise and vacated the interim orders passed by the Court earlier. We further find that learned brother Sarkar J. at page-58 in para-19 of the judgment has found that no record was available in the Education Department regarding appointment of 29 writ Petitioners/Respondents and that on screening it was found that all these Respondents/writ Petitioners of Category-''D'' cases were continuing in service on the basis of false and fake appointment orders and consequently the Government has terminated the services of all these Respondents/writ Petitioners.

In view of the said finding, learned brother Sarkar J. has agreed with learned brother Sarma J. that all the appeals in Category-''D'' cases are to be allowed and the 29 writ petitions are to be dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by both learned brother Sarma J. and learned brother Sarkar J. in the judgments dated 13.6.97, we are afraid, we cannot enter into this controversy again as to whether the appointments of the Respondents/writ Petitioners were genuine or fake as we are not sitting as an appellate Court over the judgments delivered by learned brother Sarma J and learned brother Sarkar J and the limited task before us is to decide the points on which the said learned brother judges have differed. Thus this batch of writ appeals categorized as Category-''D'' cases stand allowed and the writ petitions out of which these writ appeals arise stand dismissed.

However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.