Thounaojam Inao Singh vs State Of Manipur

Heard Mr. Kh. Santa, Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ch. Sundari, Ld. GA who takes notice for all the respondents.

[2] Mr. Kh. Santa, Ld. counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner’s father died on 30.12.2005 and then after one year on 20.01.2006,

he gave a representation to the Director of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur seeking the compassionate appointment. Later on, the respondents have

sent several letters to this petitioner by seeking particulars. Finally, last on 16.05.2015, the Additional Director of Education(S/V) sent a letter to

General Manager, District Industries Centre (Bishnupur District), Govt. of Manipur by recommending for the appointment to the petitioner under die-

in-harness scheme on an early date, but, even today, no action has been taken up.

[3] Anyhow, the petitioner has given so many representations to the respondents, but none of them was considered in favour of the petitioner.

Therefore, the petitioners has approached this Court seeking the prayers as follows:

PRAYER

In the premises submitted above the Petitioner humbly and earnestly prays that your Lordships may graciously be pleased;

(a) to issue a rule nisi calling upon the Respondents/Government to show cause as to why the prayer prayed for be not granted and after having the

Respondents made the rule absolute;

(b) to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to any suitable post

under the Die-in-harness scheme within a reasonable period;

(c) to direct the Respondents to dispose of the humble representation(s) of the Petitioner pending final disposal of the above writ petition:

(d) to pass any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit, proper and just in the nature of the present case;

AND

(e) award cost of this petition.

[4] Today, I heard Mr. Kh. Santa, Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ch. Sundari, Ld. GA who takes notice for all the respondents. I have also

perused all the documents enclosed in the writ petition.

[5] Ms. Ch. Sundari, Ld. GA represented that if this Court is going to pass any order directing the respondents to pass appropriate order on the

petitioner’s representation, the respondents are ready to pass appropriate orders.

[6] Ms. Ch. Sundari, Ld. GA further represented that the representations were given long back, therefore, a direction may be issued to the petitioner

to give fresh representation by mentioning all the facts and on receipt of the same, the respondents are ready to pass appropriate orders. [7]

Considering the nature of both sides’ arguments, I am inclined to direct the petitioner to give fresh representation and upon receipt of the same,

the respondents authority to consider the same in accordance with law.

[8] In the result,

(a) this writ petition is disposed of;

(b) the petitioner is directed to give fresh representation by giving full particulars and to send the same within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date

of receipt of this order;

(c) upon receipt of the same, the Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider the same by giving personal opportunity to the petitioner and to pass

appropriate speaking order;

(d) the said exercise shall be done within a period of 4(four) weeks thereafter.

[9] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.