STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. KHUNDRAKPAM DAVID CHAND
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
STATE OF MANIPUR
Khundrakpam David Chand
Click here to view full judgement.
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,J. -
(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appointment orders and there Is no material on record to show that the said process of selection had been either withdrawn or cancelled by the State Government.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.
 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.