NAOREM JUGESHWOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-3-1
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on March 15,2019

Naorem Jugeshwor Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KH.NOBIN SINGH, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Julius Riamei, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Shri M. Devananda, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent.
(2.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to cancel order dated 06.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.1.
(3.) Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a Ph.D. Degree holder in Mathematics and was initially appointed as the Lecturer, Thambal Marik College, Oinam (hereinafter referred to as "the College") on 31.08.1996 and thereafter, on 06.08.2007 the petitioner was appointed as Senior Lecturer of the College and while he was serving in that capacity, on 18.02.2015 the Secretary, Governing Body of the College issued an order stating that the petitioner was appointed temporarily as the Principal in-charge of the College with immediate effect until further orders. 3.2. Shri O. Kullabidhu Singh was appointed as the Principal-incharge of the College for about 1 years on the strength of an order passed by this Court in a writ petition being filed by him. However, on 14.05.2018, Shri O. Kullabidhu Singh, the then Principal in-charge of the College, due to his health condition, issued a letter of authority in favour of the petitioner to look after the academic activities of the College and in continuation thereof, on 05.06.2018, the Secretary, Governing Body of the College issued an order stating that as Shri O. Kullabidhu Singh has resigned from the post of the Principal in-charge on health ground, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal-in-charge of the College without DDO power with immediate effect and since then, he had been discharging his duties as Principal in-charge without any complaint and also without any blemish and to the satisfaction of the superior officers of the concerned Department. 3.3. On 06.08.2016, the Chairman, MPCB and KVIB, Manipur wrote a D.O letter to the Commissioner (Education), Government of Manipur requesting that the petitioner be declared as the Principal-in-charge of the College with the delegation of DDO power. 3.4. While the petitioner was functioning as the Principal incharge for about 2(two) years, it was learnt from a reliable source that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were initiating process for appointing the respondent No.3 as the Principal-in-charge of the College. On 06.09.2018, the petitioner got a legal notice issued, through his advocate, to the respondent No.1 and 2 for confirming the petitioner as the Principal-in-charge of the College but on the same date i.e., 06.09.2018, to his utter shock and surprise, the Commissioner (Hr. and Tech. Edn.), the respondent No.1 issued an order appointing Dr. O. Rajendra Singh, Respondent No.3 as the Principal-in-charge of the College. Although a copy of the said order was not formally served upon the petitioner, he could get a xerox copy thereof unofficially from a reliable source, from which he came to know that Dr. Rajendra Singh had been allowed to hold the charge of the Principal of the College until further orders. 3.5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 06.09.2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that since the respondent No.3 had crossed the age of 60 years, he was not eligible for appointment as the Principal-in-charge; that the replacement of the petitioner by the respondent No.3 as the Principal-in-charge is against the mandate and the settled position of law; that this Court in writ petition being 2017(4) GLT (MN) 134: WP(C) No. 496 of 2016, Dr. Ngangkham Ibotombi Singh Vs. State of Manipur, relying upon law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court order in State of Haryana Vs. Ors Vs Piara Singh, held that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee and he must be replaced only by a regular selected employee and that the order dated 06.09.2018 is very much un-natural and is not in public interest. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.