STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. KHAIDEM IBOPISHAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents/writ petitioners herein 7 (seven) in number, were appointed on 16th October, 1999 as Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the PWD, Manipur on ad-hoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500/- with other allowances as admissible against the direct recruit quota for a period of six months or until further orders which ever is earlier. The order of appointment also says that the appointments are made against the resultant ad-hoc vacancies and, therefore, does not confer any right on the appointees for regular appointment. The respondents/writ petitioner apprehending that their services shall not be continued has approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as WP(C) No. 242/2001. In the meantime four persons have challenged the ad-hoc appointment of the respondents by filing a writ petition, which was registered as WP(C) No. 1469/1999, and order was issued by the Court restraining the Government from making any further ad- hoc appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer in PWD. It was further directed that ad-hoc appointment of the private respondents as per the related appointment orders shall not be extended by the appropriate authority. On an application moved by the respondents in connection with the WP(C) No. 1463/99 by order dated 12.4.2002 the Court allowed the ad- hoc appointment of the respondents to continue until further orders and the matter was fixed for early hearing. On a later date that writ petition was withdrawn and the interim order passed by the Court has not continued with the withdrawal of the writ petition. The Government extended the period of ad-hoc appointment of the respondents from time to time in pursuance of the order passed by the Court on 12.4.2002 and the last extension of service was made by order dated 22.1.2001 for a period of six months. The learned Single Judge by his impugned order dated 30.9.2002 has held that although the ad- hoc fixed term employees have no legal right to claim for automatic absorption or regularisation in service, but as the ad-hoc employees have continued in service for a long period he has given direction that their services should not be disturbed till the posts are filled up on regular basis in terms of the related recruitment rules. It was made clear that the order shall not stand on the way of the authority concerned to regularise the services of the writ petitioners in terms of the relevant recruitment rules as well as the related Government instructions. It was further directed that the authority concerned shall not consider those writ petitioners/ respondents as age barred, if the applications are invited for direct recruitment and if those petitioners/ respondents apply for their regular appointment. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) It is contended by Sri A. Potsongbam, learned sr. counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge while issuing directions not to disturb the services of the respondents/petitioners on ad-hoc basis has completely failed to see that there is a ban imposed by the State Govt. on regular appointments on account of serious financial crisis faced by the State and also the policy decision taken by the State Govt. for downsizing the employment.

(3.) It has been brought on record that the Government on consideration of the deteriorating financial condition of the State has put a complete ban on direct recruitment, by its order dated 6.11.99. The State's financial position and its liability and income is indicated as under: