H SHAMU SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS
LAWS(GAU)-1994-7-34
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on July 29,1994

H Shamu Singh Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Manipur And Ors Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for declaring the order dated 2.9.88 issued by the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation Flood Control, Govt. of Manipur, terminating their services, as null and void and for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioners. As the facts of the cases and the points; of law raised in all these writ petitions are more of less common, this batch of 16 writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)The brief facts as stated in the writ petitions are that the Petitioners were appointed in posts of Gauge Reader, Laboratory Assistant, Foreman Mechanic/Mechanic, Assistant Driller, Fitter, Jugali, Electrical Mistry and Electrician during the months of January, February and March, 1985, by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur, on ad hoc basis. Pursuant to the said appointments, the Petitioners joined their respective posts and their ad hoc appointments were extended from time to time. While they were working in| such ad hoc employment, during the year.1985, Departmental Promotion Committee was held for regularization of the service of the Petitioners and several other ad hoc employees. Although the Petitioners appeared in the said Departmental Promotion Committee, their results were not declared. On the other hand, nine Lower Division Clerks who had been similarly appointed on ad hoc basis also appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee and their results were declared and they were regularized by order dated 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur. Thereafter, the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division),Government of Manipur, issued office Memorandum dated 31.5.86, according to which, persons appointed on ad hoc basis under the Government of Manipur upto 31.12.84 were to be regularized with effect from 31.5.86. Finally, by a common office order date 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur, it was declared that 27 persons including the Petitioners would cease to be in their respective service with effect from 5.9.88. The Petitioners have challenged the said order dated 2.9.88 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur, on the ground that it is violative Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that as per the law laid down the Supreme Court in various decisions the Petitioners are entitled to be regulars in their respective posts having put in more than 4 years service.
(3.)In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it has been stated that the Petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and their appointments were purely temporary in nature and were liable to be terminated. The Respondents have further stated that the appointment were also made without any proper advertisement or requisition from the Employment Exchanges and also without affording any opportunity to other eligible candidates and without any selection. Regarding the Departmental promotion Commit tee held in the year, 1985, for filling up various vacancies in the Irrigation Flood Control Department, it has stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not approved by the Government, A copy of the letter dated 19.8.88 of the Government of Manipur in the Secretarial IPC Department to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Flood Control Department not approving the Departmental Promotion Committee has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure-R/1. The Respondents have also contended in the affidavit-in-opposition that the Petitioners are not eligible to be regularized under the Office Memorandum dated 31.5.86 of the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division). On the facts, according to Respondents, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.


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