POTSANGBAM SUPER SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 18. 8. 2007 issued from the office of the Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Manipur under Memo No. 6/14/2007-MID. Since the facts and legal issues involved therein are one and the same, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned counsel appearing in WP (C) No. 625 of 2007 and Shri Roshini Piba, learned counsel appearing in WP (C) No. 666 of 2007. Also heard Mr. Jallaluddin Ahmed, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the state respondents No. 1 and 2 whereas the private respondent No. 3 was represented by Shri N. Jotendro, learned counsel.

(3.) THE writ petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18. 8. 2007 primarily because the respondent No. 3, Shri L. Madhop Singh has been allowed to look after a Division, which should normally be headed by a regular executive Engineer. It is the case of the writ petitioners that all the petitioners (7 in number) are senior Assistant Engineers to the respondent no. 3 and despite that, the respondent No. 3 has been suitably posted to MID-I so that he can work as an Executive Engineer overlooking the seniority of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this has been done at the behest of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It was also submitted that under the directions of the Chief Minister, the respondent No. 3 was earlier transferred from MID-III to MID-I as an Assistant Engineer with a direction to look after the division after transferring the Executive Engineer, namely, Shri a. Kalachand vide order dated 21. 7. 2007. The said transfer order dated 21. 7. 2007 was challenged by Shri A. Kalachand as well as by one K. Ramkumar Singh by way of filing writ petitions before this court. The writ petitions were numbered as wp (C) Nos. 553 and 555 of 2007. The transfer order dated 21. 7. 2007 was stayed by this court on 27. 7. 2007 and within a period of less than one month, another identical order of transfer was issued on 18. 8. 2007 giving the same status and position to the respondent No. 3. Hence, the present writ petitions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, because of this biased posting, legal right of the petitioners for getting higher responsibilities and higher status as per their seniority has been infringed, which is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.