AJITKUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEPRESENT appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2007 passed in W.P ((THELAW)) No. 28 of 2000 by which the writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts in briefwhich led to the filing of the said writ petition may be stated as follows. The petitioners were initially appointed in 1997 on casual/contract basis in various posts in the Manipur Pollution Control Board(hereinafter referred to as the "Board") and their services were extended from time to time. The Board in its 12th meeting held on 20.11.1996 took a resolution to regularize those casual employees who had completed two years of service through DPC. The said resolution of the Board was confirmed in the 13th Board's Meeting held on 20.9.1997. Thereafter, the Board by its 14thMeeting held on 22.12.97 passed a resolution for creation of 72 posts. On 05.9.1998, the Government of Manipur had issued an order directing that no fresh appointments /promotions or upgradation of post in any grade in the Manipur Pollution Control Board may be made without prior clearance by the Administrative Department, i.e., the Department of Forest and Environment. During the subsistence of the said order dated 05.9.1998, the then Chairman of the Board appointed 17 persons, 4 on ad -hoc and 13 on casual /contract basis. On 08.6.1999, the Board issued 2(two) orders appointing certain members to constitute the DPC which was to be held on 11.6.1999 for regularisation of casual/contract/ad -hoc LDCs and promotion of Grade - IV employees to the post of LDCs. However, on the next day, the Government issued a letter addressed to the Chairman and Member Secretary on 09.6.1999 directing the Board not to engage any new persons on casual/contract basis and also to obtain prior approval of the Government for regularization of the existing adhoc/in - charge/casual appointments in the Board and also to obtain necessary orders from the Government for constituting DPC for regularization of such appointments. It is the case of the petitioners that taking into consideration the long service rendered by the petitioners, the Chairman of the Board appointed the petitioners on officiating basis by issuing various orders on 9.9.1999, 25.6.1999, 02.7.99, 11.6.99 and 24.6.99. However, subsequently by orders dated 27.10.1999 and

(3.) THE Board authorities contested the writ petition by filing their affidavit -in -opposition. The gist of the contention of the Board respondents was that the then Chairman of the Board without jurisdiction and by abuse of his powers conferred by the Act and Rules framed thereunder issued various appointment orders on officiating /casual basis. It was the case of the State respondents that since of the appointment of persons involves financial expenditures, the concurrence of the Member Secretary was required for such appointment in terms of Rule 41 of the Rules, 1991 which was not done. It was also contended that when the said officiating appointments were made, no advertisements were issued calling applications from desiring and eligible candidates and no DPC/Screening Committees were constituted for recommendation for appointment on officiating basis. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the writ petition as having without any merit. The Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition considered the order 9.1998 issued by the State Government which placed a specific bar on the Manipur Pollution Control Board in making any fresh promotion or upgradation without prior approval of the Administrative Department of Forest and Environment. The learned Single Judge also considered the letter dated 9.6.1999 by which State Government informed the Manipur Pollution Control Board about the aforesaid order dated 5.9.1998 placing a bar on fresh appointment and to obtain approval from the State Government for any appointment and also for constituting DPC.