SOROKHAIBAM SOROKHAIBAM UTTAM SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in 4(four) writ applications which were heard together and disposed of in a common judgment and order. The 17 appellants in W.A. No. 84 of 2008 were the petitioners in W.P.(c) No. 1254 of 2005. The appellant in W.A. No. 55 of 2009 was the petitioner in W.P.(c) No. 1407 of 2005.

(2.) BRIEF history of the case is that pursuant to a requisition dated 02.04.1998 issued by the Revenue Department for filling up 34 posts of Mandols, DPC was held and recommendation was made. However, recommendation made by the DPC was not declared as a ban was imposed on direct recruitment by the State on 06.11.1999. The appellants, therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(c) No. 1007/2000 praying for publishing the recommendation made by the D.P.C. Though the state authority took a stand that because of the ban order, recommendation made by the DPC have not been disclosed, the Court disposed of the above writ petition on 27.08.2001 directing the publication of recommendation made by the D.P.C. on the premises that a ban order issued by the State Government cannot be a ground for not publishing or disclosing the recommendation made by the D.P.C.

(3.) EVEN after publication of the recommendation made by the D.P.C., appointment letters were not issued. The appellants through their association named as "All Manipur Mandol DPC Successful Candidates Association" filed W.P.(c) No. 902 of 2002 for a direction to the State Authorities to appoint the members of the said Association who had been recommended by D.P.C. against those 34 posts of Mandols. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that association was an un -registered association and accordingly, writ application at it's instance is not maintainable. Thereafter, on 15.11.2005, the present set of writ petitions were filed challenging the requisition dated 15.11.2005 issued by the Revenue Department requisitioning names from the Director of Employment Exchange to fill up 69 posts of Mandols in the Revenue Department. The appellants and others filed the above 4(four) writ applications on the ground that having been recommended by D.P.C. for such appointment in the year 2002, their cases should be considered for such appointment and the remaining posts could be filled up by considering the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange.