THOUNAOJAM SURENDRA SINGH Vs. THE MANIPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri B.P. Sahu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Amarjit Naorem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuing a writ of quo warranto by declaring the appointment and holding of the post of Lecturer (Hindi) by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13 -06 -2007 as illegal and without any authority of law and also for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as the Lecturer (Hindi) by holding that the petitioner's legal right to be appointed, has been illegally usurped by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE present writ petition is contested by the respondent No. 2 by filing affidavit -in -opposition as well as reply affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to question her appointment against the unreserved post. This view of the respondent No. 2 is fortified by the fact that nothing is mentioned in the appointment order about her being appointed against the post reserved for OBC. The writ petition is misconceived as the same being filed after about 7 years and that too, after collusion with Prof. H. Subadani, Head, Department of Hindi who has a grudge against her husband for exposing mass copying in doctoral thesis being indulged by Prof. H. Subadani. Her husband is one of the accused in a complaint being Cril. Complaint Case No. 177 of 2014 filed by Prof. H. Subadani as one of the complainants. The letter dated 21 -06 -2014 of the petitioner was not addressed to the University but to the Head, Department of Hindi who issued the certificate dated 25 -06 -2014 in her personal capacity with vindictive motive and to seek vengeance against her and her husband. Prof. H. Subadani is not the appropriate authority to entertain such application which can only be filed under the Right to Information Act to the competent and designated authority of the University. The present petition was filed deliberately in collusion with Prof. H. Subadani with a view to defame her when she became eligible for consideration for being promoted to the next higher post. To probably justify his action, the petitioner got an application under the Right to Information Act sent by speed post on 20 -11 -2014, bearing a date of 21 -06 -2014, though his wife and information with reference thereto, was furnished by the Manipur University on 09 -12 -2014. The respondent No. 2 denied the allegation that her father, Shri E. Yaima Singh was directly appointed as Class -I Officer either as Deputy Inspector of Schools or the Special Officer. According to her, her father was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher, then Headmaster and thereafter, was appointed on promotion as Deputy Inspector of School (Valley) vide order dated 02 -09 -1959 and her father's appointment as Special Officer vide order dated 29 -12 -1959 was temporary in nature. At the time when her father was appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, he had not attained the age of forty. As per the ROP'66, a Civil Post carrying a pay scale with a maximum of not less than 500 but less than Rs. 850/ -is a Class -II post. Since the respondent No. 2 was alone appointed, she was adjusted against the unreserved vacancy. Irrespective of whether the respondent No. 2 was appointed against the unreserved or against the post reserved for OBC, she was more qualified than the petitioner and therefore, the respondent alone was appointed against the three vacant posts of Lecturer (Hindi). She further denied that she fraudulently procured the OBC certificate and on that basis, she applied for the post of Lecturer (Hindi). Non -inclusion in the appointment dated 13 -06 -2007 that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 shall be subject to verification in terms of the instructions & regulations prescribed by the Government of India is not because of her fault and it is for the respondent No. 1 to explain it.