R.K. YAISKUL SINGH AND ORS. Vs. THE MANIPUR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (MPSC) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. L. Roshmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General appearing for the state respondents and Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 & 5.

(2.) THIS review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.2014 passed in W.P.(c) No. 787 of 2013. Out of the 12 petitioners in the writ petition, petitioner No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have filed this review. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned A.G. appearing for the state respondents and also Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the private respondents with regard to maintainability of the review petition on the ground that challenging the above judgment and order, a writ appeal has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute filing of the writ appeal against the above judgment and order but submitted that since the writ appeal cannot be heard due to non availability of bench, the review petitioners had no other option except filing of this review petition. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the parties were requested to submit on merit of the review petition.

(3.) WHILE rendering the finding with regard to adoption of UGC Regulation of 2010 in the impugned judgment, it is observed that the petitioners admitted in para 17 of the writ petition that essential qualifications prescribed for the post of principal (Readers Grade) Government colleges which was contained in column 7 of the recruitment rules was amended only on 30.6.2010 by the regulation in Annexure A/2. It was also admitted that the Government of Manipur has adopted the UGC Regulation of 2010 on 12.8.2011 reference to which has been made by the petitioners in Annexure A/7 to the writ petition. Under terms of UGC Regulation of 2010, pay scales of different categories of college teachers had been fixed. Court also further observed that State Government in its additional counter affidavit claimed that UGC Regulation of 2010 had been adopted by the State Government. Since a dispute has been raised as to whether there was any such admission on the part of the petitioners in para 17 of the writ petition with reference to Annexure A/7 or not, I looked into the averments made in para 17 of the writ petition with reference to Annexure A/7. It is true that there is no specific admission on the part of the petitioners in the said paragraph with regard to adoption of 2010 Regulation of UGC by the State Government but it is stated that in the present case essential qualification prescribed for the post of Principal (Reader's Grade) Government Colleges which was contained in column 7 of the Recruitment Rules in Annexure A/2 was amended only on 30.6.2010 by the above Regulation of UGC and the same was adopted by the State Government on 12.8.2011. Apart from the above, if the UGC guidelines of 2010 had been adopted only in respect of revision of pay, age of superannuation and not with regard to appointment, there was no necessity on the part of the State Government to pass an order on 22nd July, 2013 for establishment of Internal Quality Assurance Cell in all Government Colleges with Principals of Government Colleges as Chairperson as per the UGC guidelines.