MANIPUR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. WAHENGUM SOMORENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the 5 writ appeals having raised common question of law and being directed against a common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, are being taken up for consideration together and are being disposed by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The facts lie in a short compass as may be stated as hereinbelow. Sometime in the mounts of April and May, 1994, the then Managing Director of the Manipur State Road Transport Corporation, appointed the respondents/writ petitioners against various post like, Securitymen, Checkers, Line Checkers, Conductors, Peons and Traffic Inspectors. All the aforesaid appointments were stated to be made on officiating basis against existing vacancies. The appointments made were subject to regularisation by Departmental Promotion Committee. Immediately thereafter, the Managing Director who conferred the aforesaid appointments, demitted office on 14.5.1994 on the expiry of his tenure of contract appointment. The appointment orders of the respondents/writ petitioners were received by the authority of the Corporation in different batches from 17.5.1994 onwards. On examination of the matter, all such appointments were found to have been unauthorisedly made, contrary to the resolutions of the Board/authorised committee taken earlier which imposed an embargo on continuation of ad hoc/ officiating appointments after completion of tenure of such appointments of the concerned incumbents. Furthermore, the appointments of the respondents/writ petitioners were found to have been made without following any known procedure. The new incumbent in the office of the Managing Director in the aforesaid circumstances, and on being authorised by the Chairman of the Corporation, by order dated 16.6.1994, after reciting the detailed facts as noted hereinabove, passed an order treating the aforesaid appointments as nonest. Aggrieved, the respondents/writ petitioners had instituted the writ petitions in question out of which the instant appeals have arisen.

(3.) A perusal of the pleadings advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners would go to show that the primary thrust of the challenge in the writ petitions is that the impugned order of cancellation dated 16.6.1994 is a blanket order disclosing no application of mind to the facts to each individual case and that the same has been passed without any notice of opportunity to the affected employees. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Corporation in each of the writ petitions contending that the appointments in question were all unauthorised. The relevant resolutions were enclosed to the affidavit filed. The writ appellants (the respondents in the writ petitions) in the affidavits filed before the Court in the original writ proceedings also contended that the appointments in question were made by the then Managing Director on the eve of his retirement without being so authorised and furthermore, the said appointments were made without following any known procedure or acceptable norms. The respondents/writ petitioners, it was contended, were virtually handpicked for appointment. It may be noticed that the aforesaid facts, as stated in the affidavit of the writ appellants have not been controverted by the respondents/writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.1997, disposed of the writ petitions in question by holding that the blanket order of termination dated 16.6.1994 and that too, without any notice or prior opportunity was not contemplated in law and, therefore, was liable to be interfered with. The learned Single Judge accordingly, directed re-instatement of the writ petitioners in service. Aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present appeals.