Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 900 (GAU)

Akoijam Dorendro Singh v. State of Manipur

2006-09-21

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Jayanta Singh, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Ch. Nickel Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners as well as Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the state Respondents. 2. Because of the similar reliefs sought for in these 4 (four) writ petitions, i.e. (1) W. P. (C) No. 604/2006; (2) W.P. (C) No. 453/2004; (3) W.P. (C) No. 663/2004 and (4) W.P. (C) No. 312/2005, basing on the similar facts and circumstances as well as laws, for the convenience of the court as well as for the parties, these 4 (four) writ petitions are taken up for disposal by a common judgment and order; although facts of each of the writ petition are being discussed in separate paras as under: Writ Petition (C) No. 604 of 2006 Writ Petitioners 5 (five) in number passed High School Leaving Certificate Examination from the Board of Secondary Education Manipur and completed the Vetenary Field Assistant Training Course and they are eligible for regular appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Manipur under the recruitment rules. Because of availability of sustentative vacancies in the posts of Veterinary Field Assistant and also exigency of services of the Veterinary Field Assistants in the Directorate of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur, they applied for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant. It is said that after due consideration of eligibility of the Petitioners for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant they were appointed to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Manipur vide orders of the Director of the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur being No. 7/G/HA/94-Vt. Imphal the 20th May 1999 on ad hoc basis for a period of 2 (two) months and 29 days, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/5 to the present writ petition. The terms of ad hoc services of the Petitioners as Veterinary Field Assistant had been extended from time to time vide orders being No. 7/G/HA/94-Vt Imphal the 24th August, 1999; it is said that they are still continuing to serve as ad hoc Veterinary Field Assistant. The terms of ad hoc services of the Petitioners as Veterinary Field Assistant had been extended from time to time vide orders being No. 7/G/HA/94-Vt Imphal the 24th August, 1999; it is said that they are still continuing to serve as ad hoc Veterinary Field Assistant. WRIT PETITION (C) No. 453 OF 2006 10 (ten) writ Petitioners also passed the High School Leaving Certificate Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and they also successfully completed the Elementary Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science Examination Certificate course for Veterinary Assistant from the Veterinary Assistant Training Centre, Govt. of Manipur. It is said that the Directorate of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Manipur was in need the services of the Veterinary Field Assistant and accordingly they applied for appointment as Veterinary Field Assistant against the substantive vacant posts of Veterinary Field Assistants. WRIT PETITION (C) N0.663 OF 2004 The writ Petitioners 5 (five) in number also had passed their High School Leaving Certificate Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and also they had successfully completed the Certificate course for Veterinary Field Assistant training from the Veterinary Field Assistant Training Centre, Govt. of Manipur. They are eligible for regular appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Directorate of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur. WRIT PETITION (C) No. 312 OF 2005 The writ Petitioners 3 (three) in number also passed the High School Leaving Certificate Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and they also successfully completed the Certificate course for the Elementary Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science for the Veterinary Field Assistant from the Veterinary Field Assistant Training Centre, Porompat, Govt. of Manipur. They are also eligible for regular appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Directorate of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur. 3. A letter dated 25.5.1999 was issued by the Respondent No. 3 (i.e. Director of Veterinary & A. H. Services, Govt. of Manipur) to all the Employment Exchange Officers of Manipur for requisition of suitable candidates against 29 (twenty-nine) vacant posts of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur. of Manipur. 3. A letter dated 25.5.1999 was issued by the Respondent No. 3 (i.e. Director of Veterinary & A. H. Services, Govt. of Manipur) to all the Employment Exchange Officers of Manipur for requisition of suitable candidates against 29 (twenty-nine) vacant posts of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur. In the said letter, it is clearly mentioned that sponsor of the eligible candidates by the Employment Exchanges should be completed on or before 8.6.1999 and also that of the Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection Committee (for short 'DPC') meeting will be held on 14.6.1999 to recommend the suitable candidates for appointment to the said vacant posts. In response to the said letter/requisition letter dated 25.5.1999 issued by the Respondent No. 3, the writ Petitioners and other eligible candidates applied for regular appointment to the said 29 posts of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur. 4. A meeting of the duly constituted DPC was held from 15th to 19th June, 1999; and Petitioners and Ors. had appeared before the said DPC: but the result of the said DPC was not announced for a quite long time in violation of the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Imphal the 28th May, 1982. In the said Office Memorandum of the Government of Manipur dated 28th May, 1982, it is said that the Government of Manipur had decided that (i) the result of the DPC meetings for selection of candidates for appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts should be announced on the conclusing day of the DPC meeting; (ii) the result of the DPC, if for some unavoidable reasons, cannot be announced on the concluding day the specific approval for postponement of the announcement of the result should be obtained from the Chief Secretary and (iii) but for issue of the appointment orders of the selected candidates for on the results of Class-Ill and IV DPC meeting the proceedings should be approved by the Minister concerned prior to the issue of appointment orders. 5. 5. While the result of the said DPC for selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant which was held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 was not announced for a quite long time without any justification, the government of Manipur issued an order being No. 14/6/95-DP (Pt) Imphal, the 6th November, 1999 that all the appointments against the existing vacancies will be frozen until further orders in the public interest and also that there will be a complete ban on direct recruitment and that the result of the DPC if not declared as on date should be frozen in conformity with the letter and spirit of the order of the Finance Department, Govt. of Manipur being No. 22/154/99-ES dated 3.11.1999. The writ Petitioners of the present W.P. (C) No. 604 of 2006 had filed a joint writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 424 of 2000 before this Court for a direction to the Respondents to declare the result of the DPC and to allow them to work as Veterinary Field Assistant till the declaration of the result. This Court was pleased to pass the final judgment and order dated 22.8.2000 for disposing the said W.P. (C) No. 424 of 2000 with the observation and direction that the Respondents shall declare the result of the said DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 immediately after one week after the ban is lifted and Petitioners shall not be ousted till the posts are filled up on regular basis. It is the further case of the Petitioners of the W.P. (C) No. 604 of 2006 that in pursuance of the final judgment and order of this Court dated 22.8.2000 passed in W.P. (C) No. 424 of 2000 they are still continuing to serve as Veterinary Field Assistant. 6. In Anr. joint writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 941 of 2002 filed by Mr. Gaichampu Gangmei of Majorkhui and Ors., this Court passed the judgment and order dated 24.1.2003 directing the authorities to announce the result of the said DPC within 7 (seven) days. It is said that because of ban on direct recruitment imposed by the Govt. 6. In Anr. joint writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 941 of 2002 filed by Mr. Gaichampu Gangmei of Majorkhui and Ors., this Court passed the judgment and order dated 24.1.2003 directing the authorities to announce the result of the said DPC within 7 (seven) days. It is said that because of ban on direct recruitment imposed by the Govt. of Manipur under the said Office Memorandum dated 6.11.1999, the state Respondents could not announce the result of the said DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 for the selection of candidates for appointment to the said 29 (twenty nine) posts of Veterinary Field Assistant. Mr. Gaichampu Gangmei and Ors. again filed a contempt case being Contempt Case No. 124 of 2003 for initiating contempt proceedings against the concerned officials of the Govt. of Manipur for their failure to comply with the direction of this Court in the judgment and order dated 24.1.2003 passed in W.P. (C) No. 941 of 2002 to announce the result of the said DPC within 7 (seven) days, before this Court and this Court was also pleased to initiate the contempt proceedings against the concerned officials. Ultimately the proceedings of the said DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 for recruitment to 29 posts of Veterinary Field Assistant was approved by the Govt. of Manipur and after such approval the Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur issued the notification being No. CR (2)/94-Vt(Pt) Imphal the 17th March 2004 for declaring the result of the said DPC by publishing the list of 29 (twenty nine) candidates in order of merit under the terms and conditions that (i) the validity of the result of the DPC should be for one year from the date of declaration of the result; (ii) no offer for appointment is to be made on account of ban on direct recruitment by the Govt.; (hi) declaration is in compliance of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order dated 24.1.2003 passed in W.P. (C) No. 941 of 2000". The writ Petitioners of (1) W P. (C) No. 604 of 2006 five in number, (2) W.P.(C) No. 453 of 2004- ten in number and (3) W. P. (C) No. 663 of 2004- five in number, are the selected candidates for appointment to the said 29 (twenty nine) substantive vacancies in the post of Veterinary Field Assistant under the said notification dated 17.3.2004 for publishing the list of the 29 (twenty nine) selected candidates in order of merit. The writ Petitioners of W. P. (C) No 312 of 2004 are not included in the said list of 29 (twenty nine) candidates and their prayer in the writ petition W. P. (C) No. 312 of 2005 is for a direction to the Respondents to declare the result of the Waiting List of the said DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999. 7. The Government of Manipur also had taken the policy decision under office memorandum being No. 12/13/92-AQ/DP(Pt) Imphal the 24th September. 2005 that the state Govt. has decided to fill up the posts held by the direct recruit employees involved in the court cases under different departments on regular basis through DPC subject to certain conditions. From the said office memorandum dated 24.9.2005 it is clear that the Govt. of Manipur has partially lifted the ban on direct recruitment. The 5 (five) writ Petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 604 of 2006 who are the ad hoc Veterinary Field Assistant and also the selected candidates as per the result of the said duly constituted DPC meeting held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 had filed the writ petition for a direction to the Respondents to appoint them to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant on regular basis in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur as recommended by the DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 and the writ Petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 453 and W.P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 also sought for the same reliefs. 8. of Manipur as recommended by the DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 and the writ Petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 453 and W.P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 also sought for the same reliefs. 8. It may be pertinent to mention that in the writ petitions, i.e. W. P. (C) No 663 of 2004, this Court passed an interim order dated 5.1.2005 that "validity of the select list involved in the present case for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant shall not expire till the final disposal of the present writ petition." In W. P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 the state Respondents filed their affidavit-in-op-position admitting that meeting of a duly constituted DPC was held from 15th to 19th June. 1999 for selection of candidates for appointment to 29 (twenty nine) substantive vacancies to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services. Manipur on the requisition made by the Director of Veterinary & A. H. Services. Govt. of Manipur with the approval of the Govt. of Manipur under his letter dated 25.5.1999 to all the Employment Exchange Officers of the Govt. of Manipur for sponsoring eligible candidates. The Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, further, stated that the result of the DPC was declared as per the order of the High Court to avoid contempt proceedings against the concerned officials and the Government in its wisdom may decide to fill up and not to fill up the posts subject to economic policy decision of the government from time to time. 9. The writ Petitioners of W. P. (C) No. 453 of 2004, W. P. (C) No, 663 of 2004 and W P. (C) No. 604 of 2006 filed their additional affidavit in support of their cases that the Govt. of Manipur had appointed the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Medical Officers in the Health Department. Govt. of Manipur and also that the result of the selection process for appointment to the post of Medical Officers in the Health Department was also announced in the manner similar with the present writ Petitioners. The Govt. of Manipur announced the result of the said DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 as per the direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in different writ petitions and also that the said selected candidates for the post of Medical Officers. The Govt. of Manipur announced the result of the said DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 as per the direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in different writ petitions and also that the said selected candidates for the post of Medical Officers. I.e. MHS Grade-IV to the Health Department were also appointed under different orders, i.e. orders dated 6.10.2001 and 19.11.2001. while there was ban on direct recruitment in compliance with the direction of the Court. The State Respondents did not file any affidavit-in-reply denying these facts made by the writ Petitioners in their additional affidavit. 10. Such being the situation, the only case of the state Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition is that the Government in its wisdom may decide to fill up or not to fill up the posts subject to the economic policy decision of the Government from time to time. In support of their contentions, the state Respondents did not give any reason and circumstances under which the Government had exercised their wisdom not to fill up the said 29 (twenty nine) substantive vacancies in the post of Veterinary Field Assistant for which the said duly constituted DPC had already held its meeting from 15th to 19th June, 1999 and tested the number of eligible candidates including the present writ Petitioners of the W. P (C) No. 453 of 2004.W. P. (C) No. 604 of 2006. W. P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 and W. P. (C) No. 312 of 2005 and found 29 (twenty nine) of them qualified and included in the select list consisting of 29 (twenty nine) candidates notified under the said notification dated 17.3.2004 issued by the Director of Veterinary and A. H. Services, Govt. of Manipur. 11. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 held that ordinarily notification for appointment to the vacancy in the post or/in the service of the government merely amount to an informative to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to be posts. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the state is not under legal duty to fill up any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the state has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the state is not under legal duty to fill up any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the state has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the state. is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test and no discrimination can be permitted. The ratio laid down by the (C/B) of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Desh v. Union of India (Supra) are that the selected candidates do not acquire any right to the post; but the decision of the State Government not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons and state cannot act in an arbitrary manner in taking decision not to fill up the vacancies. 12. The Apex Court again in Govt. of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 375 is of the similar view that mere empanelment or inclusion one's name in the select list does not give him a right to be appointed. So also if the government decided not to make further appointment for a valid reason, it cannot be said that it has been acted arbitrary by not appointing those whose names are included in the select list, whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary does not open to the tribunal to interfere with such decision of the government and direct it to make further appointment. This well settled position of law regarding the rights of the selected candidates to the post advertised in the notification for appointment and also the power of the government not to fill up the vacancies by appointing the selected candidates cannot be questioned in the present writ petition. But what this Court has to decide in the present writ petitions are that the decision of the government not to fill up the present 29 (twenty nine) substantive vacancies in the post of Veterinary Field Assistant for which advertisement had already been made and for those vacancies 29 (twenty nine) candidates had already been selected by the duly constituted selection committee in its meeting held from 15th to 19th June. 1999. had been taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in Ibrahim Ali and Ors. v. State of Assam, 2000 (3) GLT 382 had discussed the right of the selected candidates and also the selection of the candidates by the Selection Committee for appointment to the posts of Field Assistant in the Animal, Husbandary and Veterinary Department, Govt. of Assam during the ban period. In that case the case of the state Respondents for not appointing the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Field Assistant in the Animal, Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Govt. of Assam was that the list of the selected candidates, i.e. list of 1996 was prepared during the subsistence of an embargo on appointment imposed by the state government and list was not approved by the competent authority and in addition to that fresh advertisement had been issued as the trained candidates of subsequent bases should also be given a chance to complete for the available posts. The Division Bench of this Court in that case, i.e. Ibrahim Ali (Supra), held that the reasons given for not appointing the selected candidates by the State Govt., i.e. the state of Assam, do not inspire this Court to conclude that the state government is justified in taking a decision to go for fresh selection. And failure to take action by the concerned authority and government after preparation of the select list in the selection held in 1996 is totally arbitrary and devoid of any substantial reasons, Paras-3 and 10 of the GLT in Ibrahim Ali and Ors. v. State of Assam (supra) are quoted below: 3. The Respondent State in their affidavit-in-opposition advanced reasons to justify the above deprivation. According to the State, the list of 1996 was prepared during the subsistence of an embargo on appointment imposed by the State Government and the said list was not approved by the competent authority; in addition, the State also pleaded that the fresh advertisement was issued as the trained candidates of subsequent batches should also be given a chance to complete for the available posts. 10. The last point argued by the learned State counsel that empanelment of names do not confer any right on the selected candidates to get appointment. 10. The last point argued by the learned State counsel that empanelment of names do not confer any right on the selected candidates to get appointment. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash, Appellant v. Union of India Respondent, (1991) 3 SCC 47 in order to show that the selected candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. The same ratio is also available in Government of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das and Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 487 . There cannot be any dispute as to the position of law in this behalf. But in order to defeat the claim of the selected candidates, the Government must come out with adequate reasons. The reasons available in this case, as discussed above, do not inspire this Court to conclude that the State Government is justified in taking a decision to go for fresh selection. It is pertinent to mention here that failure to take action by the concerned authorities and the Government after preparation of the select list in the selection held in 1996 is totally arbitrary and devoid of any sustainable reason. 14. This Court in Lourembam Ibemhal Devi v. State of Manipur, 2000 (3) GLT 545 had considered the memorandum issued by the government for imposing ban on direct recruitment and also the office memorandum of the Government of Manipur dated 29.4.1999 wherein it is stated that validity of the panel would be one year six months and held that refusal for appointment of the selected candidates merely on the ground of expiry of the validity of panel is arbitrary and directed the state Respondents to issue formal letter of appointment to the writ Petitioner within 2 (two) months. Again, this Court in Kh. Robindro Singh and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors., 2001 (2) GLT 26 had considered the decision of the state Govt. of Manipur not to appoint the selected candidates to the posts of Junior Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons (MHS Grade-IV) on the ground of financial crunch and expiry of the validity of the select list during the pendency of the writ petition. v. State of Assam and Ors., 2001 (2) GLT 26 had considered the decision of the state Govt. of Manipur not to appoint the selected candidates to the posts of Junior Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons (MHS Grade-IV) on the ground of financial crunch and expiry of the validity of the select list during the pendency of the writ petition. This Court in that case held that there cannot be denial for appointment of the selected candidates merely on the ground of expiry of the validity of the select list during the pendency of the writ petition and also the decision of the Govt. of Manipur not to appoint the selected candidates due to financial crunch do not inspire this Court on the materials available on record to conclude that the decision of the Govt. of Manipur for not appointing the selected candidates is justified. The facts of the case in Kh. Robindro Singh and Ors. (Supra) are spelt out in para-6 of the judgment and the decisions of the court are mentioned in paras 12, 13,14 and 15. For easy reference, the said paras-6 12, 13, 14 and 15 are quoted below: 6. The case of the Respondent State is that due to acute financial constrain/cruch. Govt. has taken a policy decision to impose a ban on direct recruitment and they have also singed a Memorandum of Understanding on 1.4.1999 with Central Government for imposing complete ban for improving financial position of the State. The Govt. has also constituted a Committee for the purpose. In para 5 of the affidavit it is stated that: Necessary steps will be taken as per permission of existing rules and policy decision of the Govt. taken from time to time in this regard after the ban is lifted. It is contended by the learned AG that imposition of ban on recruitment to maintain fiscal discipline is a policy decision of the State Govt. and as such, court should not give directions. The learned AG has placed reliance of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Tech. Executive (Anti Pollution) Welfare Association v. Commission of Transport Department and Anr. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 38 and observation of this Court in the case of Ibrahim Ali and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2000 (3) GLT 382. 12. Executive (Anti Pollution) Welfare Association v. Commission of Transport Department and Anr. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 38 and observation of this Court in the case of Ibrahim Ali and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2000 (3) GLT 382. 12. A submission has also been made that Health Service is an "essential service" under the Manipur Essential Service Maintenance Act and as such, the State Govt. is duty bound to keep it running smoothly. Against the Cadre strength of 302 +, at present there is a clear vacancy of 160 posts, against which the Government is required to appoint 121 persons only. Quoting from their records. Ld. counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that there is acute shortage of Doctors in the medical Institutional in rural and hill areas and the people are suffering in absence of basic medical facilities. People have been even resorted to agitation, road blockade and other forms protests. 13. It is well known that empanelment in Select list does not give any indefeasible right to appointment, but this is not a simple case of empenelment only. There are court directions and undertaking given by the Respondent State before the court. 14. In view of the aforesaid and considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the State of Manipur is duty bound to provide appointment to the selected candidates in order to merit/performance given by the Commission. There are existing vacancies against which they can be appointed. Keeping in mind the financial constraint, some lee way is given to the Respondent State by allowing them time to make the appointments, which may be done, it is desired by the Respondents, in phased manner. The process shall however to be completed on before 2nd August, 2001. 15. All the three writ petitions stands disposed of with the direction to State of Manipur to make appointments of the regularly selected candidates within the time frame. No costs. Head Shri Ashok Potsangbam, Sr. Advocate, Shri I. Lalitkumar and Shri K. Bipin Chandra Sharma, for the Petitioners and Shri T. Nandakumar, Advocate General, Manipur for the Respondents. 15. 15. All the three writ petitions stands disposed of with the direction to State of Manipur to make appointments of the regularly selected candidates within the time frame. No costs. Head Shri Ashok Potsangbam, Sr. Advocate, Shri I. Lalitkumar and Shri K. Bipin Chandra Sharma, for the Petitioners and Shri T. Nandakumar, Advocate General, Manipur for the Respondents. 15. The Apex court in State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj, (2000) 3 SCC 699 held that claim of a candidate included in the panel cannot be defeated merely because currency of the penal expired during the pendency of the litigation when there are vacancies are available for making appointment and also because writ petition was filed during the currency of the penal. Para 10 of SCC in State of U.P. v. Ram Swamp Saroj (supra) reads follows: 10. Similarly, the plea that a list of selected candidates for appointment to the State services remains valid for a period of one year only is primarily a question depending on facts and yet the plea was not raised before the High Court. Secondly, we find that the select list was finalized in the month of November 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the Respondent in the month of October 1997, i.e., before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the Respondent has been found entitled by the High Court. We may place on record that during the course of hearing of the SLP before this Court, on 29.9.1999 we had directed the learned Additional advocate General for the State of U.P. to bring on record on affidavit the status of present recruitment of the judicial officers and the present vacancy position in the subordinate judiciary. In the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, State Government, Uttar Pradesh sworn in on 4.11.1999 and filed before this Court it is stated that as on 14.10.1999 there were 231 vacancies existing in the cadre of Munsif Magistrates (now Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrates). That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 16. That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 16. In the present case the writ petitions in W.P. (C) No. 453 of 2004 and W.P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 were filed during the currency of the penal i.e. the select list consisting of 29 (twenty nine) selected candidates including the present writ Petitioners notified under the said notification dated 17.3.2004 and also this Court had passed an interim order dated 2.2.2005 in W.P. (C) No. 453 of 2004 that validity of the select list shall not expire till the disposal of the writ petition. 17. The Apex Court is of the similar view in Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chairman, School Service Commission and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 289 that there cannot be denial of appointment to the selected candidates merely on the ground that the currency of the penal list expired when the vacancies are still existing. Para-8 of the SCC in Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chairman, School Service Commission and Ors. (supra) reads as follows: 8. Appellant 1 belongs to the OBC Category. For reasons best known to the Respondents, even though the life of the panel for General Category has been extended to 2.2.2002, the same has not been done for the panel of the OBC Category. It has been pointed out to us that in the OBC Category there were vacancies, yet Appellant 1 was not appointed and the panel was allowed to lapse. We see no justification for not appointing Appellant 1 when vacancies were available. We also see no justification for not extending the panel life of the OBC Category. We, therefore, direct that Appellant 1 be appointed against the vacancies which are available in the OBC Category. 18. To the contra, Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned G. A. had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Harichandra and Ors. We, therefore, direct that Appellant 1 be appointed against the vacancies which are available in the OBC Category. 18. To the contra, Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned G. A. had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Harichandra and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 7173 wherein the Apex Court held that no writ of mandamus could be issued directing the government to appoint the selected candidates as currency of the select list would be one year mom the date of selection in view of Rule 26 of the recruitment rules inasmuch as the select list of the year 1987 became inoperative after the lapse of one year from the date of selection and also vacancies did not exist at the time when they approached the High Court by filing the writ petitions. The learned Govt. Advocate also further referred to the decisions of this Court in Hemchandra Barthakur v. State of Assam and Ors., 2000(1) GLT 310wherein this Court held that mere empanelment in the select list does not confer any right to be appointed and also the court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the government to make further appointment. In that case there are some disputes about the select list in which the names of the Petitioners appear and also that the selected candidates had already been appointed according to the state Respondents and also the only prayer of the Petitioners in that cases is for a direction to the state Respondents for further appointment. The learned G. A. also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Govt. of Orissa v. Hariprasad Das (supra). The decision of the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the cases in State of U.R and Ors. v. Hariprasad Das and Ors. (supra) and Govt. The learned G. A. also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Govt. of Orissa v. Hariprasad Das (supra). The decision of the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of the cases in State of U.R and Ors. v. Hariprasad Das and Ors. (supra) and Govt. of Orissa v. Harichandra (supra) and also the decision of this Court in Hemchandra Barthakur v. State of Assam will not help the case of the state Respondents inasmuch as in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and materials including the said notification dated 17.3.2004 available on record do not inspire this Court to conclude that non-appointment of the writ Petitioners of W. P. (C) No. 453 of 2004, W. P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 and W. P. (C) 604 of 2006 on the wisdom of the government even though the said 29 (twenty nine) substantive vacancies in the post of Vety. Field Assistant in the Vety. and Animal Husbandary Services, Department Govt. of Manipur are still available and also the other grounds for non-appointment of the selected candidates because of financial crunch without any reasons for justification are justified. Justification for non-appointment of the selected candidate on financial ground run contra to the said office memorandum of the Govt. of Manipur dated 24.9.2005 under which the state Govt. of Manipur has decided to fill up the posts held by direct recruits on ad hoc basis involved in the cases in different departments on regular basis through DPC subject.to certain conditions mentioned therein. Further the condition in the said notification dated 17.3.2004 issued by the Respondent No. 3 is that no offer for appointment is to be made on account of ban on direct recruitment by the Govt. 19. Having regards to the above discussions and peculiar facts and circumstance the state Respondents are directed to appoint the writ Petitioners of W. P. (C) No. 453 of 2004, W.P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 and W. P. (C) No. 604 of 2006 who are admittedly tested by the duly constituted Selection Committee/DPC for appointment to 29 (twenty nine) substantive vacancies in pursuance of the said requisition letter dated 25.5.1999 issued by the Director of Very. & A. H. Services, Govt. of Manipur with the approval of the Govt. & A. H. Services, Govt. of Manipur with the approval of the Govt. of Manipur to all the Employment Exchange Officer of Manipur and found qualified and included in the list of the selected candidates consisting of 29 candidates under the said notification dated 17.3.2004 issued by the Director of Vety. & A. H. Services, Govt. of Manipur in compliance with the judgment and order of this Court dated 24.1.2003 passed in W. P. (C) No. 941 of 2002 as soon as the ban on direct recruitment to the posts/services of the Govt. of Manipur is lifted. Further, even before lifting ban on direct recruitment, the writ Petitioners of W. P. (C) No. 406 of 2006, who are the ad hoc Vety. Field Assistant, and if they are still continuing, may be considered for regularization as follow up action of the said office memorandum of the Govt. of Manipur dated 24.9.2005 as they are included in the selected candidates prepared by the duly constituted selection committee for regular appointment to the post/service of the Govt. of Manipur. 20. In the result, W. P. (C) No. 453 of 2004, W. P. (C) No. 663 of 2004 and W. P. (C) No. 604 of 2006 are allowed with the above directions. W.P. (C) No. 312 of 2005 wherein relief for a direction to the state Respondents to declare the result of the Waiting list of the DPC held from 15th to 19th June, 1999 for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur sought for is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. 21. Parties are to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed