Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 777 (GAU)

K. Dhananjoy Singh v. State of Manipur

2010-09-29

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. These three writ petitions (1) No. 961 of 2000, (2) No. 1420 of 2001 and (3) No. 1129 of 2005, relating to the same subject matter and filed basing on the similar facts and circumstances as well as law, are heard jointly for being disposed of by a common judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned GA appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. For avoiding repetition of facts leading to filing of the writ petitions, facts of WP (C) No. 1129 of 2005, which will be sufficient for deciding the matter in issue, are briefly noted. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 4. The 3 (three) writ Petitioners namely, (1) Shri K. Dhananjoy Singh, (2) Shrl Thangjam Surchandra Singh, (3) Shri Ningombam Biren Singh and (4) Shri S. Singhajit Singh, were appointed as Civil Supply Inspectors in the Directorate of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Manipur vide orders, dated 10.03.2000, 30.03.2000, 30.01.1999 and 14.12.1998 on ad hoc basis for a period of less than three months subject to the condition that vacancies have to be notified to the Employment Exchange and selections have to be made after convening a meeting of the DPC under the Recruitment Rules of Civil Supply Inspectors. The said initial appointment of the Petitioners on ad hoc basis were in accordance with the guide lines laid down in the office memorandum dated 26.07.1999 issued by the Government of Manipur, in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 02.07.1996 in C.R. No. 487 of 1996. The guidelines and principles laid down in the said office memorandum dated 26.07.1996 are that the recruitment to the posts of Class-Ill and IV posts, in order to meet the exigency of service shall be for a period of less than three months, subject to the condition that vacancies have to be notified to the Employment Exchange and selections have to be made after convening a meeting of the DPC under the Recruitment Rules. 5. In compliance with the said memorandum dated 26.07.1996 the Director, FCS, Government of Manipur made requisition to the Employment Exchange for regular appointment to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors; and the Petitioners and others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the said posts. 5. In compliance with the said memorandum dated 26.07.1996 the Director, FCS, Government of Manipur made requisition to the Employment Exchange for regular appointment to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors; and the Petitioners and others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the said posts. The Director, FCS, vide notification No. 1/599/94-DFCS, Sangaiprou, the 27.10.1999 notified for general information of all the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges of Manipur for recruitment to the post of Civil Supplies Inspectors in the Directorate of Food & Civil Supplies, Manipur that the interview for selection of candidates proposed to be held on 22.09.1999 was re-scheduled from 04.11.1999 to 15.11.1999; and the Petitioners and others appeared before the Selection Committee and; since then, the Petitioners have been waiting for declaration of the DPC result. 6. Under the office memorandum dated 20.05.1982, issued by the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Imphal; (i) the result of the DPC meeting for selection of candidates for appointment to Class-Ill and Class-IV posts should be announced on the concluding day of the DPC meeting; (ii) the result of the DPC, if for some unavoidable reasons cannot be announced on the concluding day, a specific approval for postponement of the announcement of the result should be obtained from the Chief Secretary and (iii) but for issuance of the appointment order of the selected candidates, on the result of the Class-Ill and IV DPC meeting, the proceeding of the meeting should be approved by the Minister concerned prior to the issue of appointment orders. For delay in declaration of the result of DPC for appointment to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors held from 5th November to 15th November, 1999, Petitioners approached this Court by filing W. P. (C) No. 961 of 2000 against the Respondents for a direction to finalise the DPC held pursuant to the said notification dated 27.10.1999 for regular appointment to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors and also for a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners on priority basis for appointment to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors on regular basis. 7. 7. The Director, Food & Civil Supplies, under his letter being No. l/7/81-DFCS(PT-1), Sangaiprou dated 29.03.2000 submitted the proceedings of the said DPC for recruitment of the Civil Supply Inspectors held on 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 24th and 25th of November, 1999 and 27th, 28th and 29th March 2000 for favour of approval and further necessary action. For easy reference the said letter of the Director, Food & Civil Supplies, Manipur dated 29.03.2000 (Annexure-A/7 to WP (C) No. 1129 of 2005) is quoted hereunder: Government of Manipur Directorate of Food and Civil Supplies: Manipur No. 1/7/8 l-DFCS(PT-l) Sangaiprou, 29th, March 2000 To The Secretary (FCS) Govt of Manipur. Sub: Proceeding of the DPC Meeting for recruitment of C Sts. Sir, I am to invite a reference to the above and to submit herewith proceeding of the DPC Meeting for recruitment of CSI held on 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 24th and 25th of November, 1999 and 27th, 28th and 29th March 2000 in the Office of the undersigned for favour of approval and further necessary action. Encl. As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Y. Thamkishore Singh) Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Manipur. 8. The Government of Manipur under letter of the Deputy Secretary (FCS), being No. 5/7/84-FCS dated 5th March, 2001 addressed to the Director/FCS, Manipur, conveyed the approval of the Government to the said proceeding of the DPC meeting for recruitment of Civil Supply Inspectors with the condition that appointment order may be issued only when the present ban on direct recruitment is lifted by the Government. The said letter of the Deputy Secretary (FCS), Govt of Manipur is quoted hereunder: No. 5/7/84-FCS GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: FOOD &CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT Imphal, the 5th March, 2001. To The Director/FCS, Manipur. Sub: Proceeding of the DPC Meeting for recruitment of CS Is. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. 1/7/81-DVCS (Pt 1) dated 29th March 2000 on the above subject and convey the approval of the Govt to the proposed proceeding of the DPC Meeting for recruitment of CS Is. However, the appointment order may please be issued only when the present ban on direct recruitment is lifted by the Govt. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M. Yaiskul Meetei), Deputy Secretary (FCS), Govt of Manipur. 9. The Petitioner Nos. However, the appointment order may please be issued only when the present ban on direct recruitment is lifted by the Govt. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M. Yaiskul Meetei), Deputy Secretary (FCS), Govt of Manipur. 9. The Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP (C) No. 34 of 2000 praying for a direction to the Respondents to consider their cases for regular appointment and also for not dispensing with their services pending consideration of their case for regularisation. The said writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2000 with the direction that (A) If the Petitioners are still serving and their services are required as indicated in the letter dt. 21.1.2000 of the Director. F.C.S., Manipur. their services shall be extended and they shall be paid for the period that they have served till the post are filled up on regular basis; (B) The posts held by the Petitioners on ad hoc basis shall be filled up on regular basis as soon as the assembly elections are over and the ban imposed is lifted; (C) Till the posts are filled up on regular basis, the Petitioner shall not be replaced by another ad hoc appointees; and (D) When the posts are filled up on regular basis, the case of the Petitioners shall also be considered along with the other eligible candidates. The Petitioner No. 2 also approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 614 of 2001 in which the Court passed interim order dated 19.04.2001 for not dispensing with the service of the Petitioner until further order. 10. The Petitioner No. 2 also approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 614 of 2001 in which the Court passed interim order dated 19.04.2001 for not dispensing with the service of the Petitioner until further order. 10. As there were many cases of non issuance of appointment orders in favour of the candidates who had been declared successful in the DPC and also the candidates recommended by the DPC which had already been completed, because of ban on direct recruitment, the concerned authorities of the Department of Personnel, under letter of the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, being No. 3/14/2005-DP (DR) dated 02.09.2005 requested the Additional Chief Secretary and all Principal Secretaries/Commissioners/Secretaries of the Government of Manipur to furnish information as to whether there are any post (s) to be filled up by direct recruitment recommended by MPSC and other competent DPC but not yet been issued appointment order due to ban on direct recruitment; and the required-information may be furnished under the duly filled up prescribed format so as to reach the Department of Personnel on or before 12.09.2005. The letter of the Under Secretary (DP), Govt, of Manipur dated 02.09.2005 read as follows: No. 3/14/2005-DO(DR) Government of Manipur Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) Imphal, the 2nd September, 2005 To 1) The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur; 2) All principal Secretaries/Commissioners/Secretaries , Government of Manipur. Subject: Cases of direct recruitment recommended by MPSC and other DPC which has already been declared. Sir, I am directed to request you kindly to furnish whether there are any post (s) to be filled up by direct recruitment recommended by MPSC and other competent DPC but not vet been issued appointment order due to ban on direct recruitment in your department. The required information may please be furnished duly filled in the prescribed format enclosed herewith so as to reach the same to this Department on or before 12.09.2005 respectively. Encl. As above Yours faithfully, Sd/- (K.C. Laishram) Under Secretary (DP) Government of Manipur. 11. The Food & Civil Supplies Department, under letter of the Under Secretary (FCS), Government of Manipur being No. 5/7/84-FCS dated 03.10.2005 furnished the information to the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, in prescribed format in respect of the Food & Civil Supplies Department, Manipur for necessary action. 11. The Food & Civil Supplies Department, under letter of the Under Secretary (FCS), Government of Manipur being No. 5/7/84-FCS dated 03.10.2005 furnished the information to the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, in prescribed format in respect of the Food & Civil Supplies Department, Manipur for necessary action. Under the said letter of the Under Secretary, (FCS), Government of Manipur dated 03.10.2005, the Department of Personnel, Government of Manipur had been clearly informed that altogether 1345 candidates including the present writ Petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, out of whom only 100 candidates including the Petitioners appeared before the said DPC for appointment to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors and also four posts of Civil Supply Inspectors for which DPC was held were no,t included in the down sizing or right sizing of different posts in the Food & Civil Supplies Department; and also that the present Petitioners were recommended candidates. In the letter it is also specifically mentioned that there is an order from the High Court for not to oust their ad hoc services i.e., from the posts presently held by them. For easy reference, the said letter of the Under Secretary (FCS), Government of Manipur and the duly filled up format are quoted hereunder: No. 5/7/84-FCS Government of Manipur Secretariat: FCS Department Imphal, the 3rd October, 2005 To The Under Secretary (DP) Government of Manipur. Subject: Cases of direct recruitment recommended by MPSC and Other DP Cs which has already been declared. Sir, I am directed to refer to your Letter No. 3/14/2005-DP (DR) dated 2nd September, 2005 on the above subject and to send herewith the required information in the prescribed format enclosed herewith in respect of Food & Civil Supplies Department, Manipur for taking further necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (N. Pratap Singh) Under Secretary (FCS), Government of Manipur. Copy to: the Director (FCS), Manipur for information. Sl. No. Name of candidates Name of post Scale of pay Recommended by Date of recommendation and No. of order Remarks MP SC Other DPC (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1. ShriSh. Singhajit Singh, Wangoi Civil Supply Inspector (Gr. III) Rs.4500-125-7000 No. DPC No. 1/7/8 1-DFCS and No. 5/7/8 4-FCS dtd. 5.3.01 The FCS Deptt. had requisitioned candidates from Employment Exchange for filling up four vacant posts of Civil Supply Inspectors against the direct recruitment quota in the year 1999. ShriSh. Singhajit Singh, Wangoi Civil Supply Inspector (Gr. III) Rs.4500-125-7000 No. DPC No. 1/7/8 1-DFCS and No. 5/7/8 4-FCS dtd. 5.3.01 The FCS Deptt. had requisitioned candidates from Employment Exchange for filling up four vacant posts of Civil Supply Inspectors against the direct recruitment quota in the year 1999. Altogether 1345 candidates were recommended by Employment Exchange out of them only 100 candidates were present in the DPC. 4 (four) ad hoc CSI which are in Col. 2 were recommended by the DPC held on 27,28 and 29th March 2000. The proceedings of the DPC were approved by the Govt. and the Dir(FCS) was asked to issue appointment order when ban on direct recruitment has been lifted by the Govt. The post held by these ad hoc CSI were not included in downsizing order. Moreover, there is an order from the High Court not to oust their ad hoc service from the post presently held by them 2. Shri K. Dha-nanjoy Singh, Saw-ombung -do- -do- -do- -do- 3. Shri N. Biren Singh, Pung-dongbam -do- -do- -do- -do- 4. ShriTh. Surchandra Singh, Nongren -do- -do- -do- -do- Government of Manipur Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 24th September, 2005 Subject: Ad hoc appointments involved in Court cases-Filling up posts on regular basis. No. l2/13/92-AQ/DP (Pt): The undersigned is directed to say that the State Government has decided to fill up the posts held by direct recruit ad hoc employees involved in Court cases in the different departments on regular basis through DPC subject to the following conditions: (1) The Department shall verify whether the post held by the direct recruit ad hoc employee is clearly vacant and not included in the downsizing; (2) If the post held by the ad hoc direct recruit employee is clearly vacant, not included in the downsizing and falls under direct recruitment quota, the post shall be filled up by direct recruitment through regular DPC within 6 (six) months by following the rules/instructions laid down by the Government. Proper reservations for SC/ST as roster points should be kept in view while filling up the post; (3) In case, the ad hoc direct recruit employee was appointed against a clear vacancy meant for promotion, such vacancy shall be filled up by promotion through DPC within 6 (six) months; (4) The terms of the ad hoc direct recruit employees shall be extended by the Administrative Department for a period of 6 (six) months with effect from the date of issue of the O. M. or till the posts/vacancies are filled up on regular basis as stated in para (2) and (3) whichever is earlier. The Administrative Department shall ensure that the posts held by the ad hoc direct recruit incumbents are filled up on regular basis within the time frame of six months from the date of issue of this O.M. Under no circumstances, the term of ad hoc direct recruit incumbents shall be allowed to continue beyond the said period of six months. (5) The ban on direct recruitment is relaxed insofar as the filling up of the above mentioned posts/vacancies are concerned. (6) The period of service rendered by the incumbent ad hoc direct recruit incumbents shall be relaxed for reckoning of his/her upper age limit for the purpose of regular filling up the post held by him/her on ad hoc basis through regular DPC. This age relaxation in respect of the ad hoc direct recruitments shall not be made applicable for the direct recruitment to other posts/service; (7) Extension of service of the direct recruit ad hoc incumbents for the period proceeding the date of issue of this O.M. would require the concurrence of DP and the payment of the arrears of pay/salaries shall be decided separately after the financial implications are worked out and duty certificates are furnished to the Department of Personnel by the Department concerned. While sending proposals in this regard the concerned Administrative Department shall clearly indicate the availability of fund in their budget for payment of the arrears of pay/salaries to the ad hoc direct recruit incumbents. (8) This O.M. shall not be made applicable to those cases where appropriate orders had been passed by the Courts for discontinuance of the services of the concerned direct recruit ad hoc employees. (8) This O.M. shall not be made applicable to those cases where appropriate orders had been passed by the Courts for discontinuance of the services of the concerned direct recruit ad hoc employees. This shall also not debar the Departments to file appeals/applications or pursue appeals/applications already filed in the Court for setting aside orders passed by the Single Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court restraining the State Government from terminating the services of direct recruit ad hoc employees. All the Administrative Departments and Heads of Departments are requested to take necessary action on the lines indicated above. Sd/- (Seikholet Lhangum) Under Secretary (DP) Government of Manipur. 12. The Petitioners have been uninterruptedly rendering service from the date of their initial appointments as Civil Supply Inspectors for more than ten years inasmuch as their ad hoc appointments had been protected by the said interim order of this Court; and also considering the exigency of service of the Petitioners, the State Government from time to time issued orders for extending the term of ad hoc appointments. The Under Secretary (CAF & PD), Government of Manipur, under his letter dated 3.6.2009 conveyed approval of the Government of Manipur to the extension of the term of appointment of the Petitioners for another period from 01.03.2008 to 30.11.2009. The Director (CAF & PD), Manipur also issued order dated 5.6.2009 extending the term of ad hoc appointment of the present Petitioners. Nobody disputes the facts of continuation of ad hoc service of the Petitioners as Civil Supply Inspectors. Admittedly, the Government of Manipur had already lifted the ban on direct recruitment to different posts of Government of Manipur, 13. The Director (CAF & PD), Manipur also issued order dated 5.6.2009 extending the term of ad hoc appointment of the present Petitioners. Nobody disputes the facts of continuation of ad hoc service of the Petitioners as Civil Supply Inspectors. Admittedly, the Government of Manipur had already lifted the ban on direct recruitment to different posts of Government of Manipur, 13. Even though the Petitioners are successful candidates, recommended for appointment to the said posts of Civil Supply Inspectors by the said DPC, which had already been approved with the condition that appointment orders may be issued only when the ban on direct recruitment is lifted by the Government of Manipur, vide said letter of the Government of Manipur dated 05.03.2001, which had been quoted above and also vide said letter of the Government of Manipur, Department of FCS dated 03.10.2005 had informed the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel that the Petitioners are successful candidates of the said DPC for the post of Civil Supply Inspectors, Respondents are not issuing appointment orders; and being aggrieved by such inaction of the Respondents, Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No. 1129 of 2005. 14. The State Respondents filed their affidavit in opposition in which they have not denied the fact that pursuant to the notification issued by the Director, FCS for regular appointment to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors, the DPC was held on 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 24th and 25th of November, 1999 and 27th, 28th and 29th March 2000 and also the proceedings of the said DPC had been approved with the condition to issue appointment orders only as and when the then existed ban on direct recruitment is lifted. The State Respondents are not denying the fact that the proceedings of the said DPC held from 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 24th and 25th of November 1999 and 27th, 28th and 29th March 2000 have not been cancelled as on the date of writing the said letter dated 03.10.2005 and also when the Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Manipur informed the Government of Manipur (DP), that the Petitioners are the selected or/recommended candidates of the said DPC. 15. 15. Even though the State Respondents did not deny the fact that the said DPC proceedings was/is not cancelled by the State Government in their affidavit in opposition, the State Respondents took the contradictory stand in their affidavit in opposition that the said DPC proceeding shall be treated as cancelled because of the order of Government of Manipur dated 19.03.2001 which was issued on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of India that the result of the DPC which have not been announced so far shall be treated as cancelled. The said order dated 19.03.2001 was issued as an austerity measure to meet the financial crunch of the Government of Manipur. In the said order itself it is clearly mentioned that any appointment made subsequent to the 19.04.1999 in compliance of the High Court order should be reviewed by the Committee, composition of which are mentioned therein and should move all the cases where the review is essential to the Commissioner (DP), Government of Manipur, on or before 30.04.2001; and direction of the High Court shall be complied with subject to the outcome of the review. The object and purport of issuing the said order dated 19.03.2001 is clear that it was only an austerity measure because of financial crunch of the State Government; and in nowhere of the order dated 19.03.2001 the consequence for not strictly complying with the directions had been mentioned. 16. The Petitioners also filed rejoinder affidavit, additional affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition filed by the State Respondents wherein the Petitioners had categorically stated that the State Respondents had not taken such contradictory stand in the writ petitions similar with the present writ petition relating with the DPC or/selection proceeding held before the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 19.03.2001 and also the selection or/DPC proceedings were not cancelled pursuant to the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 19.03.2001, but the appointment orders were not issued because of the ban order of Government of the Manipur on direct recruitment. In those writ petitions State Respondents did not take the plea that the said selection or/DPC proceeding held before 19.03.2001 even if not cancelled shall be treated as cancelled in their counter affidavit. In those writ petitions State Respondents did not take the plea that the said selection or/DPC proceeding held before 19.03.2001 even if not cancelled shall be treated as cancelled in their counter affidavit. This Court, in those writ petitions had passed different orders after coming to the finding that though the selection does not confer any indispensable right for appointment to the selected candidates, it does not mean that the State has the licence to act arbitrarily and there should be justifiable reason for the denial of appointment to the selected candidates, had directed the State Respondents for consideration of the selected candidates for regular appointment. On the basis of the said orders of this Court the State Government had passed different orders for appointment of the selected candidates by the Selection Proceedings or/DPC held before 19.03.2001. Some of the relevant appointment orders of Government of Manipur are reproduced hereunder: Government of Manipur Secretariat: Revenue Department MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 25th March, 2002 No. 3/10/98-Com(Rev)-Misc: WHEREAS, this Government issued letter No. 1/14/97-Com (Rev)-III dated 2.4.1998 thereby acquisitioning candidates for the posts of 34 (thirty four) Mandols through Employment Exchange, Manipur; and 2. WHEREAS, out of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange Screening was done through test, viva voce/personality-cum-suitability test held from the 31st May to 1st July, 1999 and candidates were recommended. However, the result could not be announced as the ban on direct recruitment and declaration of result was imposed vide Government orderNo.l4/16/95-DP(Pt)dated6.1 1.1999; and 3. WHEREAS, the Petitioner Association namely viz, All Manipur Mandol DPC faced candidates Association, 1999 filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. Imphal Bench being No. W.P. (C) No. 1007 of 2000 thereby praying for declaration of the result of the aforesaid DPC; and 4. WHEREAS, during the pendency of the said W. P. (C) No. 1007 of 2000 the Government issued order No. l/15/2000-PC dated 19.3.2001 thereby ordering that results of all DP Cs which have not been announced so far shall be treated as cancelled and similarly, recommendation of the DPC which have been notified but for which orders for appointment have not yet been issued shall treated as cancelled; and 5. WHEREAS, the said W.P. (C) No. 1007 of 2000 was disposed of vide order dated 27.8.2001 by the Hon'ble High Court's Order and the operative portion is reproduced below: This matter shall stand disposed of with a direction that the result of the DPC held on June and August 1999 shall be declared. However, ban shall not be a ground for declaration of the result of the DPC and if there are some difficulties they may approach this Court within a period of two months. Now, in view of above facts and circumstances and in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court's order dated 27.8.2001 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1007 of 2000,1, therefore, declare the list of the following 34 (thirty four) candidates as recommended by the said DPC. SI. No. Name Employment Exchange No. 1. H. Jayanda Singh PE/331/96 2... 3... 4... 34. Letpao Haokip (ST) 5647/94 Delay in publication of result caused due to the movement of files from higher rung to lower rung and from one Department to another, is highly regretted and same may be condoned. The declaration of this result does not ipso-facto create any right to any of the above listed candidates to claim employment in the Government and it is clarified that the publication is only for complying with the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Sd/- (Sambhu Singh) Commissioner (Revenue) Government of Manipur." Government of Manipur Secretariat: Health Department Orders by the Governor: Manipur Imphal, the 6th October, 2001 No.l/63/2000-M: In compliance of the order dated 20.3.1998 in CH. No. 753 E.O. No. 456/97, C.R. No. 809/97, order dated 8.5.98 passed in W.A. No. 51/98, Order dated 18.3.2001 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1449 of 2000, order dated 1.10.99 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 5695/99 and on be recommendation of the MPSC, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to appoint the following 76 (seventy six) candidates as Junior Medical Officers in the MHS Grade-IV of the Manipur Health Service, on temporary basis in the scale of pay Rs. 8000-275-13,500/- p.m. plus such allowances as are admissible under the rules with immediate effect subject to the Police Verification and medical fitness examination. They shall report immediately to the office of the Director, Manipur Health Services, Manipur. Their seniority shall be in accordance with the merit position of their commendation of the MPSC. Sl. No. Name of candidates 1. Dr. 8000-275-13,500/- p.m. plus such allowances as are admissible under the rules with immediate effect subject to the Police Verification and medical fitness examination. They shall report immediately to the office of the Director, Manipur Health Services, Manipur. Their seniority shall be in accordance with the merit position of their commendation of the MPSC. Sl. No. Name of candidates 1. Dr. Kh. SuchetaDevi 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... ... ... 76. Dr. Ksh. Memcha Devi (SC) They shall be on probation for a period of 2 (two) years. Order of their posting shall be issued separately. By orders & in the name of Governor Sd/- Henry K. Heni Commissioner (Health) Govt of Manipur." Government of Manipur Secretariat: Health Department Orders by the Governor: Manipur Imphal, the 19th November, 2001 No. 1/63/2000-M: In compliance of the order dated 20.3.1998 in C.R. No. 509/97, order dated 8.5.1998 passed in W.A. No. 51/98, order dated 8.3.2000 passed WA in WP (C) No. 1449 of 2000, order dated 18.5.2001 passed WA No. 415/2003/31/2001 and in pursuance of the order dated 1.10.99 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Passed in Civil Appeal No. 5695/99 and on the recommendation of the MPSC, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to appoint the following 12 (twelve) candidates as junior Medical Officers in the MHS Grade-IV of the Manipur Health Services, on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 8000-275-13-500/- p.m. plus such allowances as are admissible under the rules with immediate effect subject to the police verification and medical fitness examination. They shall report immediately to the office of the Director, Medical Health Services, Manipur. Their seniority shall be in accordance with the merit position of their commendation of the MPSC. Sl. No. Name of candidates 1. Dr. Th. Amusana Singh 2. Dr. Sunil Mamei (ST) 3... 4... ... ... 12. Dr. IndiraRaleng(ST) They shall be on probation for a period of 2 (two) years Order for their posting shall be issued separately. Their seniority shall be in accordance with the merit position of their commendation of the MPSC. Sl. No. Name of candidates 1. Dr. Th. Amusana Singh 2. Dr. Sunil Mamei (ST) 3... 4... ... ... 12. Dr. IndiraRaleng(ST) They shall be on probation for a period of 2 (two) years Order for their posting shall be issued separately. By orders & in the name of Governor Sd/- Henry K Heni Commissioner (Health), Govt of Manipur." Government of Manipur Secretariat: Agriculture Department orders by the governor: manipur Imphal, the 21th September, 2002 No. 30/28/2001-Agri: In pursuance of Government of Manipur, Finance Department (PIC) Order No. 16/21/2001-PIC (A) dated 11.07.2001 regarding downsizing of the staff of the departments under the State Government as a matter of policy of the Government necessitated by acute financial problem read with their letter issue necessary orders in this regard, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to abolish the following post (s) in the Agriculture Department, Manipur which are lying vacant (not being held on regular basis) as indicated against the column shown as under, as the first phase of downsizing with immediate effect. SI. No. Name of Post No. of Post Creation order No. and date (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Advisor(Agri) 1 (one) No. 4/13/71-6 (Agri dated 12.01.1978 2... 3... ... ... ... 10. Sub-Inspector (STAFF) 1 (one) By orders & in the name of Governor Sd/- Henry K Heni Commissioner (Agri), Govt of Manipur. 17. From the facts mentioned above, it is crystal clear that the Government of Manipur have not cancelled or treated as cancelled the said DPC for regular appointment to the post of Civil Supplies Inspectors held on 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 24th and 25th of November, 1999 and 27th, 28th and 29th March 2000 which recommended the present writ Petitioners (four in numbers) for regular appointment for the said four posts of Civil Supply Inspectors for which requisition notice had been issued by the Director, Food & Civil Supplies, Manipur to all the Employment Exchange and also widely circulated and also the Government of Manipur had already approved the said DPC proceedings with the condition that appointment orders shall be issued as and when ban on direct recruitment is lifted. The State Respondents under the said letter dated 02.09.2005 clearly admitted that there are recommended or/selected candidates by competent DPC but not yet issued appointment orders due to ban on direct recruitment and, accordingly, directed all the Principal Secretary/Commissioners/Secretary of the Government of Manipur to inform the Government of Manipur (DP) in the prescribed format the pending list of selected candidates or/candidates recommended by the competent DPC. No reasons justifying denial of appointment to the present Petitioners are discernible from record, save and except that because of the said order of Government of Manipur dated 19.03.2001, appointment orders for appointing the Petitioners to the post of Civil Supply Inspectors, are not issued; and in the given case it is hard to accept such contradictory stand of the State Government. 18. As discussed above, it is clear from the records that the object and purport of issuing the said order dated 19.03.2001 is only an austerity measure to meet the financial crunch and the effect of non compliance of the order is not contemplated in the order itself. The Government itself had taken that the direction mentioned in the said order dated 19.03.2001 are only directory and not mandatory inasmuch as the feet mentioned above, i.e. the actions taken by the State Government for appointment of the candidates recommended by the DPC held before 19.03.2001 but appointment order could not be issued because of the ban on direct recruitment will show clearly that the said order dated 19.03.2001 is only directory. 19. The Apex Court in Mohan Kumar Lai v. Vinoba Bhave University and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 704 held that new policy or law will not apply to the actions taken prior to introduction of the new policy decision or law. Para 2 of the SCC in Mohan Kumar Lal's case (supra) read as follows: 2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Service Commission could ignore the decision to make reservation policy applicable in respect of an appointment to the post, which was advertised on 10.1.1990, and the last date for submission of the application was 30.1.1990. The High Court in the impugned judgment is of the view that since appointments had not factually been made, the reservation policy would apply. The High Court in the impugned judgment is of the view that since appointments had not factually been made, the reservation policy would apply. As it transpires, the provisions of Section 57, which governs the field, did not contain any clause for reservation and Sub-section (5) of the said Section 57 providing for reservation was introduced only on 22.8.1993. In this view of the matter in respect of the post advertised for which the process of recruitment had been initiated, the reservation policy could not have been made applicable. The impugned judgment of the High Court was, therefore, erroneous, and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and hold that the reservation policy pursuant to the amended provision of Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of the Act, will not apply to the present case. 20. The Apex Court in Changdi Ram v. University of Rajasthan: (2001) 10 SCC 556 is of similar view that new decision of the Government or/authority under which filing up the post of Programme Officer could only be made with the permission of the Government of Rajasthan, will not be applicable for filing up the post of Programme Officer for which process for regular appointment had already been started. 21. The Apex Court in a catena of cases decided whether an order/statute is mandatory or directory depends on the purpose for which the order/statute intend to achieve as disclosed by the object, design, purpose and scope of the statute. The Apex Court in Ram Deen Maurya (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 735 held that for deciding an order or statute is mandatory or not, it is required to construe strictly the effect of non compliance. When the consequence effect not provided it could be treated as directory. Admittedly, in the present case, in the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 19.03.2001, the consequence or effect of non compliance is not provided and it was issued only an austerity measure for lessening the financial crunch of the State Government. Para 43 of the SCC in Ram Deen Maurya's case (supra) read as follows: 43. To answer this issue, it is necessary to find out, whether the Rule is directory or mandatory. Para 43 of the SCC in Ram Deen Maurya's case (supra) read as follows: 43. To answer this issue, it is necessary to find out, whether the Rule is directory or mandatory. If it is mandatory, then it is settled rule of interpretation, it must be strictly construed and followed and an act done in breach thereof will be invalid. But if it is directory, the act will be valid although the non-compliance may give rise to some other penalty if provided by the statute. It is often said that a mandatory enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but a directory provision non compliance with it, has been held in many cases as not affecting the validity of the act done in breach thereof (see Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th Edn. 2008 by Justice GP. Singh). 22. For deciding as to whether the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 19.03.2001 is mandatory or directory, as stated above, depend upon the purpose which the Government intend to achieve as disclosed by the object, design, purpose and scope of the order. We may also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in (1) Rubber House v. Excelsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1989) 2 SCC 413 and RT. Ranjan v. T.P.M. Sahir and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 498 . Para 31 of the SCC in M/s Rubber House's case (supra) read as follows: 31. The word "shall" in its ordinary import is obligatory. Nevertheless, the word "shall" need not be given that connotation in each and every case and the provisions can be interpreted as directory instead of mandatory depending upon the purpose which the legislature intended to achieve as disclosed by the object, design, purpose and scope of the statute. While interpreting the concerned provisions, regard must be had to the context, subject matter and object of the statute in question. Para 50 of the SCC in P.T. Ranjan P. T. Ranjan's case (supra) read as follows: 50. The Court cannot, it is trite, supply casus omissus. Reference in this regard may be made to Balram Waman Hiray (Dr.) v. Justice B. Lentin: (1988) 4 SCC 419 wherein it was observed: (SCC p. 443, para 27) 27. Law must be definite, and certain. The Court cannot, it is trite, supply casus omissus. Reference in this regard may be made to Balram Waman Hiray (Dr.) v. Justice B. Lentin: (1988) 4 SCC 419 wherein it was observed: (SCC p. 443, para 27) 27. Law must be definite, and certain. If any of the features of the law can usefully be regarded as normative, it is such basic postulates as the requirement of consistency in judicial decision-making. It is this requirement of consistency that gives to the law much of its rigour. At the same time, there is need for flexibility. Professor H.L.A. Hart regarded as one of the leading thinkers of our time observes in his influential book 'The Concept of Law', depicting the difficult task of a judge to strike a balance between certainty and flexibility: Where there is obscurity in the language of a statute, it results in confusion and disorder. No doubt the Courts so frame their judgments as to give the impression that their decisions are the necessary consequence of predetermined rules. In very simple cases it may be so; but in the vast majority of cases that trouble the Courts, neither statute nor precedents in which the rules are legitimately contained allow of only one result. In most important cases there is always a choice. The Judge has to choose between alternative meanings to be given to the words of a statute or between rival interpretations of what a precedent amounts to. It is only the tradition that judges 'find' and do not 'make' law that conceals this, and presents their decisions as if they were deductions smoothly made from clear pre-existing rules without intrusion of the judges' choice. (See also Kanta Devi v. Union of India: (2003) 4 SCC 753 . 23. 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 the 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 1 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 1 licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bonafide 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 Dash 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. 24. 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 mat 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 25. 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 Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Govt, of Assam during the ban period. 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 Husbandry 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's case (supra) held that the reasons given for not appointing the selected candidates by the State Government 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's case (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 compete 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 v. Union of India: (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. 26. This Court in Lourembam Ibemhal Devi v. State of Manipur: 2000 (3) GUT 545, Kh. Robindro and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. 2001 (2) GLT 26; Akoijam Dorendro Singh and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors. 2006 (Suppl.) 1 GLT 461 and also the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U. P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj: (2000) 3 SCC 699 held that the claim of a candidate included in a panel cannot be defeated merely because the currency of the panel expired during the pendency of the litigations when there are vacancies available for making appointment. 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's case (supra) read as follows: 8. Appellant 1 belongs to the OBC category. (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's case (supra) read 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 jurisdiction 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. 27. The Apex Court in State of A. P. and Ors. v. D. Dastagiri and Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 3 73 held that even if selection process is complete except select list remaining to be published, when by virtue of change in Government policy recruitment process is cancelled, the question of expiry of panel list does not arise. For the foregoing discussion this Court is of considered view that the stand taken by the State Respondents for not issuing appointment orders for the Petitioners who are already selected and recommended by the said DPC proceedings for the post of Civil Supply Inspectors, which had already been approved by the State Government with the condition that appointment orders shall be issued on lifting the ban on direct recruitment, is not bonafide and also lacks appropriate reason. 28. The very purpose of constitutional powers under Article 226 being conferred on the High Courts is that no one should be subjected to injustice by violation of law. The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land under which the sovereign power is distributed amongst legislature, executive and judiciary with checks and balances but not in water tight rigid mode. The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land under which the sovereign power is distributed amongst legislature, executive and judiciary with checks and balances but not in water tight rigid mode. The Apex Court (constitution Bench) in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 1964 SC 72 (V 51 C 7) held that-- The Constitution enshrines and guarantees the rule of law and Article 226 is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State, including the Government acts bona fide and within the limits of its power and we consider that when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to afford justice to the individual. It is with these considerations in mind that we approach the facts of this Case. The Apex Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal: (2002) 1 SCC 100 held that-- ...Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it vide State of U. P. v. District Judge, Unnao: (1984) 2 SCC 673 . The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. (emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 377 held that-- The Founding Fathers placed no limitation or fetters on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self-imposed limitations. The arm of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Court as sentinel on the qui vive is to mete out justice in given facts. The arm of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Court as sentinel on the qui vive is to mete out justice in given facts. On finding that either the workmen were engaged in violation of the provisions of the Act or were continued as contract labour, despite prohibition of the contract labour under Section 10(1), the High Court has, by judicial review as the basic structure, a constitutional duty to enforce the law by appropriate directions. The right to judicial review is now a basic structure of the Constitution by a Catena of decisions of this Court starting from Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain: 1975 Supp SCC 1 to Bommai case: (1994) 3 SCC 1 . It would, therefore, be necessary that instead of leaving the workmen in the lurch, the Court properly moulds the relief and grants the same in accordance with law. (emphasis supplied) 29. Since the ban on direct recruitment had already been lifted, this Court, in the given case, has no alternative except to direct the Respondents to issue orders for regular appointment of the Petitioners as Civil Supply Inspectors within a period of four months from, the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. The writ petitions are allowed, with the above observations and direction. Petition allowed.