JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri N. Bipin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents. 2. By this present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus or an appropriate writ or direction from this Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents to consider her case for appointment to the post of Lower Primary Teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. 3.1. According to the petitioner, she having possessed the educational qualifications, is eligible for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher. The State Government through the Principal Secretary (Education/S), Government of Manipur issued a Notification dated 18-10-2011 inviting applications in prescribed format from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Primary Teachers under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and in response thereto, the petitioner applied for appointment to the said post of Primary Teachers and acknowledgement for having received her application was issued by the concerned authority. With reference to and in continuation of the said Notification dated 18-10-2011, the Department of Education (Schools), Government of Manipur issued another Notification dated 10-12-2011 as regards the preliminary scores obtained by the candidates based on their academic performance and in the said Notification dated 10-12-2011, the marks obtained by the present petitioner are reflected as 58.731 per cent in the category of Scheduled Caste. 3.2. On the recommendation of the DPC, the list of selected candidates and candidates in waiting lists both for the post of Primary Teachers and Upper Primary Teachers were declared vide Notification dated 29-02-2012 issued by the Department of Education (Schools), Government of Manipur which was published in a daily newspaper called “Poknapham” on 01-03-2012 and the candidates shown in the Annexures – A/1 and A/2 were declared as selected candidates for the post of Primary Teachers under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in the Department of Education (Schools), Government of Manipur. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of selected candidates as given in the said Notification dated 29-02-2012. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of selected candidates as given in the said Notification dated 29-02-2012. It came to the notice of the petitioner that in the said list of selected candidates for the post of Primary Teachers, there were 36 (thirty six) candidates recommended for appointment to the said post of Primary Teachers in the category of Scheduled Caste, out of which 6 (six) candidates whose marks are lower than the marks obtained by the present petitioner were selected and their details are given as under:– Sl.No.RankForm No.NameMarks 1.3180314Nongmaithem Romita Devi58.531% 2.3281605Kshetrimayum Binobhabi Devi58.225% 3.3380468Pukhrambam Babita Devi57.981% 4.3481546Kshetrimayum Binokumari Devi57.883% 5.3510359Moirangthem Premi Devi57.675% 6.3640901Khumukcham Bharatbushan Singh57.494% But to her shock and surprise, the present petitioner did not find her name in the said list of selected candidates although she secured more marks than the above six candidates and the marks obtained by the present petitioner as per Notification dated 10-12-2011 issued by the Department of Education (Schools), Government of Manipur are given herein below:– Form No.Category Score of 100 051655SCXXIIB.Ed.TETTotal 8.933%12.100%3.365%34.333%58.731% 3.3. Immediately thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation to the Principal Secretary (Education/S), Government of Manipur on 14-03-2012 to let her know as to why she was declared unsuccessful but no reply was received by the petitioner from his end and after waiting for about three years, the petitioner submitted another representation on 31-01-2015 to the Principal Secretary (Education/S), Government of Manipur requesting him to look into the matter and to appoint her to the post of Primary Teacher as soon as possible. This time too, the respondents have failed to consider her representation. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Despite number of opportunities being given to the respondents, they have failed to file their affidavit-in-opposition either denying or controverting the averments made in the writ petition. Since there was no reason as to why this court ought to wait indefinitely for their affidavit-in-opposition to be filed, the matter was taken up for hearing and was considered only on the basis of the averments made in the petition and the materials on record. The learned Government Advocate had nothing to submit in the face of the documents on record. The learned Government Advocate had nothing to submit in the face of the documents on record. The case of the petitioner is based on the documents which belong to and are in the possession of the respondents and is that although she secured more marks than six candidates, as shown above, who had been declared selected, she had not been declared selected by the respondents. Immediately after she came to know about this, on 14-03-2011 she submitted a representation to the Principal Secretary (Education/S), Government of Manipur to let her know as to why she was not declared selected which was followed by another representation submitted on 31-01-2015. It appears that the said representations had not been considered at all by the respondents and had fallen on their deaf ears as if they were not concerned with it. 5. As has been stated in the preceding para, it may be noted that the petitioner’s case is based on documents only which require no interpretation at all. From the perusal of the said documents on record, the allegation of the petitioner appears to be prima facie correct. The moment the said representations were received, the only and simple thing that the respondents could have done, was to verify from their records as to whether the allegation of the petitioner was correct or not and on that basis, the petitioner could have been informed accordingly. The respondents have failed to do that simple thing. The respondents being the State Government, are required to act fairly and reasonably and are expected to be sensitive to cases wherein the constitutional or legal rights of the citizen are alleged to have been infringed on the basis of the respondent’s documents. However, the respondents have miserably failed in the discharge of their duties and their inaction was highly unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ultimate result is that the petitioner has been unnecessarily been dragged to this court which could have been prevented by simply considering her representations by the respondents. However, the respondents have miserably failed in the discharge of their duties and their inaction was highly unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ultimate result is that the petitioner has been unnecessarily been dragged to this court which could have been prevented by simply considering her representations by the respondents. Moreover, after the present writ petition having been filed by the petitioner, the respondents have chosen not to contest it by filing an affidavit-in-opposition before this court and have kept mum and since the averments made in the writ petition are neither denied nor have they been controverted, this court has no any other option but to allow the writ petition. 6. In view of the above observations and for the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions:- (a) The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner and verify as to whether her allegation that the aforesaid six candidates who secured less marks than her had been declared selected for the post of Primary Teachers, is correct or not within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if yes, the respondents shall issue an order, within a week thereafter, appointing her to the post of Primary Teacher; (b) In case her allegation is found to be incorrect on verification within two weeks as mentioned in direction (a) above, the respondents shall communicate to her, within a week thereafter, the cogent reasons as to why she could not be declared selected for the post of Primary Teacher, even though she secured more marks than the said six candidates who had been declared selected for the post of Primary Teachers; and (c) In view of the callous attitude being shown to by the respondents and the mental agony that she has suffered and keeping in mind the money that she ought to have earned, had she been declared selected in the year 2012, the respondents shall pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs which shall be recovered by the respondents from the officer who is responsible for creating this problem.