JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. Jagat, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 14-07-2014, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing/setting aside it and also praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the wrong entry of designation of the petitioner in the CPIS. 3.1 According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Teacher w.e.f. 01-07-1983 on the recommendation of a DPC and was posted at the Haoreibi Awang Leikai Tera Makhong J.B. (M). Thereafter, the petitioner was declared as Headmaster for the Haoreibi Awang Leikai Tera Makhong Primary Madrassa w.e.f. 07-07-1984 vide order dated 07-04-1984 issued by the Director of Educations, Government of Manipur. The Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur vide its order dated 29-10-1990, issued in continuation of its earlier order dated 05-05-1990, allowed the petitioner to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs. 640-1410/- per month w.e.f. 07-04-1984 which is the scale of pay for the post of Headmaster, Primary Schools. In the meantime, a writ petition being C.R. No. 28 of 1983 came to be disposed of on 21-09-1989 directing the State respondents not to disturb or displace any member of the petitioner’s association if such member was earlier declared as Headmaster of the school and he happened to be the senior most assistant teacher. While the petitioner was serving as Headmaster of the said School, a State Level Screening Committee was constituted and on the recommendation of the said Committee in its meeting held on 08-02-2002, the petitioner along with many other incumbents were allowed to enjoy the senior scale of Pay of Rs. 6500-10500/- attached to the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 07-09-1999 after they having completed 15/12 years of regular service in the grade of Headmaster. 3.2 As a policy measure of the State Government to weed out fake appointment, it took a policy decision to prepare the Manipur Government Employees List (MGEL) wherein the name of the petitioner was also included and he was given EIN 051708. After the finalisation of the MGEL, another document was prepared by the Government of Manipur which is commonly known as CPIS and MIS, after the implementation of the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission. After the finalisation of the MGEL, another document was prepared by the Government of Manipur which is commonly known as CPIS and MIS, after the implementation of the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission. The Government of Manipur published the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 and as per the provisions of the said rules, the pay of the petitioner was revised and was given the basic pay of Rs. 26650/-with grade pay of Rs. 4300/- and his emoluments was Rs. 34008/-. But in the said document showing his designation and scale of pay, his designation was shown as the Matriculate Teacher. 3.3 Many incumbents who were declared as Headmaster of primary schools and were allowed to enjoy the scale of pay for the post of Headmaster, approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 750 of 2010 on the apprehension that they might be reverted to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher as the Government had initiated to revert them to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher solely on the ground that no DPC was held for promoting them to the post of Headmaster of their respective schools. The said writ petition was disposed of wherein the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court was of the view that as the petitioners therein had already completed 12(twelve) years of regular service, they were entitled to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500/- and entitled to be treated as regularly / substantively appointed Headmaster with similar benefits extended to Shri P. Bijoy Singh (now retired as Headmaster). Referring to the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and in particular, the judgment and order dated 21-09-1989, the petitioner also filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 475 of 2012 praying for extending the benefits granted to them, which was disposed of on 05-07-2013 directing the State respondents to re-examine the claim of the petitioner as the Headmaster of the said school in the light of the Govt. order dated 15-02-2002 and more particularly, the judgment and order dated 21-09-1989. In a purported compliance of the said order, the Director of Educations, Government of Manipur issued the impugned order dated 14-07-2014 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. order dated 15-02-2002 and more particularly, the judgment and order dated 21-09-1989. In a purported compliance of the said order, the Director of Educations, Government of Manipur issued the impugned order dated 14-07-2014 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Contesting the writ petition, two affidavits-in-opposition have been filed on behalf of the State respondents - one, on behalf of the Finance Department and another, on behalf of the Administrative Department namely, the Education Department. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Finance Department, it is stated that no comment can be given as regards the declaration of the petitioner as Headmaster, as a copy thereof dated 07-04-1984 is not filed along with the petition and that in the list of teachers of Haoreibi Awang Leikai Tera Makhong Primary Madrassa, the name of the petitioner is not found, for which the Administrative Department has been requested vide its letter dated 16-06-2014 for furnishing proposal with documents, if found eligible. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Administrative Department, what has been stated in the impugned order, is reiterated to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to record his designation in the MGEL/CPIS as Headmaster, since he is holding the substantive post of Matriculate Teacher and that he has not been promoted to the post of Headmaster on the basis of a recommendation of a DPC. In his replies to the said affidavits, it has been stated by the petitioner that the factum of having issued the order dated 07-04-1984 is clearly reflected in the order dated 29-10-1990. The petitioner is entitled to the same benefits extended to 55 incumbents, many of whom are junior to him, who were allowed to enjoy pay and allowances attached to the post of Headmaster of primary schools pursuant to a decision taken by the Cabinet. The petitioner is entitled to the same benefits extended to 55 incumbents, many of whom are junior to him, who were allowed to enjoy pay and allowances attached to the post of Headmaster of primary schools pursuant to a decision taken by the Cabinet. The declaration of the petitioner as Headmaster, prior to framing of recruitment rules, on the basis of convention and practice appreciated by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in its judgment, cannot be reopened and the observation made in the impugned order that the declaration of the petitioner as Headmaster is irregular and he should not have been allowed to enjoy the senior scale of pay attached to Headmaster, is contrary to the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. The impugned order being a nullity and having no legal existence, is liable to be set aside. 5. The short question that has arisen in the present case is as whether the impugned order dated 14-07-2014 was issued by the respondents in strict compliance with the order dated 05-07-2013 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 475 of 2012 or not. The relevant portion of the said order dated 05-07-2013 is reproduced herein below: “In view of the limited prayer and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the present petitioner can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner as Headmaster of Haoreibi Awang Leikai, Tera Makhong Primary Madrassa in the light of the order dated 15-02-2002 (Annexure-A/3) and order dated 21-09-1989 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 28 of 1983 (Annexure-A/4), which has been referred to above and re-examine the claim of the petitioner for entering the designation of the petitioner as Headmaster in the MGEL. The aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the authorities concerned within a period of three months by passing a speaking order by taking into consideration all the orders referred to above and any other relevant orders or documents, which may be available on record. The aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the authorities concerned within a period of three months by passing a speaking order by taking into consideration all the orders referred to above and any other relevant orders or documents, which may be available on record. It is also provided that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order that may be passed by the authorities concerned as directed above, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court again.” The aforesaid direction has been given by this court directing the respondents to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the Govt. order dated 15-02-2002 and order dated 21-09-1989 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in CR No. 28 of 1983. The grievance of the petitioner as narrated in the said order dated 05-07-2013, is that although the petitioner having been declared as Headmaster and senior scale of pay prescribed for it, having been allowed to be enjoyed, his designation has been mentioned in the MGEL as Matriculate Teacher and one of the prayers sought for by the petitioner is to make necessary correction in respect of his designation in the MGEL. On perusal of this court’s order dated 05-07-2013, it is seen that the claim of the petitioner is to be re-examined in the light of the Govt. order dated 15-02-2002 and order dated 21-09-1989 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in CR No. 28 of 1983 and that the direction is not to re-open them, the contents of which need to be examined and understood by this court for purpose of considering the issue involved herein. 6. The Government order dated 15-02-2002 is issued by the Director of Educations, Government of Manipur by which the petitioner was admittedly allowed to enjoy the senior scale of pay as detailed in column 8 of the Annexure-B, so far as the petitioner is concerned, with effect from the date noted against his name on completion of his 12 (twelve) years of regular service in his grade which is evident from Annexure-B itself. On a careful perusal of Annexure-B, it is seen that in column 2, the designation of the petitioner is shown as Headmaster, Primary School; in column 5, he is shown to have completed 12 years in regular service on 07-04-1984 and in column 8, he is shown to have been given senior scale of pay, i.e., Rs. 6500-10500/- with effect from 07-09-1999. Since it is a matter involving finance, the concurrence of Finance Department might have been obtained by the Administrative Department before issuing the order. It is further evident from the order that the senior scale of pay was given to those who have completed 15/12 years of regular service in their respective grades. In the C.R No. 28 of 1983, it appears that the Government order dated 08-11-1982 by which 102 Headmasters, mentioned therein, were appointed on absorption in the Education Department, was impugned on the ground that if the said order was implemented, 12 members of the petitioners’ Association therein would be reduced in rank as they would be reverted to the post of Assistant Primary Teacher. Observing that there has been separate pay scale for the Headmaster of the schools and since the post of Headmaster is a non-selection post, the senior most teacher is declared as Headmaster of the respective school, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court came to the conclusion that it was unable to come to the definite finding that 102 headmasters would be reverted inasmuch as according to the respondents, 102 posts were newly created and directed that the impugned order should not displace or disturb any member of the petitioners’ Association if such member was earlier declared as Headmaster of the school and he happened to be the senior most Assistant Teacher of the said school at the time of such declaration. 7. What is “MGEL”? It is an abbreviation of the term ”Manipur Government Employees List” but the details thereof are not given either in the petition or in any of the affidavits filed on behalf of the State respondents. On a plain reading of the term ”Manipur Government Employees List”, it is seen that it is nothing but a list that contains the names of the employees of the State Government and for a person to be included in the list, he or she has to be a Government Employee. On a plain reading of the term ”Manipur Government Employees List”, it is seen that it is nothing but a list that contains the names of the employees of the State Government and for a person to be included in the list, he or she has to be a Government Employee. It is not known to this court as to what are the conditions to be fulfilled by an employee of the State Government for being included in the MGEL and what is the procedure to be followed for purpose of inclusion in the MGEL. The term ”Manipur Government Employees List” appears to have been introduced by way of a policy decision for certain reasons and a copy thereof is not placed on record for perusal by this court. As per the Constitutional Scheme in matters of employment as laid down and settled in Uma Devi’s case, a person is to be appointed as a Government employee in accordance with rules as prescribed for it and after such a person having been appointed as an employee of the State of Manipur, the inclusion of his name in the MGEL appears to be a mere formality provided his correct details are furnished by the Administrative Department because the process for inclusion in the MGEL has nothing to do with the process of selection for appointment as an employee of the State. The process for inclusion in the MGEL appears to commence only after a person has been appointed as an employee of the State Government. In the instant case, the petitioner was declared as Headmaster vide Govt. order dated 07-04-1984 as is evident from the Govt. order dated 29-10-1990 by which he was allowed to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs. 640-1410/- attached to the post of Headmaster. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 21-09-1989 had directed that the members of the petitioners’ Association be not displaced or disturbed by the implementation of the impugned order therein. Thereafter, on the recommendation of a State Level Screening Committee, the petitioner was given the senior scale of pay attached to the post of Headmaster vide order dated 15-02-2002 issued by the Director of Educations on the completion of his 12 years of regular service in the grade. Thereafter, on the recommendation of a State Level Screening Committee, the petitioner was given the senior scale of pay attached to the post of Headmaster vide order dated 15-02-2002 issued by the Director of Educations on the completion of his 12 years of regular service in the grade. However, in the absence of a copy of the policy decision as regards the MGEL being placed on record, this court is unable to consider the prayer (iii) of the petition. 8. Having examined and understood the contents of the order dated 15-02-2002 and the order dated 21-09-1989 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, this court proposes to consider the issue involved herein as stated herein above. It may be noted that as directed by this court on 05-07-2013, the claim of the petitioner is required to be re-examined and considered by the respondents in the light of the said two orders dated 15-02-2002 and 21-09-1989 and any other relevant orders or documents available on record. The aforesaid direction of this court can be simplified/ summarised in the following manner and categorised into two: A. The contents of the Govt. Order dated 15-02-2002 and the court’s order dated 21-09-1989: (i) The Govt. order dated 15-02-2002 is an order issued by the Director of Educations, Government of Manipur on the recommendation of a State Level Screening Committee by which the petitioner, along with many incumbents, was allowed to enjoy the senior scale of pay attached to the post of Headmaster with effect from 07-09-1999 on completion of his 12 years of regular service in the grade of Headmaster; (ii) A division Bench of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, vide its judgment and order dated 21-09-1989 had directed that the impugned order dated 08-11-1982 therein should not displace or disturb any member of the petitioners’ Association if such member was earlier declared as Headmaster of the school and he happened to be the senior most Assistant Teacher of the said school at the time of such declaration. B. Any other relevant orders or documents, which may be available on record: (i) The petitioner was declared as Headmaster of Haoreibi Awang Leikai Tera Makhong Primary Madrassa vide Govt. order dated 07-04-1984 as is evident from the Govt. order dated 29-10-1990 by which he was allowed to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs. B. Any other relevant orders or documents, which may be available on record: (i) The petitioner was declared as Headmaster of Haoreibi Awang Leikai Tera Makhong Primary Madrassa vide Govt. order dated 07-04-1984 as is evident from the Govt. order dated 29-10-1990 by which he was allowed to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs. 640-1410/-, attached to the post of Headmaster, with effect from 07-04-1984; (ii) In W.P. (C) No. 750 of 2010 filed by five persons who are similarly situated with the present petitioner, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 27-04-2012 has directed that the petitioners therein are entitled to be treated as regularly / substantively appointed Headmaster and therefore, entitled to all service benefits extended to Shri P. Bijoy singh, President of Manipur J.B/ Primary/ M.E Schools Headmasters Association (now retired from service) and other retired Headmasters. On a careful reading of the impugned order, it is seen that no observation in respect of the said two orders dated 15-02-2002 and 21-09-1989 is found therein and from para 4 thereof, it is evident that the observation that the declaration of the petitioner as Headmaster is irregular because the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster was not made on the recommendation of a DPC and that he should not been allowed to enjoy the senior scale of pay attached to the post of Headmaster, is made only on examination and verification of the service particulars of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no any whisper in the impugned order about any other orders or documents like the Govt. order dated 29-10-1990, the courts’ order dated 27-04-2012 etc. being considered by the State Government at the time of issuing the impugned order. The direction of this court which is not to see whether the petitioner is entitled to be treated as Headmaster or not, is very clear & unambiguous and in other words, the concerned authorities are required to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the facts summarised and mentioned herein above. The reason assigned in the impugned order dated 14-07-2014 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, in short, is that since the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster was not made on the recommendation of a DPC, he is not entitled to be treated as Headmaster of Haoreibi Awang Leikai Tera Makhong Primary School. The reason assigned in the impugned order dated 14-07-2014 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, in short, is that since the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster was not made on the recommendation of a DPC, he is not entitled to be treated as Headmaster of Haoreibi Awang Leikai Tera Makhong Primary School. It may be noted that a contention, similar to that of the reason mentioned in the impugned order, has already been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide its judgment and order dated 27-04-2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 750 of 2010 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “In my opinion, the declaration of the petitioners as Headmaster of J.B/ Primary Schools with retrospective effect in accordance with the findings of this court cannot be construed to be grant of promotion, pay revision, creation of post, which would require concurrence of Finance Department nor can it construe to be reguaraisation of the post of Headmaster held by the petitioners without the recommendation of DPC.” From the averments made in the instant writ petition, the case of the petitioner in his writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 475 of 2012, a copy of which is not on record, appears to be that he may be given the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27-04-2012 of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and that his designation as Headmaster be recorded in the MGEL, to which this court has passed the order dated 05-07-2013. After having examined and considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that the respondents and in particular, the Director of Educations, Government of Manipur, while issuing the impugned order, has failed to implement or comply with the order dated 05-07-2013 passed by this court. 9. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the impugned order dated 14-07-2014 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the order dated 05-07-2013 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 475 of 2012 shall be implemented or complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.