Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 106 (MAN)

Cherish Siranao v. State of Manipur

2022-06-13

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. S. Worthing, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Debendra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed to seek a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification dated 14.9.2021 and to direct the respondents to issue a fresh advertisement notification in compliance with the provisions laid down in Rule 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification Vacancies) Rules, 1960 [in short, 'the Rules of 1960'] as also to reflect number of vacancy posts to be reserved in compliance with the provisions laid down under Section 349(1) and (2) and Section 37 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [in short, 'the Act of 2016'] in order to provide opportunities to all the eligible candidates including the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notification was issued without following Rule 4 of the Rules of 1960 and without reservation for physically handicapped, ex-servicemen and with indication as to whether the post is of permanent or temporary in nature, place of work, description of duties, etc. and also without reservation under Sections 34(1) and (2) and 37 of the Act of 2016 and, thus, intention and spirit of the Act of 2016 has been defeated. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the power and functioning of the District Council in the Hill areas is within the purview of the HAC constituted under Article 371C of the Constitution of India, however, the respondent State issued the impugned notification without taking the approval and confidence of the HAC. Hence, the impugned notification deserves to be quashed. 5. The first respondent filed counter stating that pending writ petition, a Circular dated 23.10.2021 was issued, thereby intimating that the recruitment process for filling up of 750 vacant posts through direct recruitment under six Autonomous District Councils, including ADC, Ukhrul is suspended until further orders. Hence, the impugned notification deserves to be quashed. 5. The first respondent filed counter stating that pending writ petition, a Circular dated 23.10.2021 was issued, thereby intimating that the recruitment process for filling up of 750 vacant posts through direct recruitment under six Autonomous District Councils, including ADC, Ukhrul is suspended until further orders. In the counter, it is also stated that with regard to reservation of persons with disability in appointment by way of direct recruitment in Autonomous District Council, Manipur, a communication dated 22.10.2021 was addressed to the Chief Executive Officers of six Autonomous District Council, which includes ADC, Ukhrul, conveying its administrative approval to adopt the Office Memorandum dated 26.2.2020 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur and the Office Memorandum dated 15.1.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel Training, Government of India reserving 4% of seat for persons with benchmark disabilities in the upcoming recruitments under the Autonomous District Council, Manipur. 6. The petitioner challenged the impugned notification under the following grounds: (a) The second respondent has issued the impugned notification without complying with the provisions of the Rules of 1960 as well as the Act of 2016. (b) The impugned notification does not mention reservation for physically handicapped, ex-servicemen and does not reflect whether the post is of permanent or temporary in nature, place of work, description of duties, desirable qualification etc. (c) The impugned notification has been issued without reservation under Section 349(1) and (2) and Section 37 of the Act of 2016. (d) The State Government is to provide equal opportunity of employment to all. However, due to non-compliance of the provisions guaranteed under the Rules of 1960 and the Act of 2016, many candidates are being deprived of the opportunities. (e) The Autonomous District Council has to adhere to the reservation rules passed by the State, where the Council on its own cannot invite application against the reservation policy of the State. (f) The benefit of 3% of post notified be kept unfilled till the disposal of the case in the light of the interim order passed by the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No.591 of 2009. 7. The main challenge to the notification is that the notification does not reflect the number of posts to be reserved for persons with disability as per the provisions laid down under the Act of 2016. 8. 7. The main challenge to the notification is that the notification does not reflect the number of posts to be reserved for persons with disability as per the provisions laid down under the Act of 2016. 8. It appears from the counter filed by the first respondent that after filing the writ petition, a Circular dated 23.10.2021 was issued by the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) to the Chief Executive Officers of Chandel, Senapati, Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, Tamenglong and Ukhrul intimating that the recruitment process for filling up of 750 vacant posts through direct recruitment was suspended until further orders. Insofar as the reservation qua persons with disability in appointment by way of direct recruitment in Autonomous District Council is concerned, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, on 22.10.2021, the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) addressed a communication to the Chief Executive Officers of Chandel, Senapati, Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, Tamenglong and Ukhrul intimating that 4% of seat reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in the upcoming direct recruitment under Autonomous District Council, Manipur. 9. Thus, it is clear that by the issuance of the aforesaid Circular as well as the communication, the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. The factum of issuance of the aforesaid Circular and communication dated 22.10.2021 and 23.10.2021 respectively has not been disputed by the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition rendered infructuous. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. However, it is made clear that whenever fresh advertisement issued for recruitment, the respondents are directed to follow the provisions as laid down in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1960 and to follow 4% of seat reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in the upcoming direct recruitments under Autonomous District Council, Manipur.