Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 127 (MAN)

Kshetrimayum Liklaisana Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-07-13

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Mr.S.Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 2. Heard Mr.HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Nepolean, learned Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. This writ petition has been heard and reserved at the admission stage itself. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the notification dated 20.04.2022 thereby publishing the tentative seniority list of Lecturers in Government Higher Secondary School and to direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the Lecturers in Government Higher Secondary School strictly in terms of the relevant provision of seniority rules of Government of Manipur and relevant rules and also settled principles of law. 4. Mr. H.S. Paonam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the direct recruits appointed in the year 2016 on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission. He would submit that the petitioners are aggrieved by the fixation of seniority among the direct recruits and promotion on the basis of Recruitment Rules, 2021 and not in accordance with Recruitment Rules, 1997 where under the petitioners were appointed. 5. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner are also aggrieved by the placement of the regularized contract Lecturers above them since the direct recruits were selected earlier than the regularization of the contract Lecturers. Moreover, regularization is not a mode of appointment and the regularization having been done de hors the rules, the employees cannot be placed above the direct recruits appointed on the recommendation of the MPSC. 6. The learned senior counsel urged that in the impugned notification, it has been informed that any claims and objections to the tentative seniority list may be submitted on or before 12.5.2022. Aggrieved by the erroneous fixation of the seniority position of the direct recruits of 2016, some of the petitioners have filed their objections on 11.5.2022 claiming that the tentative seniority list is erroneous since the same has been fixed on the basis of Recruitment Rules of Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools published in 2021, wherein the method of recruitment is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Further, in the said objection, it was also mentioned that the regularized contract Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools should be placed enbloc below the direct recruits appointed on the recommendation of the MPSC. Further, in the said objection, it was also mentioned that the regularized contract Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools should be placed enbloc below the direct recruits appointed on the recommendation of the MPSC. However, till date the said objection has not been considered by the competent authority. However, the petitioners are reliably learnt that based on the impugned tentative seniority list, process has been taken up for conferring the higher charge of Vice-Principal of Higher Secondary School. Thus, the learned senior counsel prayed for set aside the impugned tentative seniority list. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. Nepolean, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that there is no error in publishing the impugned tentative seniority list and the seniority list impugned has been prepared and published taking into consideration all the relevant Recruitment Rules and, therefore, there is no flaw in it. Apart from this, the official respondents called the claims and objections to the tentative seniority list may be submitted on or before 12.05.2022 and accordingly, some of the petitioners have filed their objections on 11.05.2022 and the same is pending for consideration. If the petitioners are aggrieved on the orders passed by the respondents on the objections dated 11.05.2022 the petitioners are very well to challenge the same in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is premature. Therefore, there is no ground to cause interference in the impugned tentative seniority list. Thus, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials on record. 9. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the tentative seniority list, the seniority position of the petitioners has been fixed on the basis of the Recruitment Rules of Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools published in 2021, wherein the method of recruitment is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion and promotees and direct recruits are placed one after another according to the rotation of vacancies as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, 2021. Such fixation is erroneous because seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the rules in existence when one entered service and it cannot be fixed on the basis of subsequently amended rules. Such fixation is erroneous because seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the rules in existence when one entered service and it cannot be fixed on the basis of subsequently amended rules. Therefore, the seniority position of the Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools should be fixed on the basis of 1997 Recruitment Rules, wherein 66 -2/3% is provided for direct recruitment and 33 -1/3% is provided for promotion. According to the petitioners, the placement of contract Lecturers of the Government Higher Secondary Schools who were regularized vide order dated 12.5.2016 is contrary to the rules and also against the notification issued by the Government of Manipur from time to time in regard to fixation of seniority. 10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners urged that the direct recruits who were appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee after following due process shall be placed enblock above those regularized back door entrants who entered service without following the due selection process. 11. As could be seen from the records that the petitioners have applied to the post of Lecturers in the Government Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.11.2014 issued by the MPSC and the written examination for selection process was held on 22.2.2015 and the result of the same was declared on 13.8.2015. The petitioners were found qualified for the personality test for selection to the post of Lecturers and the personality test was held between 13.9.2015 and 18.9.2015 and a subject wise merit list was published on 18.9.2015. 12. According to the petitioners, even though the MPSC had furnished a copy of the recommendation to the Government for appointment to the post of Lecturers of Higher Secondary Schools in School Education Department for taking necessary steps on 2.11.2015, the appointment order could not be issued in favour of the selected candidates because of the interim orders of this Court operating at the relevant time. Subsequently, those interim orders stand vacated thereby granting liberty to the respondent authorities to proceed with the recruitment process as far as the appointment under direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Higher Secondary Schools as per the recommendation of the MPSC is concerned. Pursuant thereof, the State Government was pleased to appoint 180 recommended candidates as Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools on 31.8.2016, including the petitioners. Pursuant thereof, the State Government was pleased to appoint 180 recommended candidates as Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools on 31.8.2016, including the petitioners. Thereafter, by another order dated 18.11.2016, nine candidates were given appointment from waiting list. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are seniors to the private respondents and accordingly, they could be placed above the contract Lecturers. 13. There is no dispute that the appointment to the post of Lecturer of Higher Secondary Schools is governed by a recruitment called the Education (S) Department Manipur (Lecturer of Higher Secondary Schools) Recruitment Rules, 1997. Under the said rules, as stated supra, the method of recruitment is 63 - 2/3% is by direct recruitment and 33 - 1/3% by promotion. The post of Lecturer of Higher Secondary Schools is classified as Class-I Gazetted by the said Recruitment Rules. 14. The Government of Manipur decided to regularize the services of 707 contract Lecturers in Government Higher Secondary Schools with immediate effect vide order dated 12.5.2016 and, accordingly, the services of the contract Lecturers have been regularized on 12.05.2016. Since the regularization of the contract Lecturers is prior to the appointment of the direct recruits, how the direct recruits can be placed above the contract Lecturers as sought for by them. Anyhow, the said aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in this writ petition. 15. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the private respondents are back door entrants and are entered into service without following the due selection process. That apart, the said factual aspects of the matter cannot be decided in the writ petition and nothing has been produced and/or established to show that the impugned notification is erroneous. 16. Further, the case of the petitioners is that the private respondents are surplus contract employees and in order to give a solution to human problems, they are regularized in their respective services. Since regularization is not a recognized mode of recruitment under the Recruitment Rules, those regularized contract Lecturers from a different category and they ought to be placed below the direct recruits of the same recruitment year cannot be gone into, for the reason that whether the regularization of the private respondents is legal or illegal is not the subject-matter of an issue in this writ petition. If the petitioners are so aggrieved by the regularization of the contract Lecturers of the Government Higher Secondary Schools, they will have to question the same at the relevant point of time and the same cannot be questioned in the present writ petition. 17. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the determination of seniority of the employees working in the Government is regulated by the Office Memorandum of the Government of Manipur and after following the rules and the applicable Office Memorandum only, the impugned tentative seniority list has been prepared. 18. Though the petitioners, by relying upon various Office Memorandums of the Manipur submitted that the determination of inter-se seniority amongst the direct recruits and the promotee and the regularized contract Lecturers ought to be placed below the direct recruits appointed on the recommendation of the MPSC, the said aspects of two issues cannot be gone into in the present writ petition. 19. It appears that pursuant to the impugned tentative seniority list, the petitioners 2 and 17 alone have submitted their objections. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that the other petitioners have also submitted their objection to the impugned tentative seniority list. If an employee is so aggrieved by the tentative seniority list published by the department, it is the bounden duty of the employee to submit his/her objection within the time given in the notification publishing the tentative seniority list. By using and relying upon the said representations of the petitioners 2 and 17, the petitioners numbering 95 have filed the present writ petition questioning the impugned tentative seniority list. 20. The impugned tentative seniority list was published on 20.04.2022, thereby the Deputy Secretary (Education-S), Government of Manipur calling for claims and objections to the tentative seniority list of Lecturers by prescribing the time limit on or before 12.5.2022 with a condition that the claims and objections received after the last date shall not be entertained. The petitioners 2 and 17 have submitted their objections/claims to the impugned seniority list on 11.05.2022 and the writ petition was filed on 16.6.2022 without giving a reasonable time to the department to consider the objections/claims made by them. Thus, the writ petition appears to be premature. In the case on hand, the receipt of the objections/claims of the petitioners 2 and 17 dated 11.5.2022 has not been disputed by the official respondents. 21. Thus, the writ petition appears to be premature. In the case on hand, the receipt of the objections/claims of the petitioners 2 and 17 dated 11.5.2022 has not been disputed by the official respondents. 21. Since the petitioners have raised an issue that the contract Lecturers of the Government Higher Secondary Schools should be placed enbloc below the direct recruits appointed on the recommendation of the MPSC, this Court is of the view that in order to give quietus to the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the official respondents to treat the objections/claims submitted by the petitioners 2 and 17 as common to all the petitioners and, accordingly, pass an order in accordance with law taking note of the same as common grievance of the petitioners. 22. Accordingly, a) the writ petition is dismissed as premature. b) respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the claims/objections dated 11.5.2022 submitted by the petitioners 2 to 17 to the impugned tentative seniority list and pass orders in accordance with law taking note of the same as common grievance of the petitioners to give quietus to the issue. c) the petitioners are at liberty to challenge if they aggrieved the order to be passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 based on the claims/objections dated 11.05.2022. d) No cost.