JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The present wit petition had been filed with a prayer for directing the respondents to fulfill the agreement dated 15-06-1995 entered into between the Shirui Village and Government of Manipur by appointing unskilled staff required for attending and maintaining new water supply scheme from the local candidates. 3. The case of the petitioner is that during the 1980s, the Government of Manipur approached the petitioner for supply of water to inhabitants of Ukhrul town from Shirui Village with a promise that unskilled staff would be appointed from the local populace of Shirui Village. On arriving at an agreement, the water supply scheme for Ukhrul town was commissioned in the early 1980s from Shirui Village and in return, the Government of Manipur appointed thirteen candidates from the Shirui Village as pipes linemen, Chowkidar, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the said thirteen employees, five have expired and three have retired from services and accordingly, only five staff remained, which according to the petitioner is a clear shortage of staff and it hampered implementation of the water supply scheme in the proper manner. 4. As the water supply scheme for the entire town of Ukhrul District Headquarter from a single water source was not sufficient, the Government of Manipur represented by the Minister of PHED and the Chief Engineer (PHED) entered into a fresh agreement with the petitioner village on 15-06-1995 to explore other sources of water supply for supplying water to Ukhrul town and that for providing a new water supply source by Shirui Village, unskilled staff required for attending and maintaining the new water supply scheme will be made from the local candidates of the Shirui Village. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's village offered two other sources of water, namely, Khohthi Kongrei and Namra Kong in addition to the earlier water source. 5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's village offered two other sources of water, namely, Khohthi Kongrei and Namra Kong in addition to the earlier water source. 5. In terms of the aforesaid agreement and as two more water sources had been provided by the villagers of Shirui, several representations and memorandum were submitted to the concerned authorities of the Government of Manipur requesting for fulfilling the agreement entered into between the representatives of the State Government and Shirui Villagers by appointing unskilled staff from amongst the villagers of Shirui Village, however, even after a lapse of more than 18 years from the date of execution of the said agreement, the Government of Manipur did not appoint any unskilled staff as per the aforesaid agreement. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition for redressing its grievances. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole water sources of the petitioner's village have been given for the inhabitants of Ukhrul town at the request of the Government of Manipur believing that the State Government will give appointment to the residents of Shirui Village, however, the Government have deliberately breach the agreement that had been executed on 15-06-1995 which amounts to cheating and also violative of Article 21 and 14 read with Article 15, 16, 46 and 335 of the Constitution. 7. It has also been submitted that there is inadequacy of staff for proper maintenance of water streams and pipelines for implementation of water supply schemes in respect of Ukhrul town from Shirui Village and there are sufficient manpower at the petitioner's village and also good water sources and accordingly, the Government should gave appointment to the villagers of Shirui Village in terms of the aforesaid agreement dated 15-06-1995 for providing water sources from Shirui Village and for proper maintenance and implementation of the water supply scheme in respect of Ukhrul town from Shirui Village. 8. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it has been stated that the PHED had been performing its daily routine works inspite of many difficulties and rendering services for the welfare of the people. The water supply sources to Ukhrul town from Shirui Village has been decreasing day by day due to drastic depletion of sources mainly due to rampant deforestation at the catchment areas and forest fire. The water supply sources to Ukhrul town from Shirui Village has been decreasing day by day due to drastic depletion of sources mainly due to rampant deforestation at the catchment areas and forest fire. It has also been stated that the Ukhrul PHE Division has been managing the quantity of water received from two sources so as to fulfill the needs of the populace and that sometimes leakage from breakdown occurred along the pipelines from Shirui Village via. Langdang leading to Ukhrul town due to the contraction/ expansion of the pipes and also due to frequent landslide during monsoon and that repairing of such work are immediately done by the manpower available to the Ukhrul PHE Division and regular water supply was always maintained. 9. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has also been stated that as per the guidelines of 'National Rural Drinking Water Programme' (NRDWP) now followed throughout the country and also followed in the State of Manipur, it is provided that day to day operation and maintenance of water supply schemes are to be done by forming 'Village Water & Sanitation Committee' (VWSC) by volunteering manpower and their nominal honorarium to be made from the charges collected by VWSC from the users. It has also been stated that for Shirui Village, the VWSC has already been formed and the matter relating to manpower is upto the VWSC and as such, the Department does not require any unskilled manpower. 10. It has also been clearly stated that the agreement dated 15-06-1995 between the then Minister of PHED, the Chief Engineer (PHED) and the Headman of Shirui Village was that appointment for unskilled staff required for the implementation of the new scheme will be made from the local candidates and as the Department does not require any unskilled manpower for implementation of the new water supply scheme, no appointment has been given in terms of the said agreement. 11. This court have considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and also considered the materials available on record. 11. This court have considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and also considered the materials available on record. The condition in the agreement is that the required unskilled staff for maintaining/ implementing the new water supply scheme to the Ukhrul town from Shirui Village will be appointed from the local candidates of Shirui Village and the stand of the State Government is that there is no requirement of any unskilled manpower for implementation/ maintenance of the said new water supply scheme especially in view of the formation of Village Water and Sanitation Committee in Shirui Village in terms of the guidelines of National Rural Drinking Water Programme and accordingly, no appointment has been made in terms of the aforesaid agreement. As the State Government has not made any appointment of unskilled staff in the Ukhrul PHE Division in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, this court did not find any ground or reason for holding that the State Government had violated the terms and conditions incorporated in the said agreement and accordingly, this court is of the considered view that there is no ground for directing the State Government to appoint unskilled staff from amongst the villagers of Shirui Village in terms of the said agreement. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition and accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.