Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 27 (MAN)

D. Toshim Maring v. State of Manipur

2022-02-24

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction on the respondents to initiate procedure for calling the wait listed candidates to fill up the vacant post of staff nurses. 2. Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Debendra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Directorate of Health Services, Manipur, published notification dated 5.5.2016 inviting applications from intending candidates for recruitment to various posts in the Department. Amongst the posts, 163 vacant posts of staff nurse were shown advertised with relevant reservation quota for SC/ST, PWD and OBC etc. The petitioners having the requisite qualifications and falling under ST category submitted their applications along with the relevant documents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Department had published a final list of the eligible candidates of staff nurse, wherein the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.679 of 2018 was shown at Serial No.84 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.734 of 2018 was shown at Serial No.160. According to learned counsel, as per the mode of appointment, there being no written test, the petitioners have attended the viva-voce held on 19.11.2016 conducted by the Department. While so, on 20.12.2016, the Department had published the final list of selected candidates numbering 162 and another 21 names as wait listed candidates for appointment to the vacant posts of staff nurse, wherein the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.679 of 2018 was shown as wait list No.1 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.734 of 2018 was shown as wait list No.10 under the ST quota. However, they have not been given appointment by operating the wait list till date. Hence, they have filed the writ petitions seeking direction on the respondents to initiate the procedure for calling wait listed candidates to fill up the vacant post of staff nurse. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State contended that there is no legitimate right vested in the petitioners to get themselves to be appointed, as they are in the waiting list and the waiting list has not been operated by the Government. Moreover, the validity period of wait list has already been lapsed or otherwise expired. 6. This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. Moreover, the validity period of wait list has already been lapsed or otherwise expired. 6. This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are in wait list to be operated for appointment to the post of staff nurse pursuant to the notification dated 5.5.2016 and the selection list dated 20.12.2016. According to the petitioners, since many selected candidates who were given offer forms chose not to join the service, the petitioners have approached the concerned authorities for issuing offer form as they being in wait list. In fact, the wait listed candidates, including the petitioners, have made a joint representation to the Minister for Health and Family Welfare on 01.07.2017 to consider them for appointment as staff nurse under the Health Department against the vacant posts of staff nurse lying pin the Department during the life span of wait list prepared by the authority. However, the same has not been considered by the respondent State. 8. On a perusal of the representation dated 01.07.2017, this Court finds that the wait listed candidates, including the petitioners themselves stated that the wait list panel is valid for next 18 months i.e. till 18.05.2018. These writ petitions are said to have been filed on 25.07.2018 and 08.08.2018 respectively. Thus, according to the petitioners, on the date of filing of the writ petitions itself, the wait list got expired. Therefore, the question of considering the waiting list alleged by the petitioners does not. 9. It is pertinent to mention that there is no legitimate right vested in the petitioners to get themselves to be appointed by operating the wait list. That apart, according to the respondents, the waiting list has not been operated by the Government and the validity period of wait list has already been lapsed. 10. Since the Court cannot force the respondent State to operate the wait list and there is no legitimate right vested in the petitioners and the fact that the wait list got expired before filing of the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the prayer in the writ petitions has rendered infructuous. 11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 12. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.