Manipur High Court
Shri Manglien Gangte vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The on 10 May, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
Page |1
Digitally signed
KABOR by
KABORAMBAM
AMBAM LARSON
Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
LARSON 2022.05.11
11:12:33 +05'30' W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Shri Manglien Gangte, aged about 30 years S/o Luthang Gangte,
a resident of New Lambulane, 1st Street, Near VBA Church, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Secretary/Commissioner/Principal Secretary, (Tribal Affairs,
Hills & Scheduled Castes), Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat
(South Block) P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795001.
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner, (Finance), Govt. of Manipur, Old
Secretariat (South Block) P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director of Tribal Affairs & Hills and Scheduled Caste
Department, Manipur, Near Telephone Office, Babupara, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Joint Director, Tribal Research Institute, Chingmeirong,
Imphal West District, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |2
5. Shri John Galdingam D., aged about 38 years old, S/o D.
Tanchung, a resident of Longjang Thangal Village, Nungba
Sub-Division, P.O. & P.S. Khoupum, Tamenglong District,
Manipur now at present staying at Mahabali Kabui Village, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795001.
..... Respondent/s
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. H. Samarjit, GA
Mr. D. Julius Riamei, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2022.
Date of Judgment & Order : 10.05.2022.
JUDGMENT &ORDER
(CAV)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the appointment order of the fifth respondent as Research Officer dated 13.7.2016 and also the regular appointment issued dated 24.12.2016 as W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 Page |3 Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer under the Tribal Research Institute, Manipur.
[2] The case of the petitioner is that on 18.12.2015, an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Research Officer in the Tribal Research Institute (for short, "TRI") on contract basis for the pay scale of Rs.13,700/- per month. Pursuant to the said advertisement, 15 candidates have appeared in the DPC and the fifth respondent, who is the brother-in-law of the then Director, Tribal Affairs & Hills and Scheduled Caste Department, Manipur was appointed by adopting pick and choose policy and also extended favouritism to him by the third respondent. Pursuant to the engagement order dated 13.7.2016, the fifth respondent has been continuing to work as Research Officer in the TRI. While so, by an order dated 24.12.2016, the Secretariat of Tribal Affairs and Hills Department (TRI) created as many as 10 different posts such as 1 post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer, 1 post of Accountant, 2 posts of Computer Operator-cum-Office Assistant, 1 post of Driver, 3 Office Attendants, 1 Sweeper and 1 Chowkidar respectively.
[3] Further case of the petitioner is that soon after the creation of the said 10 posts on 24.12.2016, the Commissioner (Tribal Affairs & Hills/TRI) W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 Page |4 has immediately issued another order on the same day thereby regularising the said newly created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer having pay scale of Rs.9300- 34800+GP 5400 in favour of the fifth respondent. According to the petitioner, the said regularisation was made without any DPC and the post of Research Officer cannot be converted into the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer and such conversion is against the service jurisprudence. It is averred that when the petitioner enquired, he was informed that the Recruitment Rules for the said post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is yet to be made and the re- designation of the said post is under process. While that being so, the post of Research Officer has been redesignated and regularised in favour of the fifth respondent. Hence, the writ petition.
[4] The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the designation of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer has been done with the approval of the Government in conformity with the operational guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. The fifth respondent was regularised as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer as per the decision of the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 14.12.2016 and with the concurrence of the Finance Department and also the W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 Page |5 Department of Personnel. Therefore, there is no infirmity in regularising the fifth respondent as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer. [5] It is stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the fifth respondent is brother-in-law of the Director is baseless and false and in fact, the fifth respondent is not related to each other. The fifth respondent was appointed in pursuance of the recommendation made by the duly constituted DPC held on 2.7.2016. It is also stated that the TRI obtained approval of the Committee of Officers in its meeting held on 10.12.2015 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for engagement of Research Officer in the TRI on contract basis for one year, subject to the recruitment through open advertisement and payment of remuneration as per the FD/PIC norm. Accordingly, the Selection Committee held interview on 2.7.2016 and interviewed 11 candidates who attended the interview and recommended the fifth respondent. Since the writ petition is bereft of any foundation and prima facie motivated, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. [6] As far as the contractual engagement of the fifth respondent as Research Officer is concerned, the first respondent in its affidavit-in- opposition stated that the petitioner being unsuccessful as per the DPC result held on 2.7.2016, he has no right to question the same. W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
Page |6 [7] The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the State Cabinet decision taken on 29.12.2012, FD(PIC) had allotted U.O.No.317/2012-2013/FD(PIC) dated 18.3.2013 to the contractual engagement of 9 different categories of posts, including one post of Research Officer in the TRI without post creation and generally, contractual engagement is done from time to time in different department/officers under Government of Manipur with or without post creation. It is stated that in pursuance of the decision taken by the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 14.12.2016, FD(PIC) had allotted U.O.No.416/2016-2017-FD(PIC) dated 22.12.2016 to the creation of 10 different categories of posts, including one post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer and the same Cabinet has also approved the regularisation of the fifth respondent against the newly created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
[8] The fifth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the State Government from time to time fills up posts in order to mend the requirements of the departments, hence, the prayer of the petitioner is misconceived and is not maintainable since the fifth respondent was engaged on contract basis by the order dated 13.7.2016 and was later regularised by the order dated 24.12.2016 by the Government after due process of law. It is W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 Page |7 stated that the writ petition is filed on afterthought and no grounds were raised to explain the lapse of time taken to approach this Court. It is stated that the petitioner an unsuccessful candidate is venting out his frustration against the fifth respondent on afterthought and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
[9] Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the U.O. number mentioned in the appointment order dated 13.7.2016 being U.O.No.317/2012/ FD(PIC), dated 18.3.2013 utilized for appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer is a fake U.O. number borrowed from Finance Department and, as such, the appointment itself is fake, which amounts to cheating of the Finance Department, thereby loosing the State exchequer by appointing the fifth respondent on 13.7.2016 and in this regard, an enquiry is required to verify as to whether the said U.O. number is fake or not by giving a specific direction to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner (Finance), Government of Manipur as to whether such U.O. number has been given by the Finance Department in favour of the fifth respondent or not so as to enable to find out the factual position of the said U.O. number and if found fake, an appropriate action should be taken whosoever involved in the said fraudulent preparation of W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 Page |8 U.O., as the Deputy Secretary, Finance/PIC)-cum-State Public Information Officer, Government of Manipur has informed in his letter dated 10.7.2018 that there is no such record with U.O.No.317/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18.3.2013 regarding contractual engagement of Research Officer in TRI, Manipur. [10] The learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the operational guidelines for the scheme "Grant-in Aid to Tribal Research Institutes" published in 2014, there is no post of Research Officer and as such the TRI has manipulated the said advertisement without having any sanctioned post for the post of Research Officer when the fifth respondent was appointed.
[11] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner urged that since the fifth respondent is the brother-in-law of the Director, TA & Hills and TRI and in order to give him the said regular post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer, the said post has been created and without holding any DPC through MPSC, the same has been given regularisation in favour of the fifth respondent and, as such, the same requires to be quashed and the fifth respondent should be reverted to his post of Research Officer on contract basis and the said post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer may be filled up by holding proper DPC through MPSC so as to enable to offer a W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 Page |9 fair chance to all the eligible candidates, who are willing to apply for the said post including the petitioner.
[12] Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State submitted that with regard to U.O. number mentioned in the appointment order dated 13.7.2016 being U.O.No.317/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18.03.2013 allotted for appointment of the fifth respondent, the Department has committed a bona fide mistake while incorporating the U.O. number issued by FD (PIC). The Finance Department (PIC) allotted U.O.No.317/2012- 2013/FD(PIC) dated 18.03.2013 to the contractual engagement of nine different categories of posts, including one post of Research Officer and the same has been subsequently rectified in its subsequent order dated 22.12.2018.
[13] The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the regularisation of the fifth respondent as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer was as per the decision of the State Cabinet dated 14.12.2016 and in concurrence with the Finance Department and the Department of Personnel and also in conformity with the guidelines.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 10 [14] As far as the initial appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer is concerned, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the fifth respondent was appointed pursuant to the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC held on 2.7.2016 and the allegation of the petitioner that since the fifth respondent is the brother-in-law of the then Director, TA & Hills he has been given the appointment, is baseless.
[15] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the prayer of the writ petition is misconceived and the same is not maintainable as the fifth respondent was initially engaged on contractual basis by the order dated 13.7.2016 and was subsequently regularised by the order dated 24.12.2016 by the Government after due process under law. [16] The learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of time and no valid grounds have been given for the delay. Therefore, on the ground of delay, the writ petition is liable for dismissal. He would submit that the fifth respondent is no way related to the then Director as alleged by the petitioner and approaching this Court with mischievous allegations amount to contempt of court. W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 11 [17] The learned counsel for the fifth respondent next submitted that as per the decision of the State Cabinet dated 29.12.2012 the contractual engagement of 9 different categories of posts, including one post of Research Officer with monthly income of Rs.13,700/- in TRI without post creation was made and that the contractual engagement was done from time to time in different department/office under the Government of Manipur with or without post creation. He would submit that thereafter, in pursuance of the State Cabinet decision dated 14.12.2016, the FD (PIC) allotted U.O.No.416/2016 dated 22.12.2016 to create 10 different categories of posts, including one post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.9300- 34800+GP 5400 and the same Cabinet approved the regularisation of the fifth respondent in the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer and consequent upon the approvals from the Finance Department and Department of Personnel, the order of regularisation dated 24.12.2016 impugned herein was issued. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders impugned and thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. [18] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 12 [19] The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to the advertisement, 15 candidates have appeared in the DPC for the post of Research officer. The fifth respondent, who is the brother-in-law of the then Director was appointed by adopting pick and choose method by the third respondent. As per the contract, the fifth respondent has no right to claim any right for regular appointment on the basis of his engagement as Research Officer. Further grievance of the petitioner is that while so working as Research Officer on contract basis, the Secretariat of the TA & Hills Department has created 10 different posts, including one post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer, on 24.12.2016. Soon after the creation of 10 posts, the Commissioner, TA & Hills issued another order on the same day, thereby regularising the fifth respondent to the said newly created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer having the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP 5400. This according to the petitioner is without holding any DPC.
[20] On the other hand, it is say of the official respondents that there was no pick and choose policy in the case of engagement of the fifth respondent at the initial stage and only in pursuance of the State Cabinet decision and in conformity with the guidelines, more particularly, in W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 P a g e | 13 concurrence with the Finance Department and Department of Personnel, the fifth respondent was regularised as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
[21] As could be seen from the records, it is evident that the TRI obtained approval of the Committee of Officers in its meeting held on 10.12.2015 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur for engagement of Research Officer in the TRI on contract basis for one year, subject to the recruitment through open advertisement and payment of remuneration as per FD/PIC norms. It is also seen from the records that the Joint Director placed an advertisement inviting eligible candidates vide notification dated 18.12.2015 and the Government constituted a Selection Committee comprising the following members:
(1) George K Maram, Joint Secretary (TA & Hills) as Chairman (2) Robita Yumnam (MCS), Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur (3) Z. Solomon, Joint Director (TRI), Member Secretary.W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 14 The Selection Committee held interview on 2.7.2016 and interviewed 11 candidates who attended the interview and recommended the fifth respondent as Research Officer.
[22] The petitioner himself stated in the writ petition that altogether 15 candidates applied, out of which 4 candidates were absent. The marks obtained by the candidates have also been furnished by applying RTI and the fifth respondent obtained 18 ½ marks in total in the said DPC and the petitioner obtained 12 ½ marks. Having participated and failed in the selection process, now the petitioner questioning the initial selection of the fifth respondent as Research Officer. Such course adopted by the petitioner is impermissible.
[23] It is to be pointed out that having obtained the RTI information the petitioner stated that the U.O. number mentioned in the appointment order dated 13.7.2016 of the fifth respondent is fake and as such, the appointment is not valid. According to the petitioner, the State Public Information Officer in his letter dated 10.7.2018 stated that there is no such record with U.O.No.37/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18.032013 regarding the contractual engagement of Research Officer in TRI, Manipur.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 15 [24] Regarding the allotment of U.O. number in the appointment order dated 13.7.2016 issued in favour of the fifth respondent, the Secretary, Finance Department, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has stated as under:
"6. That, with reference to para No.11 of the writ petition, it is submitted that in regard to the U.O. No. mentioned in the appointment order dated 13/7/2016 being U.O.No.317/2012/FD(PIC) dated 18/3/2013 allotted for appointment of the said Private Respondent No.5, the Administrative Department appears to have committed a bonafide mistake while incorporating U.O. No. issued by FD (PIC). FD (PIC) had allotted U.O.No.317/2012- 2013/FD(PIC) dated 18/3/2013 to the contractual engagement of 9 (nine) different categories of posts including 1 (one) post of Research Officer @ Rs.13,700/- (i.e. Rs.9300 + GP Rs.4400) in the Tribal Research Institute (TRI) without post creation. AD (TA & Hills) has accordingly rectified the same in its subsequent orders dated 22/12/2018 as per FD (PIC)'s U.O. No."
[25] Thus, the U.O. number mentioned in the appointment order of the fifth respondent dated 13.7.2016 has been subsequently rectified as U.O.No.317/2012-2013/FD(PIC) and the concerned Finance Department also after knowing the mistake has corrected the U.O. number. Merely mentioning of the wrong U.O. number, the appointment of the fifth respondent cannot be W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 P a g e | 16 questioned by the petitioner. The U.O. number is being allotted by the Finance Department to show that the appointment is with the concurrence of the Finance Department. The respondent Finance Department has not disputed the initial appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer. Therefore, the wrong mentioning of U.O. number in the appointment order is not a ground to challenge the initial appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer.
[26] As rightly argued by learned Government Advocate, the contractual engagement is done from time to time in different departments under the Government of Manipur with or without post creation. The initial appointment of the fifth respondent as Research Officer is also based on the recommendation made by the duly constituted DPC. When the fifth respondent was engaged on the recommendation of the DPC and the petitioner having himself participated and defeated in the selection process, cannot now question the selection of the fifth respondent as Research Officer at this distance point of time and this Court finds no infirmity in the order of appointment dated 13.07.2016 issued in favour of the fifth respondent. [27] The plea of the petitioner is that since the fifth respondent is the brother-in-law of the then Director, he has been shown favouritism in W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 P a g e | 17 engaging/appointing in the post of Research Officer is also without any basis. Such mischievous allegation raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained as the same has been raised to maintain the writ petition. [28] Coming to the regularisation of the fifth respondent in the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that soon after the creation of 10 posts, including the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer dated 24.12.2016, the official respondent regularised the fifth respondent in the said post, which is contrary to the service jurisprudence. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent was appointed as Research Officer in the pay scale of Rs.9300/- plus GP Rs.4400/- and it means that the pay scale of the Research Officer is only Rs.13,700/-, whereas the pay scale of the Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is Rs.9300-34800+GP 5400/-. There is a vast difference in the grade pay. Hence, the post of Research Officer can never be converted into the post of Administrative Officer-cum- Research Officer, which is higher grade pay to the post of Research Officer and as such the conversion and regularisation to the said post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is illegal and that too without holding any DPC.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 18 [29] Countering the aforesaid argument of the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate argued that pursuant to the decision taken in the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 14.12.2016, the FD (PIC) had allotted U.O.No.416/2016 for creation of 10 different categories of post including one post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP 5400/- and the same Cabinet had also approved to the regularisation of the fifth respondent against the newly created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
[30] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the first respondent, it has been stated as under:
"6. .... Thereafter, in pursuance to the decision taken by the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 14/12/2016, FD (PIC) had allotted U.O.No.416/2016-2017-FD(PIC) dated 22/12/2016 to the creation of 10 (ten) different categories of post including 1 (one) post of Administrative Officercum-Research Officer in the pay scale of Rs.9300- 34800+ GP 5400/- and the same Cabinet decision had also approved to the regularisation of the Private Respondent No.5 against the post newly created post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer.
On advice of the DP and as per the Manipur Public Service Commission Regulations, 1972, regularisation of Administrative Officer- cumResearch Officer (TRI) was exempted.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 19 Designation of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer has been done with the approval of the Govt. i.e. State Cabinet (highest decision making body of the state) in conformity with the Operational Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India." [31] Along with the affidavit-in-opposition, the first respondent has also annexed the xerox copy of the file note, wherefrom, this Court finds the decision of the Cabinet dated 14.12.2016 as under:
"Cabinet Decision taken on 14.12.2016 AGENDA No.5 Proposal for creation of 10 (ten) different categories of posts as special case with regularization of the present 10 (ten) nos of contractual employees of Tribal Research Institute (RTI) DECISION : Approved.
Sd/-
Chief Secretary (Cabinet) Government of Manipur"
[32] Thus, from the above document, it is clear that the conversion of the post - Research Officer as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer and the regularisation of the fifth respondent in the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer are all based on the decision of the State Cabinet.
W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018
P a g e | 20 [33] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner at this juncture urged that the Recruitment Rule for the post of Administrative Officer-cum- Research Officer has not been framed and the redesignation of the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is under process and therefore, it is quite surprise that how and under what circumstances the said post of Research Officer has been re-designated and regularised in favour of the fifth respondent has not been properly explained by the respondent State and therefore, the impugned order dated 24.12.2016 is to be quashed. [34] It is the specific case of the respondent State that the Government vide Order No.30/14/2016-TA&H (TR) dated 24.12.2016 created one post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer in TRI, Manipur as approved by the State Cabinet in its meeting with exemption from consultation with MPSC. When the petitioner complains that the consultation of the MPSC is required before regularisation of the fifth respondent, it is his bounden duty to prove the same. However, the petitioner has not produced any material. [35] The learned Government Advocate contended that due to time constraint, Recruitment Rules for the post of Administrative Officer-cum- Research Officer could not be framed before obtaining approval from the State Cabinet. When the respondent State themselves stated that there is an W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 P a g e | 21 exemption from consultation with the MPSC and Recruitment Rules could not be framed before obtaining approval from the State Cabinet for the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer, it is quite contrary to take a different view now. As is seen from the agenda and the decision on it, it is clear that not only the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer alone regularised, but also, as a special case, the Cabinet regularised 10 nos. of contractual employees of the TRI. Nothing on record to show that the other different categories have challenged the said regularisation. In the absence of any contra evidence, this Court is of the view that the act of the respondent authorities in regularising the fifth respondent in the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer is in accordance with the State Cabinet's decision and this Court finds no fault in it.
[36] Though the initial selection as Research Officer and regularisation as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer of the fifth respondent were made in the year 2016, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition only in the year 2018 after a delay of nearly two years. [37] According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the writ petition is filed on afterthought and no ground was raised to explain the lapse of time taken to approach this Court by the petitioner. Apart from delay, the W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 P a g e | 22 learned counsel for the fifth respondent also submitted that the petitioner has raised frivolous and vexatious pleas in the writ petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. In support, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Priya Wart B.K.D.Dubaldhan and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1982) 2 SCC 142; Delhi Development Authority v. Kapil Mehra and others, (2015) 2 SCC 289 and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 186.
[38] In the decision in Priya Wart B.K.D.Dubaldhan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the special leave petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs because these are not merely devoid of substance, but verge on sharp practice on the Court. The dismissal has necessarily to be completed by cost which is quantified at Rs.3000 in each special leave petition.
[39] In Delhi Development Authority (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dismissing the special leave petition after observing that the well- crafted and well-reasoned judgment of the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court does not suffer from any legal error and there is no merit in the W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 P a g e | 23 petitioner's challenge to the same, imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh for forcing unwarranted litigation upon the respondents 1 to 3 therein which they have suffered for almost two decades.
[40] In Ravindra Kumar Singhi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"18. Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheet of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such solemn statement made on oath."
[41] Admittedly, there is a delay in approaching the Court by the petitioner. Further, when the petitioner himself participated in the selection process in the post of Research Officer and having defeated in the selection and later on filing a writ petition raising vexatious and frivolous pleas questioning the selection/appointment of the fifth respondent is unacceptable. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not imposing costs while dismissing the writ petition. [42] For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the contractual engagement of the fifth respondent as W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018 P a g e | 24 Resource Officer and the subsequent regularisation of the fifth respondent as Administrative Officer-cum-Research Officer. There is no merit in the writ petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. [43] Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE FR/NFR
-Larson W.P.(C) No.1096 of 2018