Manipur High Court
Shri Kshetrimayum Tejkeshware Singh vs The Manipur University Represented By ... on 18 July, 2024
[1]
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2024.07.18 15:59:50
SINGH +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020
Shri Kshetrimayum Tejkeshware Singh, aged about 54 years
old, S/o Kshetrimayum Shyamkanhai Singh, a resident of
Sagolband Tera Loukrakpam Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001 at present working as
Producer, EMMRC, Manipur University
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Manipur University represented by the Registrar,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O. Canchipur & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795003.
2. The Director, EMMRC, having its office at the Manipur
University Campus, Canchipur, P.O. Canchipur & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795003.
3. Ministry of Education, represented by its Secretary, Govt. of
India, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
Delhi - 110001.
4. University Grants Commission (UGC), represented by its
Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
... impleaded vide order dated 28-09-2021 in
MC(WP(C)) No. 156 of 2021)
5. The Consortium of Educational Communication (An Inter
University Centre of University Grants Commission on
Electronic Media), represented by its Director, I.U.A.C
Campus, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi - 110067.
... impleaded as R-5 vide order dated 31-08-2022
passed in MC(WP(C)) No. 259 of 2022.
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[2]
B E F O R E
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHANTHEMBIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate
asstd. By Mr. A. Rommel, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. B.P. Sahu, Senior Advocate
asstd. by Ms. R.K. Tanya, Advocate;
Mr. S. Kaminikumar, CGSC &
Mr. S. Jasobanta, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 03-04-2024
Date of judgment & order :: 18-07-2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr A. Rommel learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. B.P. Sahu,
learned senior counsel assisted by Ms R.K. Tanya, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. S. Kaminikumar, learned
CGSC appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5.
The only issue that needs to be decided in the present writ
petition is whether declaring the petitioner as an ineligible candidate for
appointment to the post of Director, EMMRC, Manipur University, on the
ground that he has not completed ten years of regular service is sustainable
or not?
[2] The relevant facts required for deciding the above issue are that
before his appointment as a Production Assistant of the Audio Visual
Research Centre (AVRC) in Manipur University, the petitioner was serving
as Upper Division Assistant (UDA) on regular basis w.e.f. 24-02-1993 to
24-08-1998 in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. While serving as UDA
in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, the petitioner was appointed as
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[3]
Production Assistant of the Audio Visual Research Centre in the Manipur
University for the term w.e.f. 24-08-1998 till 31-03-1999 vide office order
dated 31-08-1998 issued by the Registrar, Manipur University. It is the case
of the petitioner that the term of his appointment as Production Assistant
was extended from time to time and that while he was holding the post of
Production Assistant of the AVRC, the petitioner was appointed as a
Producer of Educational Multimedia Research Centre in the Manipur
University on regular basis by an order dated 22-11-2011 issued by the
Director (EMMRC), Manipur University.
[3] While the petitioner was serving as a Producer of EMMRC, the
Deputy Registrar (Admn.), Manipur University, issued an Advertisement
No. 3/2019 dated 10-10-2019 inviting applications from Indian nationals for
filling up the post of Controller of Examinations, Finance Officer and
Director, EMMRC. Under the said Advertisement, The essential
qualifications prescribed for the post of Director, EMMRC are as under:-
"A Master's Degree in any subject. Eminent teaches/ persons
having experience of print/ electronic media of journalism/
theatre, art and culture with a total of 10 years of regular
service including administrative experience.
The terms of Director shall be for a period of 05 years,
extendable to another term(s) upto the age of 60 years.
Age limit: 55 years."
[4] The petitioner being an eligible and qualified candidate applied
for the post of Director, EMMRC strictly in terms of the conditions stipulated
in the aforesaid Advertisement. When no further action was taken up by the
authorities in connection with the recruitment of Director, EMMRC after
issuance of the said Advertisement even after a lapse of one year from the
last date of submission of forms, the petitioner submitted a representation
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[4]
dated 06-11-2020 to the Registrar, Manipur University, requesting to
declare the result of the Screening Committee. When the authorities failed
to consider the said representation, the petitioner filed a writ petition being
WP(C) No. 596 of 2020 before this court for redressing his grievances and
the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 23-11-2020 by
directing the respondents, more particularly, the Registrar, Manipur
University, to consider the said representation submitted by the petitioners
within a period of four weeks from the date of passing the said order and to
issue a speaking order in respect thereof.
[5] Soon after receiving a copy of the said order dated 23-11-2020
passed by this court in WP(C) No. 596 of 2020, the Registrar, Manipur
University issued an office Order No. 711 dated 25-11-2020 cancelling the
recruitment process initiated pursuant to the Advertisement dated
10-10-2019 for appointment to the post of Controller of Examinations and
Director, EMMRC and for issuing fresh Advertisement for recruitment to the
said post of Controller of Examinations and Director, EMMRC in due
course. The reason given in the said order for cancelling the recruitment
process is that the Screening Committee did not find any eligible candidate
for appointment to the post of Controller of Examinations and Director,
EMMRC. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present writ
petition assailing the said cancellation order and also praying, inter alia, for
directing the authorities to hold the DPC for appointment to the said post of
Director, EMMRC within a reasonable period.
[6] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the authorities have declared the petitioner as an
ineligible candidate for appointment to the post of Director, EMMRC only
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[5]
on the ground that the petitioner has not completed ten years of regular
service, which is an essential qualification prescribed for the said post.
According to the learned senior counsel, such ground given by the
authorities is incorrect. The learned senior counsel strenuously submitted
that the petitioner is well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post
of Director, EMMRC as the petitioner have rendered more than ten years
of regular service. In this connection, the submission made by the learned
senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner are as under:-
(a) Before his appointment as Production Assistant, AVRC in the
Manipur University w.e.f. 24-08-1998, the petitioner rendered
service as a regular UDA in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal
Bench for a period of more than five years w.e.f. 24-02-1993 to
24-08-1998;
(b) While serving as a regular UDA in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal
Bench, the petitioner was appointed as a Production Assistant,
AVRC in Manipur University w.e.f. 24-08-1998 and he continued
to serve in such capacity till 22-11-2011, for a period of more than
thirteen years, on which date he was appointed as Producer,
EMMRC in Manipur University on regular basis and the petitioner
has rendered about eight years regular service as a Producer,
EMMRC as on the date of issuance of the aforesaid
Advertisement dated 10-10-2019;
(c) In para 19(B) of the Application Form submitted by the petitioner
for appointment to the post of Director, EMMRC pursuant to the
Advertisement dated 10-10-2019, the length of service rendered
by the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove were clearly given ;
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[6]
(d) Under a letter dated 21-06-1996, the Under Secretary, UGC
intimated to the Director, Audio Visual Research Centre (AVRC,
now EMMRC) that the UGC has lifted the ban imposed on the
recruitment of staff in the media centre on permanent basis with
immediate effect and that the centre may now go ahead with the
recruitment of staff in the media centre on permanent basis in
accordance with the staffing pattern circulated by the
Commission. In the said staffing pattern, the posts of Production
Assistants are also included. Pursuant to the said letter, the
Board of Management, EMMRC, Manipur University held its 11th
meeting on 11-11-2011 in the office of the Vice-Chancellor,
Manipur University, and took a number of resolutions including
the resolution to confirm the services of all the EMMRC
employees who joined their services before 01-01-2004 w.e.f.
their respective dates of joining in their present positions for
award of pension benefit. The relevant resolution of the Board of
Management, EMMRC under Agenda Item No. 10 are as under:-
"10. Whether the members of the Media Centre are entitled to
pension.
The Board resolved to confirm the services of all the EMMRC
employees who joined their services before 01-01-2004
w.e.f. their respective dates of joining in their present
positions for award of pension benefit. The resolution is in
conformity with the UGC letter No. F.6-1/93(MC) dated 21st
June, 1996 and it supersedes Resolution No. 7(a) of the 5th
BoM meeting held on 14th July, 2003 at 2 p.m. in the
Committee Room with the Vice Chancellor in the Chair."
(e) In compliance with the UGCs direction under its letter dated
21-06-1996 and the resolution taken by the Board of
Management of EMMRC, Manipur University in its 11th meeting
under Agenda Item No. 10, the Director, EMMRC issued an office
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[7]
order dated 24-01-2012 confirming the service of many
employees of the EMMRC, who are similarly situated with the
petitioner, w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment. The service
rendered by the petitioner as Production Assistant, AVRC/
EMMRC during the period from 24-08-1998 till 21-11-2011 was
also confirmed by an order dated 30-11-2021 issued by Director
(i/c), EMMRC, Manipur University;
(f) The concerned authorities of the EMMRC, Manipur University all
along treated the service rendered by the petitioner as
Production Assistant to be on regular basis and such factum can
be verified from the office orders issued during the period from
21-08-1999 till 22-07-2011 (at Annexure-A/13 series) fixing the
annual grade increment of the staff members of the AVRC,
Manipur University including the present petitioner as well as
from the office order dated 19-12-2011 issued by the Director,
EMMRC fixing the pay scale of the petitioner on his appointment
as Producer, EMMRC. It has been submitted that such annual
increment and fixation of pay scale can be given only to regular
employees; and
(g) From the above factums detailing the length of regular service
rendered by the petitioner in different capacities, it is clearly
evident that the petitioner have rendered more than ten years of
regular service and he is quite eligible and qualified for
appointment to the post of Director, EMMRC. Without at all taking
into consideration the length of regular service rendered by the
petitioner in different capacities mentioned above, the authorities
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[8]
have arbitrarily and whimsically treated and declared the
petitioner as an ineligible candidate for appointment to the post
of Director, EMMRC and issued the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of
law as the same is founded on incorrect facts and accordingly,
liable to be quash and set aside. Further, the petitioner is entitled
to be considered as an eligible candidate and to have his case
considered for appointment to the advertised post of Director,
EMMRC within a reasonable period.
[7] Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that one of the essential qualifications
as notified in the Advertisement dated 10-10-2019 is that a candidate for
the post of Director, EMMRC should have ten years of regular service. The
petitioner was appointed as Producer, EMMRC on regular basis on
22-11-2011 and as on the last date of submission of the application forms,
i.e., 11-11-2019, he has rendered about eight years of regular service
counting from 22-11-2011 to 11-11-2019. Accordingly, the authorities
treated the petitioner as an ineligible candidate since he has not completed
ten years of regular service, which is an essential qualification. The learned
senior counsel also submitted that the Screening Committee held a meeting
on 06-01-2020 for sorting out the candidates eligible for recruitment to the
post of Controller of Examinations and Director, EMMRC and during the
process of screening, it was found that no candidate, including the present
petitioner, was eligible for appointment to the post of Controller of
Examinations and Director, EMMRC and the Committee unanimously
resolved to request the University authority to cancel the process of
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[9]
recruitment initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 10-10-2019 and
to issue fresh Advertisement for filling up the said post. On the basis of the
recommendation of the Screening Committee, the impugned order dated
25-11-2020 was issued by the Registrar, Manipur University, cancelling the
recruitment process initiated pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement and
for issuing fresh Advertisement for recruitment to the post of Controller of
Examinations and Director, EMMRC in due course. The learned senior
counsel further submitted that the Manipur University did not commit any
illegality in issuing the impugned order and as such, the present petition is
liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
[8] It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondents No. 1
and 2 that subsequent to the issuance of the impugned cancellation
order dated 25-11-2020, the Manipur University had issued another
Advertisement No. 1/2021 dated 18-11-2021 inviting applications from
Indian nationals for filling up the various Group-A posts including the post
of Director, EMMRC. It has also been submitted that by an order dated
16-12-2021 passed by this court in the present writ petition, direction was
given to the effect that the petitioner shall be permitted to submit his
application in terms of the subsequent Advertisement dated 18-11-2021
taking into account the fact that he was eligible at the time when the earlier
Advertisement dated 10-10-2019 was issued and to consider the case of
the petitioner by the Manipur University along with the eligible candidates
on merit and that the result of the recruitment process shall be subject to
the outcome of the present writ petition. In compliance with the order dated
16-12-2021 passed by this court in the present writ petition, the authorities
of the Manipur University have included the petitioner in the list of eligible
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[10]
candidates, however no Viva-Voce/ Interview for filling up the advertised
post has been held by the authorities.
[9] The disputed fact in the present case is that the authorities of the
Manipur University considered the petitioner as an ineligible candidate for
appointment to the post of Director, EMMRC only on the ground that he has
not completed ten years of regular service, which is an essential
qualification for the said post. On examination of the Application Form
submitted by the petitioner (at Annexure - A/4 series), it is found that the
petitioner had given his professional/ service experience at para 19(B) of
the application form, which are as under:-
"19(A) Academic qualification:
***
(B) Professional/ Service Experience:
(Give particulars in descending order stating with the present post) Name of the Post held Last Period Nature of employee basic assignment [Please indicate pay whether drawn Govt./Quasi with From To Govt./ pay Autonomous/ scale Private) Gauhati High U.D.A. 1,635/- 24 Feb., 24 August, Administrative Court: Imphal 1993 1993 procedures Bench AVRC (Now Production 24 August, 22 Nov., Production of EMRC) Manipur Assistant 1993 2011 Educational University video Prgs. & conduct of course /workshop on film making EMRC, Manipur Producer 22 Nov., Till now -do-
University 2011 [10] On careful examination of the materials available on record, it is
also found that the petitioner had rendered more than five years of regular service as Upper Division Assistant in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and such factum has not been denied by any of the respondents.
Moreover, the petitioner was appointed as Production Assistant, AVRC in WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[11]Manipur University w.e.f. 24-08-1998 and he continued to rendered service as Production Assistant till 22-11-2011, on which date he was appointed as Producer, EMMRC in Manipur University. Accordingly, the petitioner have also rendered service in the capacity of Production Assistant for more than thirteen years and such period of service rendered by the petitioner as Production Assistant had been also confirmed by the authorities of the Manipur University by issuing the order dated 30-11-2021 in compliance with the UGCs direction as well as the resolution adopted by the Board of Management of the EMMRC, Manipur University. As such factum has not been controverted or denied by any of the respondents, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had rendered more than ten years of regular service, though in different capacities. [11] As the essential qualification of ten years regular service as notified in the Advertisement dated 10-10-2019 is not qualified by any criteria/ specification/ service condition, the act of the authorities in counting only the regular service rendered by the petitioner as Producer, EMMRC and ignoring the regular service rendered by the petitioner in other different capacities while considering his eligibility and treating him as an ineligible candidate cannot be countenanced by this court. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have acted arbitrarily and whimsically in issuing the impugned order dated 25-11-2020 and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quash and set aside.
WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-
[12]
[12] In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the following
directions:-
(i) The impugned office Order No. 711 dated 25-11-2020 issued by the Registrar, Manipur University, is hereby quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the advertised post of Director, EMMRC along with other eligible candidates, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of JUDGE FR / NFR Devananda WP(C) No. 681 of 2020 Contd.../-