Manipur High Court
Yurembam Renubala Devi vs The State Of Manipur on 23 August, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
Page |1
KABOR Digitally
by
signed
AMBAM KABORAMBAM
LARSON
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
LARSON Date: 2022.09.01
12:08:26 +05'30'
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
1. Yurembam Renubala Devi, aged about 37 years, w/o Mutum
Herachandara Singh, resident of Heingang Panthoibi Lampak,
P.O. Mantipukhri, P.S. Heingang, and District Imphal East,
Manipur - 795002.
2. Naoroibam Nomita Devi, aged about 50 years, w/o Yumnam
Bijendro Singh, resident of Meitram, P.O. Malom Tulihal, P.S.
Nambol, and District Imphal West, Manipur - 795140.
....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, through the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner/ Secretary, Education (S), Govt. of
Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
District Imphal West, Manipur Pin-795001.
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
Page |2
2. The Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur, Office of the
Directorate of Education (S), Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur. Pin-795004.
3. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
through its Principal Secretary/Commissioner/ Secretary (DP),
Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur Pin-795001.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioners : Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mrs. Ch. Sundari, GA
Date of Hearing : 06.07.2022.
Date of Judgment & Order : 23.08.2022.
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
Page |3
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the advertisement dated 17.2.2021 and to direct the respondents to regularize/absorb the petitioners in their ad-hoc service by linking up their service period with retrospective effect, as has been done in respect of other ad-hoc employees of other departments and also to direct them to release the pay and allowances of the petitioners with effect from 1.3.2017 till their service is regularised.
[2] Brief facts are as follows:
The petitioners were appointed as Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Matriculate Teachers respectively on contract basis for the schools in Hill Districts, Manipur vide orders dated 19.5.2006 on payment of remuneration of Rs.4000/- per month for Graduate Hindi Teachers and Rs.3800/- for Primary Hindi Teachers. On 4.7.2007, the Additional Director of Education (Hills) issued an order extending the terms of engagement of 200 Hindi Graduates, 150 Primary and 100 Hindi Matriculate Teachers with W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 Page |4 effect from 1.4.2007 to September 2007. On 11.8.2008, the Commissioner of Education(S) issued an order re-engaging the services of 1198 contract teachers belonging to various categories with effect from 1.9.2008 to 31.12.2008.
[2.1] By the letter dated 26.2.2011 of the Additional Director of Education (S)/Hills, 1186 teachers were engaged on contract basis in order to teach different subjects in the schools of Hill Districts on payment of remuneration as prescribed by the Government. Out of 1186 teachers appointed on contract basis in Hill Districts, 793 teachers appeared physically on the respective schedule dates and 21 teachers of different categories of designated posts were found to have joined other jobs. As such, a detailed work-out statement of 772 teachers of different categories of contract teachers who appeared physically were verified as genuine, wherein the names of the petitioners were included in the said re- engagement list. On 22.12.2016, the Deputy Secretary, Education(S) written a letter to the Director of Education (S) requesting for holding of a special DPC for regularisation of 222 contracts Hindi Primary and Hindi Graduate Teachers of the Hill Areas, Manipur.
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
Page |5 [2.2] According to the petitioners, in similar cases in various Departments, including Veterinary, Agriculture etc. whereby the services of the incumbents were discontinued, however, their cases were directed to be absorbed by the High Court in various cases, which includes W.P.(C) No.848 of 2016, wherein by the order dated 12.7.2017, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularization/absorption/appointment besides the plea taken by the respondents for non-availability of vacant posts. [2.3] The petitioners along with other Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Matriculate Teachers earlier filed W.P.(C) No.72 of 2018 and by the order dated 5.2.2018, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a representation to the authority, which will be thereafter considered by the authority. Pursuant to the order dated 5.2.2018, the petitioners submitted detailed representation with a prayer for appointment/regularisation/absorption to the post of Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Matriculate Teachers. However, till date no decision has been taken by the respondents on it.
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
Page |6 [2.4] According to the petitioners, similar Graduate Teachers (Hindi) approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.5797 of 2019 and by the order dated 23.7.2019, the Apex Court directed to appoint all the appellants as well as the interveners as Hindi Graduate Teachers in the Department of Education(S), Government of Manipur. [2.5] On 29.6.2020, a meeting was held in the Chambers of the Director of Education(S), wherein the matter relating to the verification of Hindi Contract Teachers and their re-engagement was discussed thoroughly and list of teachers whose verifications were completed and who were found to be in order was also prepared, wherein the names of the petitioners found at Serial Nos.49 and 77 respectively. The petitioners who were engaged as Hindi Contract Teachers are still under consideration for regularisation.
[2.6] While so, to the surprise of the petitioners, the Directorate of Education(S) published the impugned advertisement dated 17.2.2021 inviting application from intending and eligible candidates for the post of Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Primary Teachers, which is against the W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 Page |7 plea taken by the respondents as to the non-availability of vacant post. Challenging the impugned advertisement and seeking to regularise the services of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the writ petition. [3] Resisting the writ petition, the respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that though the petitioners were initially appointed as Hindi Graduate Teacher and Hindi Matriculate Teacher on contract basis, their contract engagement were made end during December, 2008. Since the contract engagements were already discontinued from the year 2008, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned recruitment process. It is stated that in view of the appointment of 175 Hindi Primary Teachers and 49 Hindi Graduate Teachers on 9.12.2011, the contract services rendered by the petitioners were replaced by another set of regularly appointed Graduate Teachers. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. [4] Assailing the impugned advertisement, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially engaged to their respective posts of School Teachers by following the constitutional W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 Page |8 mandate and that they have earned a lot of experience. The learned counsel would submit that no law debarred them from regularisation to their respective posts, as their appointments are not irregular and not illegal appointments which can be regularized being a policy decision of the Government. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have regularised the respective posts of the petitioners by framing a scheme. [5] The learned counsel further submitted that the education is the backbone for the development of a nation and imparting education to the students residing in the far and flung hilly areas of the State of Manipur in the present juncture is highly required for the all-around development of the citizens residing in the area. The petitioners have been rendered their services by imparting education at their respective places of posting i.e. in the hill areas of the State of Manipur, where there are lot of inconveniences besides lacking all the facilities available in the valley areas of the State of Manipur. Therefore, the respondent authorities are required to be directed to absorb the petitioners to their respective posts by extending their terms of engagement which the respondents have not been extended.
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
Page |9 [6] The learned counsel urged that the respondents in not regularising the petitioners to their respective posts of School Teachers, though they had been rendering their services for a considerable long period despite repeated requests made by them, is illegal and arbitrary to the extent that they have deprived the petitioners of their basic fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. [7] By placing reliance upon the order of this Court dated 23.5.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.717 of 2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar case, this Court directed the respondent authorities to regularise the services of the petitioners to the posts, which they have been continuously hold for more than ten years. Thus, a prayer is made to allow the writ petition.
[8] Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, as the petitioners have no legal right to challenge the impugned advertisement after the expiry of 13 years of their contract engagement and that their services were already replaced by another set of regular teachers.
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
P a g e | 10 [9] The learned Government Advocate urged that since the petitioners' contract service has not been extended after 2008, the petitioners have no right to seek absorption. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition.
[10] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
[11] The grievance of the petitioners is that on 19.5.2006 they were engaged as Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Matriculate Teachers on contract basis for the Schools in Hill Districts, Manipur, where there is an acute shortage of teachers. According to the petitioners, their contract engagement was periodically extended and a letter dated 15.12.2011 has been written to the Principal Secretary, Education(S) regarding re- engagement of the teachers appointed on contract basis in Hills. Pursuant to the said letter, verifications were done, wherein the names of the petitioners were included in the said re-engagement. When the petitioners and other Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Matriculate Teachers earlier approached and filed W.P.(C) No.72 of 2018, this Court directed to submit W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 P a g e | 11 representation to the respondent authority. Accordingly, the petitioners and others have submitted representation to the concerned authority for regularisation of the petitioners to the post of Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Matriculate Teachers and till date the said representation was not considered. However, an advertisement inviting application from eligible candidates for the post of Hindi Graduate Teachers and Hindi Primary Teachers was published, which is challenged in the writ petition. [12] On the other hand, the respondents contended that the petitioners' contact service has not been extended after 2008 and a challenge to the impugned advertisement/recruitment process after the expiry of 13 years of their contract engagement is not legally sustainable. [13] The petitioners mainly relying upon the proceedings of the meeting dated 29.6.2020 held in the Chambers of the Director, Education(S) and contended that in the verification list annexed to the proceedings, the name of the first petitioner found at Serial No.49 in the list of Hindi Matriculate Teachers and the name of second petitioner found at Serial No.77 in the list of Hindi Graduate Teacher. According to the W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 P a g e | 12 petitioners, it is clear that the petitioners who were engaged as Hindi Teachers on contract were still under consideration for regularisation. [14] On a perusal of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee constituted to examine the matters relating to regularisation of contract teachers (Hill Districts), held on 29.6.2020, this Court finds that though the engagement of the contract teachers was extended from time to time, the last engagement was from 1.9.2008 till the end of December, 2008. Thereafter, no further extension of the contract engagement by the respondent authorities. Further, the said proceedings speaks about the financial implications and it does not direct re-engagement on contract/regularisation of the contract teachers as detailed in it. Therefore, it is clear that the last extension of the petitioners was upto December, 2008 and thereafter, no further extension was made. Merely, the names of the petitioners found in the list annexed to the proceedings dated 29.06.2020, they cannot as a matter of right claim absorption/regularisation.
W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
P a g e | 13 [15] The order dated 23.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.717 of 2021 relied on by the petitioners seeking regularisation is not applicable to the case of the petitioners for the reason that the facts of that case is entirely different. Therein, the petitioners have established their continuous service for more than ten years against the clear sanctioned vacant post. Therefore, this Court considered the claim of the petitioners and, accordingly, allowed the writ petition thereby given direction to the respondent authorities to regularise the services of the petitioners to the posts. Whereas, in the case on hand, the contract engagement of the petitioners was not extended after December, 2008. Therefore, the petitioners has no legal right to seek regularisation/absorption based on the order passed in W.P.(C) No.717 of 2021.
[16] Similarly, the decision in the case of YaikhomJoykumar Singh v. State of Manipur, 2021 (3) MnLJ 126 relied upon by the petitioners is also not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Therein, the petitioner rendered his service continuously for more than 20 years. Here in the case on hand as stated supra, the engagement of the petitioners is only upto December 2008. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 P a g e | 14 decision in YaikhomJoykumar Singh is not applicable to the case of the petitioners.
[17] There is no quarrel that earlier the petitioners and others have filed W.P.(C) No.72 of 2018. By the order dated 05.2.2018, this Court passed the following order:
"Mr.BPSahu, learned senior counsel appears for the petitioners and Ms.Ch.Sundari, learned G.A. for the respondents.
It has been submitted by Mr.BPSahu, learned senior counsel that petitioner will be satisfied for the time being if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.848 of 2016 with Misc. Case No.122 of 2017.
In view of the above submission made, the petitioners may submit a detailed representation to the authority which will be considered by the authority concerned along with supporting documents.W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
P a g e | 15 The said representation shall be submitted to the respondents authority by the petitioners within a period of three weeks and thereafter, the respondents will consider the same by issuing a speaking order within a period of two months of receipt of the representation.
Petition stands disposed of with the above observation and direction."
[18] Pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2018, the petitioners and others have submitted a representation to the respondent authorities on 15.02.2018. On a perusal of the representation, this Court finds that in paragraph 2, it has been stated that "the last extension was upto the end of December, 2008 vide the orders dated 19.5.2006 and 11.2.2008. However, we are continuing to serve till date with the hope and trust that our services shall be regularized/absorbed by the concerned authorities at one time or other as has been done in respect of other similarly situated incumbents/employees". Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that till date the petitioners are serving in the Department. W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021
P a g e | 16 [19] The petitioners contended that the respondent authorities have not taken decision on the representation of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have also not taken any steps to follow the representation. After submitting the representations on 05.02.2018, the respondents have not taken any further steps. However, when the respondent authorities issued the impugned advertisement on 17.02.2021, the petitioners have challenged the same by way of this writ petition. In between January, 2019 and January, 2021, the petitioners have not taken any steps.
[20] On a perusal of the order dated 12.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.848 of 2016 relied upon the petitioners, this Court finds that the said order is also totally different and not similar. Therefore, the order dated 12.7.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.848 of 2016 cannot be taken into account as a precedent in the present case and said order is not applicable to the case of the petitioners herein.
[21] Coming to the impugned advertisement, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier when a plea taken by the W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 P a g e | 17 respondent authorities as to non-availability of vacant post, now they cannot publish advertisement calling for filling up the post of Hindi Graduate Teachers. The petitioners cannot question the impugned advertisement on the ground of the plea of non-availability of the post of Hindi Graduate Teachers earlier taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioners have failed to point out the illegality in the impugned advertisement. In the absence of any illegality in the impugned advertisement, the petitioners cannot question the same. That apart, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned advertisement and/or the present recruitment process after the expiry of 13 years of their contract engagement discontinued.
[22] On a perusal of the records, it is found that after the non- extension in December, 2008, a duly constituted DPC recommended appointment of 175 Hindi Primary Teachers and 49 Hindi Graduate Teachers vide order dated 9.12.2011. Admittedly, the said recruitment was not challenged by the petitioners. Thus, it is clear that the contract services rendered by the petitioners were already replaced by another set of regularly appointed Graduate Teachers. Normally, the service of the W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021 P a g e | 18 teachers appointed on contract basis will be utilized until the posts are filled up on regular basis. However, in the case on hand, as stated supra, the contract services of the petitioners were already replaced. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petitioner and, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.
[23] In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE FR/NFR
-Larson W.P.(C) No.374 of 2021