AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.K. Sema, J.—These two writ petitions arises out of common question of facts and law land as such they are being disposed by this common judgment.
I have heard Mr. N. Surjamani Singh, counsel for the Petitioners in Civil Rule 962/94, Mr. T. Nandakumar, counsel for the Petitioners in Civil Rule 1025/94, and Mr. Shyamkishore, counsel for the Respondents.
In Civil Rule 962/94, the impugned order dated 24.8.94 has been challenged. The order reads as under.
Annexure-D/5(A/30) Government of Manipur Secretariat : Veterinary Department. ORDERS Imphal, the 24th August 94.
No. 3/10/85-Vety (Pt): Whereas a D.P.C. meeting was held from 19th to 28th August 1992 for recommendation of candidates for appointment of 30(thirty) Field Assistants in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Government of Manipur;
Whereas the said D.P.C, was held when there is a (sic) on holding of D.P.C. for appointment on direct recruitment vide D.P.''s O.M. No. 23/54/89-DP dated 29.2.1992;
Whereas the said D.P.C. had recommended 82 candidates in excess of the posts of 30 Field Assistants for which the D.P.C. was held;
Whereas the number of recommended candidates by the said D.P.C. is also in excess of the panel limit of 10% of the number of the requisitioned posts as laid (sic) down in D.P.''s O.M. Mo.3/25/86 (Pnnel)/DP dated the 4th November 1987;
Whereas the recommendation of the excess candidates more than the available vacancies for which the D.P.C. was held is in gross violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court of the country;
Whereas the D.P.C. did not observe the method of recruitment as per Recruitment Rules of the Posts which prescribed for recruitment to the posts of Field Assistants, 75% by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion;
And, whereas the State Government decides to cancel its approval given to the recommendations made by the said D.P.C. as it is found to be against its policy decisions and standing instructions;
Now, therefore, the Government of Manipur is pleased to cancel the recommendations and the proceeding of the D.P.C. in public interest.
By orders & by the name of the Governor (L. Gangte) Secretary (Vety. & A.H. to the Government of Manipur
Copy to:
The Secretary to the Governor Manipur Raj Bhawan, Imphal.
All P. Sections to Advisors to the Governor, Manipur.
The P.S. to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. 4. The Commissioner (DP), Govt. of Manipur.
The Secretary (Law), Govt. of Manipur.
The Director of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Manipur, with direction to cancel the appointment order of 56 Field Assistants by giving due opportunities of being heard to the appointees concerned in consultation with Law Department.
Guard File.
By letter dated 30th July 1992 (Annexure-A/6) filling up of 30 posts of Veterinary Field Assistants in the Department of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Manipur was requisitioned. In the said requisition letter, it was clearly mentioned that out of 30 posts vacant, one post is reserved for Schedule Caste, 10 posts are reserved for Schedule Tribe and 19 posts are for general candidates. Pursuant to the aforesaid requisition, the D.P.C. held its meeting from 19tJh to 28th August, 1992 for consideration of appointment of the Veterinary Field Assistants. The minutes of the D.P.C. proceeding has been annexed in this writ petition as Annexure-11.
The D.P.C. in its meeting, recommended 82 candidates for the posts of 30 which has been requisitioned. Out of 82 recommended candidates, 56 has been appointed in excess of posts which has been requisitioned. Again only 5 ST candidates has been recommended against the 10 reserved quota, no SC candidates has been recommended within 30 posts in which one post was reserved for the SC.
A counter on behalf of the Respondent has been filed. It is averred in para 5 of the counter that out of 39 vacant posts of Veterinary Field Assistant, 25 per cent i.e. 9 of the posts are to be filled up from promotion quota in accordance with recruitment rules, and 75 per cent i.e. 30 posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment by (sic) candidates from Employment Exchange. Out of 30 posts, 10 posts are reserved for ST and one post is reserved for SC. It is also averred in para 7 of the counter that, D.P.C. in its meeting held from 19.8.92 to 23.8.92 recommended 82 candidates in excess of the posts of 30 Field Assistants for winch the posts was requisitioned and also did not observe reservation quota.
As would appear from the letter of requisition dated 30th July, 1992 (Annexure-A/6), the requisition was made for filling up of 30 posts of Veterinary Field Assistants, Out of 30 posts, one post is reserved for SC and 10 posts are reserved for ST and 19 posts are for general candidates. From the minutes of D.P.C. annexed herewith as Annexure-A/11 it clearly appear that the D.P.C. has recommended 82 candidates for the posts of 30 requisitioned. D.P.C. also recommended only 5 ST candidates bearing Sl. Nos. 7, 8, 10, 16 and 17 out of 10 reserved quota and no SC candidate has been recommended within 30 posts for which requisition has been sent. In this view, the D.P.C. in its meeting held from 9.8.92 to 28.8.92 was in clear violation of the requisition of the posts for which the D.P.C. has been held.
The D.P.C. in its meeting held from 19.8.92 to 28.8.92 has not only violated the requisition of the posts for which the D.P.C. has been held, but it has also violated the reservation quota for SC and ST candidates.
By now it is well settled principle of law by a Catena of decision of the Apex Court that D.P.C. is not competent to recommend the candidates in excess of the post which has been requisitioned.
In Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, It was pointed out by the Apex Court as under:
Where the Selection Board was required to send its recommendation for certain number of posts only but the Board made recommendations of larger number of persons than the number of posts for which requisition was sent, appointment on additional posts on the basis of such selection would be legally unsustainable. Such appointment would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the posts on the last date (sic) for submission of applications mentioned in the advertisement and who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment on the additional posts because if the said additional posts are advertised subsequently those who became eligible for appointment would be entitled to apply for the same.
In State of Bihar and another Vs. Madan Mohan Singh and others, it was pointed out by the Apex Court in para 7 of the its judgment as under:
Where the particular advertisement and the consequent selection process were meant only to fill up 32 vacancies and not to fill up the other vacancies the merit list of 129 candidates prepared in the ratio of 1:4 on the basis of the written test as well as viva voce will hold good only for the purpose of filling up those 32 vacancies and no further because said process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end. If the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process.
Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, the admitted position are these:
(1) By a requisition dated 3rd July, 1992, 30 posts of Veterinary Field Assistant was requisitioned out of which one seat is reserved for SC and 10 scats are reserved for ST only 19 seats are for general candidates.
(2) Pursuant to the aforesaid requisition, D.P.C. held its meeting from 19.8.92 to 28.8.92 and recommended 82 candidates and appointed 56 candidates from the list of recommended candidates in excess of posts which has been requisitioned.
(3) Only 5 candidates from ST out of 10 posts are reserved for ST has been recommended, and no candidate from SC has been recommended out of 30 posts| for which requisition has been sent.
From the aforestated facts, it clearly appear that D.P.C. in its meeting held from 19.8.92 to 28.8.92 not only recommended the candidates in excess of the posts for which requisition has been sent but also made appointment of 56 persons in excess of the posts and also in violation of reservation quota for SC and ST.
It has been strenuously urged by Mr. Surjamani Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are protected by the principle of defected doctrine. In this connection, he has referred to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Dr. A.R. Sircar Appellant v. State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents 1993 (Supp) (2) SCC 734, where the Apex Court had held that the defect to doctrine is applicable in a decision taken bona fide by the Government in accordance with the rule framed.
The ratio of this decision is not applicable in the facts of the case in hand inasmuch as no bona fide decision has been taken by the Government. On the contrary, as pointed out above, proceeding of D.P.C was against the reservation quota, and in excess of the posts for which requisition has been sent and also against the recruitment rules.
Another contention of Mr. Surjamani Singh is that, the Respondent Government has already approved the recommendation of D.P.C. and as such, they cannot now go back and say that the recommendation is bad In this connection, the learned Counsel has referred to a letter dated 14.8.93 (Annexure -A/10). From the letter, it appears that the Government has approved the D.P.C. held from 19.8.92 to 28.8.92 which has been cancelled by the impugned order. However, it was pointed out in para 2 of the letter that, appointment of the selected candidates are to be issued only when the present ban is lifted.
This Court in Civil Rule No. 33 10/94, 978/94 had held after going through various Government files, particularly the note sheet dated 7.4.94 on the file by Commissioner and Secretary (Vet) had held that, no ban has been lifted by the Government for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants.
For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in Civil Rule 962/94, and it is accordingly dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.
In Civil Rule 1025/94, the appointment of the Petitioners in Civil Rule 962/94 as Field Assistants in the Department has been assailed. In view of the dismissal of Civil Rule 962/94, this Civil Rule No. 1025/94 stands allowed.
The net result is that Civil Rule No. 962/94 is dismissed and Civil Rule 1025/94 stands allowed. No costs.
The appropriate authority is directed to pass necessary order pursuant to the order dated 24.8.94
Stay order if any stands vacated.