Md Abdul Wahab And Ors vs State Of Manipur And Ors

N. Kotiswar Singh, J

Heard Mr. N.Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard also Mr.H.Samarjit, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents as well as Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N.Bipin, learned counsel, Mr. Ng.Jotindra, learned counsel, Mr.H.Suraj, learned counsel for the private respondents.

When these matters were taken up, it has been submitted by Mr.Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents themselves, in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 on 12.01.2016 have annexed a document, namely, Annexure-X-5 dated 01.3.2014 in which the Addl.Director General of Police, Home Guards & Managing Director, MPHC Ltd. had submitted the list of candidates who were found to be not eligible for various reasons that they are either over-aged or they did not belong to the categories of candidatures under which they had applied for and other defects mentioned in the said documents and also another document dated 1st July, 2014 annexed as Annexure-A/2 to the additional reply affidavit on behalf of the petitioner on 19.5.2016 in which the Addl. Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur also had written to the Director General of Police of various defects in the candidature of the candidates.

It has been submitted by Mr.Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners that these are documents of the respondents which indicate that candidature of some of the candidates had suffered from defects which would disentitle them from being appointed from the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police/Jemadars and as such, if any of the candidates whose names have been clearly shown in these documents are appointed, that would be illegal appointments as these appointments would be against the rules and hence, their appointments are liable to be invalidated and in place of such illegal appointments, the cases of the petitioners can be considered for appointment.

Apart from that, it has been further submitted by Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners that there are many other candidates who were never in the Select List, yet they were given appointment for which Mr. Mahendra has referred to the documents at Annexure-A/3 to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners on 19.05.2016. It refers to the appointment order dated 07.01.2015 in which the person at Sl.No.52, namely, Lantham Khumanyai Meitei with Chest No.348 of Imphal West is shown though he was not selected for appointment. Mr.Mahendra has also referred to the document at Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition which is the notification dated 6th August, 2013 notifying the Select List for appointment, in which the name of Mr.I.Arunkumar Singh at Sl. No.26 having Chest No.314 /IE (Respondent No.31) occurs who was not declared successful in written test List (Annexure-P/2).

Mr. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that one Hongsha Koyaingam Maring, Chest No.143/CDL (respondent No.146) ( a rifleman of 8 MR appointed in 1997 and in service for not less 16 years of service), who is in merit list at Sl.No.141 (Annexure-P/3) is a candidate not eligible in many respects, like age, educational qualification, tempering/destruction of his previous service records as Rifleman, etc. but his name finds place in the final appointment order.

It is also further submitted by Mr.Mahendra that under height candidates, included in the Select List (Annexure-P/3) Sl.No.30, Chest No.763/IW Luwangthem Ronikanta Singh (Respondent No.332), Sl. No.265, Chest No.396/IE Md. Wakibuddin (Respondent No.270), Sl.No.109, Chest No.558/TBL, Mayengbam Arunkumar (Respondent No.114), Sl.No.42 of Jemadar, Chest No.413/IE , Md.Amin Khan (Respondent No.332) have been also appointed.

Mr.Mahendra has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents at Annexure-Z to the affidavit filed on 09.12.2016 in which the names of 302 candidates have been given, who according Mr. Mahendra, had obtained more marks than some of the candidates declared successful in the written test but they were not appointed. In other words, the submission of Mr.Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are many candidates who have been given appointment though they were not qualified for various reasons as mentioned above and some of the candidates who are more meritorious than some of the Select Candidates, as mentioned in Annexure-Z, referred to above, have been ignored.

Accordingly, the State respondents would be required to file a detailed affidavit clarifying the position as to whether any of the candidates who were otherwise not qualified /eligible have been given appointment as mentioned above or whether any meritorious candidates mentioned in Annexure-Z had not been given appointment.

Mr. Mahendra has also submitted that while making appointment, the reservation policy of the Government have also not followed. Accordingly, though the State respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition in this regard, the Court would require the State respondents to file additional affidavit with reference to the aforesaid issues raised by the petitioners.

List these cases on 13.03.2018.

A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Government Advocate for doing the needful.