Naresh kumar Laishram vs State Of Manipur And Others

Kh. Nobin Singh, J

[1] Heard Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review petitioners and Shri N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur appearing for the respondents.

[2] The instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioners who were appointed as LDCs only, against the judgment and order dated 24/07/2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 908 of 2017.

[3] It may be noted that the said judgment and order dated 24-07 2018 was delivered by this Court allowing the WP(C) No.908 of 2017 in part wherein both the VLWs and LDCs who were appointed, are the petitioners. The review petition being RP No.7 of 2018 filed in respect of the VLWs has been disposed of by this Court on 15-03-2019, the relevant paragraphs of which are as under:

" [5] The letter dated 24-10-2016 addressed to the Director (RD & PR) by the Deputy Secretary (RD & PR) has been heavily relied upon by the review petitioners to contend that the excess appointment was made pursuant to a policy decision but since it could not be placed before this court, the law laid down in Rakhi Ray case had been erroneously applied while deciding the writ petition. However, on perusal of the letter dated 24-10-2016, it is seen that the State Cabinet did not take any decision for appointment of VLWs more than what was indicated in the notification. Even if the said letter was placed on record prior to the disposal of the writ petition, the outcome thereof would not have been different because the grievance of the learned Advocate General, Manipur while opposing the writ petition, was that the DPC which held the interview from 17-10-2017 to 21-10-2016, would not have considered the Government orders dated 02-12-2016 and 23-12-2016 which were issued creating some more posts. Therefore, the law laid down in Rakhi Ray case became applicable and in terms thereof, the writ petition was to be allowed only in part.

[6] Be that as it may, Shri H.S Paonam, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition may be disposed of with the direction that the State Government may consider the cases of the petitioners at its own wisdom and that too, in accordance with law. Since only an innocuous order has been prayed for as aforesaid, this court has agreed to his submission and the review petition stands disposed of accordingly."

[4] The issue involved herein is squarely covered by the order dated 15-03-2019 passed by this Court disposing of the RP No.7 of 2018 and therefore, the instant review petition is also disposed of in terms of the said order dated 15-03-2019 with the direction that the State Government may consider the cases of the petitioners at its own wisdom and that too, in accordance with law.