SHOUGRAK
Digitally signed by
IN. 57
SHOUGRAKPAM
PAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2024.03.01
DA SINGH
13:08:24 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 32 of 2019
Chongtham Rakesh Singh Petitioner
…
Vs.
State of Manipur & ors.
… Respondents
B E F O R E
AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
29-02-2024
[1] Heard Ms. Rinika Maibam, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
The present writ petition had been filed assailing the order
dated 29-10-2018 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of
Manipur rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the
Die-in-Harness Scheme.
[2] The brief facts of the present case are that the father of
the petitioner namely, (L) Ch. Ramananda Singh, while serving as
Assistant Science Graduate Teacher in Madhumati High School, died
on 18-07-
2003. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner’s
mother submitted an application dated 21-08-2003 to the Director of
Education (S), Government of Manipur, requesting for appointing her to
any suitable post under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. When the authorities
failed to take up any action in connection with the application submitted by
submitted another
the petitioner’s mother, the petitioner’s mother again
application dated 23-03-2007 to the Director of Education (S), Government
of Manipur, requesting for considering the case of the petitioner for his
appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. In the said application, it
is mentioned that the subsequent application had been submitted as the
authorities failed to take up any action with regard to her earlier application
and as all the documents submitted earlier having been lost by the staff of
the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur.
[3] Subsequently, the Director of Education (S), Government of
Manipur, issued an order dated 09-11-2016 thereby rejecting 306
-
WP(C) No. 32 of 2019 Contd…/
-2-
applications for appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme including
the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner. In the Annexure
attached to the said order dated 09-11-2016, the name of the petitioner
appears at Sl. No. 129.
[4] Having been aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order
dated 09-11-2016 by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 113 of 2017
before this court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court along
with a batch of other writ petitions by a common judgment and order dated
05-12-2017. In the said judgment, this court quashed the impugned order
dated 09-11-2016 in respect of the petitioners therein and issued certain
directions, which are as under:-
In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, all
“[12]
the writ petitions are allowed and consequently, the order dated
09-11-2016 is quashed in respect of the present petitioners with the
following directions:-
(a) The applications submitted by the petitioners shall be treated
as valid;
(b) The cases of the petitioners shall be considered by the
respondents, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, in terms of
the Die-in-Harness Scheme as restored vide order dated
16-12-2006 subject to other conditions mentioned therein like
educational qualifications, seniority, etc. and they shall be
appointed, if they are found to have fulfilled the said
conditions. There shall be no order as to costs.”
[5] In purported compliance with the directions given by this court,
the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, issued an order
dated 29-10-2018 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his
appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. The grounds for rejecting
the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-Harness
Scheme, as contained in the said order, are as under:-
And, whereas the claim of the present petitioner, Shri Chongtham
“5.
Rakesh Singh for appointment under Die-in-Harness Scheme was
also considered and examined scrupulously in view of the directive
of
of the Hon’ble High Court dated 05/12/2017 as well as in terms
the Office Memorandum No. 20/15/2002-DIH/DP dated 01/04/2011
issued in this regard by a Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur, wherein it is
-
WP(C) No. 32 of 2019 Contd…/
-3-
stated as quoted herein which the
, “to consider cases in
applicant was 15 years of age when his/ her father/ mother and
unmarried brother/ sister expired provided that the application
is submitted within 3 (three) years from the date of expiry of
. However, as per the High School
the Government Servant”
Leaving Certificate, 2006, wherein his date of birth was found to
rd
March, 1991, the said Shri Chongtham
have been recorded as “3
Rakesh Singh was found to be underage on 18/07/2003 on which
his father late Ch. Ramananda Singh, Ex-Science Graduate
Teacher expired.
4. In consideration of the facts and circumstances stated above, it has
been arrived to the conclusion as ordered herein that the claim of
the petitioner for appointment under die-in-harness scheme stands
rejected.
th
5. This is issued in compliance with the order dated the 5 December,
2017 of the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur passed in WP(C) No.
113 of 2017.
”
Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court
again by filing the present writ petition for redressing his grievances.
[6] Ms. Rinika Maibam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the directions given by this court in the common judgment
and order dated 05-12-2017 passed in WP(C) No. 113 of 2017 and other
analogous writ petitions are very clear. The specific directions given by this
court in the said judgment and order is that the applications submitted by
the petitioners shall be treated as valid and that the case of the petitioners
shall be considered by the respondents within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order in terms of
the Die-in-Harness Scheme as restored vide order dated 16-12-2006
subject to other conditions mentioned herein like educational qualifications,
seniority, etc. and they shall be appointed, if they are found to have fulfilled
the said conditions. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that as per the directions given by this court,
the case of the petitioner is to be considered in terms of the Die-in-Harness
Scheme which existed on or before 16-12-2006, on which date the said
Die-in-Harness Scheme was restored. The learned counsel vehemently
submitted that instead of considering the case of the petitioner in terms of
2006
the earlier Die-in-Harness Scheme which existed before 16-12- , the
-
WP(C) No. 32 of 2019 Contd…/
-4-
authorities considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the Office
Memorandum dated 01-04-2011 issued in connection with appointment
under the Die-in-Harness Scheme and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel, the consideration of the case of the
petitioner under the said Office Memorandum dated 01-04-2011 and
rejection of his claim on the basis of such O.M. is ultra vires the directions
given by this court in the aforesaid common judgment and order and as
such, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and accordingly, the impugned order dated 29-10-2018 is liable
to be quash and set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that the
claim of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered in terms of the Die-in-
Harness Scheme which existed on or before 16-12-2006 in terms of the
directions given by this court.
[7] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondents fairly
submitted that on perusal of the impugned order dated 29-10-2018, it is
clearly revealed that the authorities consider the claim of the petitioner for
his appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme in terms of the Office
Memorandum dated 01-04-2011 and rejected his claim on the basis of the
said Office Memorandum. The learned GA elaborated this point by
submitting that under the said O.M., it is, inter alia, provided that an
applicant must be 15 (fifteen) years of age on the date when his father/
mother expired, however, in the present case as the petitioner was less
than 15 years on the date his father expired, the authorities rejected the
claim of the petitioner on this ground. The learned GA strenuously
submitted that in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the authorities have
not committed any illegality and that the said impugned order has been
issued strictly in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 01-04-
2011 and as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as
being devoid of merit.
[8] I have heard at length the rival submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully examined the
materials available on record. In the present case, this court earlier issued
specific directions to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the
-
WP(C) No. 32 of 2019 Contd…/
-5-
Die-in-Harness Scheme as restored vide order dated 16-12-2006 subject
to other conditions mentioned therein and if he is found to have fulfilled the
said conditions, he should be given appointment. In my considered view,
the plain meaning of the directions given earlier by this court is to consider
the case of the petitioner in terms of the Die-in-Harness Scheme which
existed on or before 16-12-2006 and not on the basis of any other
Die-in-Harness scheme or Office Memorandum issued subsequent to
16-12-2006.
[9] In the present case, from plain reading of the impugned order, it
is crystal clear that the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the
Die-in-Harness Scheme has been considered in terms of the Office
Memorandum dated 01-04-2011 and rejected his claim on the basis of the
said Office Memorandum. In my considered view, such consideration of
ry to the directions given
the petitioner’s claim and rejection thereto is contra
earlier by this court in the aforesaid common judgment and order dated
05-12-2017 and as such, this court is of the considered view that the
petitioner has been able to make out a case for interfering with the
impugned order.
[10] In the result, the impugned order dated 29-10-2018 issued by
the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the
petitioner strictly in terms of the earlier direction given by this court in the
common judgment and order dated 05-12-2017 within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed
of. Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
Devananda
-
WP(C) No. 32 of 2019 Contd…/