Full Judgment Text
Non -Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.842-843 of 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 36612-36613 of 2016)
The State of Manipur & Anr. .... Appellants
Versus
Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei
& Ors. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The High Court of Manipur allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the
Respondents-herein and directed the declaration of the results relating
to selection to the posts of Lineman conducted in the year 1999 within
a period of three weeks. The process of appointment was directed to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.22
17:10:23 IST
Reason:
be completed within four weeks and the successful candidates were
1
directed to be adjusted against the vacancies notified for the posts of
Junior System Assistants. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Manipur has
filed the above Appeals.
2. The Department of Electricity, Government of Manipur initiated
the process of selection for filling up the posts of Assistant Lineman in
the Department of Electricity. Before the process could be completed,
th
a complete ban on direct recruitment was imposed on 6 November,
1999. The declaration of results of DPC (Selections) already held was
also frozen by the said order. According to the State Government, the
ban was imposed in view of the financial stringency in the State.
3. The Respondents filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1040 of 2000 for a
direction to the Appellant to declare the result of the DPC held from
th th
19 August, 1999 to 13 September, 1999 for selection to the posts of
Assistant Lineman. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the Imphal
th
Bench of the Gauhati High Court on 11 August, 2000. The result of
the selection in respect of 155 posts of Assistant Lineman conducted
in the year 1999 was directed to be declared not later than one month
after lifting of the ban. A policy decision was taken by the Appellant to
downsize the strength of government employees to control the
financial crisis in the State. The services of persons appointed on
2
direct recruitment, part-time, contract, ad hoc, substitute and casual
basis since 1999 were terminated. No direct recruitment, permanent
and ad hoc could be made till further orders. Results of DPCs which
have not been announced were directed to be treated as cancelled.
4. Another Writ Petition was filed by some of the Respondents
seeking declaration of the result of selection to the posts of Assistant
Lineman contending that the ban on direct recruitment cannot be a
ground for not declaring the results of the selection conducted in the
year 1999. The High Court directed the announcement of the results
th th
of the DPC held between 19 August, 1999 to 13 September, 1999 to
the posts of Assistant Linemen. The said direction was initially stayed
by a Division Bench of the High Court in the Writ Appeal filed by the
Appellant. Thereafter, the interim order of stay was vacated by a
th
Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 29 November,
2002. The said order was challenged by the Government and this
Court directed the Appellant to furnish the list of selected candidates
to the High Court in a sealed cover. Learned counsel appearing for the
parties were given liberty to peruse it. With the said directions, the
Civil Appeal was disposed of.
th
5. The Writ Appeal filed by the Government was disposed of on 19
3
November, 2004 with an observation that the appointment shall be
made strictly in order of the merit list prepared by the Selection
Committee as and when the State decided to lift the ban and make
appointments. As the said direction was found to be contrary to the
th
order passed by this Court, the order dated 19 November, 2004
passed in Writ Appeal No.413 of 2004 was recalled at the behest of
the Appellant.
6. Thereafter, the Appellant-State issued an advertisement for
appointment to various posts including 29 posts of Assistant Lineman
in the Electricity Department. The Writ Petition filed by the
Respondents questioning the advertisement notifying 29 posts of
Assistant Lineman was disposed of by the High Court with a direction
to the State Government not to fill up 29 posts of Assistant Lineman
without taking an appropriate decision in respect of the recruitment to
155 posts of Assistant Lineman which were advertised in the year
1999.
7. In the meanwhile, the Electricity Department was unbundled into
two entities i.e. Manipur State Power Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and
Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited (MSPDCL).
Manipur State Power Corporation Limited issued a notification inviting
4
applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of
Junior Technical Assistants which according to the Respondents are
equivalent the post of Assistant Lineman. It is relevant to mention
here that the minimum qualification for appointment as per the
th
advertisement was 10 standard whereas in the year 1999 the
th
minimum qualification required was 8 standard for appointment as
Assistant Lineman. In the interim order passed in the Writ Petitions
filed by the Respondents, the High Court directed the State
Government not to fill up 56 posts of Junior Technical Assistants out of
the 100 posts which were advertised. However, the advertisement
notifying the selection to the posts of Junior Technical Assistants was
withdrawn by the Government.
8. A fresh notification for recruitment to 680 posts at Grade-III and
Grade-IV levels was issued by the Manipur State Power Corporation
Limited. This advertisement included some posts of Junior System
Assistant. As this advertisement was issued during the pendency of
the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondents, they asserted their right
for appointment in the advertised posts of Junior System Assistants.
Although, the selection to the posts of Assistant Lineman in the year
1999 was to 155 posts, the present dispute is confined only to 58
5
Respondents who have filed two Writ Petitions by seeking declaration
of the results of their selection in the year 1999. The High Court, by
the impugned order, directed the declaration of the results within a
period of three weeks and completion of the process of appointment
within four weeks. The selected candidates were directed to be
adjusted in the post of Junior System Assistants which were notified in
th
the advertisement dated 11 May, 2016. The Appellant is aggrieved
by the said directions issued by the High Court.
9. The High Court referred to the Manipur State Electricity (Reforms)
Scheme, 2013, especially Clause 7, to hold that all proceedings
pending against the Electricity Department shall not abate or be
discontinued against the transferee. The High Court was of the view
that since the litigation pertaining to the selections that were
conducted in the year 1999 was still pending, the transferee entities
i.e. Manipur State Power Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and Manipur
State Power Distribution Company Limited (MSPDCL) have to
discharge their obligations, if any. The High Court referred to several
decisions of this Court to reiterate that the State is under no obligation
to fill up the vacancies that were advertised, but proceeded to hold
that the decision should be bona fide. According to the High Court,
6
there was no bona fide reason for the successor entities of the
Electricity Department not to discharge the obligation of appointing
candidates selected as Assistant Linemen in the year 1999. The High
Court further observed that the process initiated in the year 1999 has
not been scrapped. The Appellant was found at fault for not making
appointments on the basis of the selections held in the year 1999,
while proceeding with recruitment to the post of Junior Assistants and
Assistants which are equivalent to Assistant Linemen. On the basis of
such reasoning, the High Court directed the appointment of
Respondents.
10. The issues that arise for our consideration in this case are:
(i) Whether the Respondents have any indefeasible right
for appointment to the posts of Assistant Lineman on the
basis of the selections made in the year 1999?
(ii) Whether the High Court could have issued a direction
for appointment of the Respondents as Junior System
th
Assistants in the posts advertised on 11 May, 2016?
1
11. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India , it was held that there
is no indefeasible right for appointment merely because a candidate is
found fit on the basis of a selection. Ordinarily the notification merely
1
(1991) 3 SCC 47
7
amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the
State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it was also held in the said judgment that the State does not
have any license to act in an arbitrary manner and that the decision
not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. The High Court observed that there is no bona fide reason
for the successor entities of the Electricity Department for not
appointing the Respondents. Further, the High Court concluded that it
was not the stand of the Appellant that the process of recruitment has
th
been scrapped. The policy decision of the Government dated 19
March, 2001 cancelling all the selections that were made earlier and
banning any further recruitment was part of the record which could
not have been ignored by the High Court. There was sufficient
justification for the Government of Manipur to ban recruitment. The
Government was compelled to take such decision in view of the
financial crisis. The said decision of the Government cannot be said to
be arbitrary under any circumstances. The policy decision of the
th
Government of Manipur dated 19 March, 2001 was bona fide and the
Respondents cannot assert any right for appointment on the basis of
8
the selections conducted in the year 1999.
12. Even assuming that the successor entities of the Electricity
Department have an obligation to defend the actions and decisions of
the Electricity Department, it is relevant to note that the decision
th
dated 19 March, 2001 of the Appellant cancelling the selections
conducted before that date had not been questioned by the
Respondents. In any event, the Respondents do not have a legal right
to seek appointment to the posts of Assistant Lineman as the
th
selections stood cancelled by the policy decision dated 19 March,
2001. We are unable to agree with the High Court’s direction for
appointment of the Respondents in the posts of Junior System
Assistants which were advertised in 2016.
9
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are allowed and the
judgment of the High Court is set aside.
...................................J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
..................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..................................J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi,
January 17, 2019.
10