Ex-post facto approval by competent authority validates irregular appointments, barring subsequent disengagement after decade of service.

The case concerns the appointment of seven respondents (3 teaching and 4 non-teaching staff) to a residential school in Khurai, Manipur, established under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)

In 2012, an ad-hoc committee, chaired by the local MLA rather than the District Project Manager (DPM), appointed the respondents

This committee was subsequently approved by the Deputy Commissioner (DC)/Chairman of the District Board of Education on October 17, 2012

After the respondents rendered over ten years of blemishless service, the same DC issued show-cause notices and subsequently disengaged them on January 30, 2021, on the grounds that their initial appointment was irregular because the committee was not chaired by the DPM

The respondents challenged this in W.P.(C) No. 178 of 2021, which was allowed by a Single Bench

The State appealed this decision via the present Writ Appeal

1. Whether the initial appointment of the respondents was void ab initio due to the ad-hoc committee being chaired by a legislator instead of the District Project Manager

2. Whether the disengagement of the respondents was discriminatory given that similar appointments in 19 other schools remained undisturbed

3. Whether the ex-post facto approval of the ad-hoc committee by the DC cured any alleged procedural irregularity in the appointment process

The Court applied the principle of administrative consistency and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution

It relied on the precedent set in *State of Manipur v. Yaikhom Joykumar Singh*, W.A. No. 34 of 2021 (affirmed by the Supreme Court), which held that in the absence of specific rules demonstrating a total lack of authority, appointments made by a functional body cannot be easily interfered with years later

Furthermore, it referenced *Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeeshbhai Ambalal Patel* (2012) 9 SCC 310, regarding the principle that a party (the State) cannot benefit from its own alleged procedural lapses or "infamy" to the detriment of employees

The Court reasoned that the State’s "sheet anchor" argument regarding the irregular chairmanship of the committee failed because the DC—the authorized official—had granted ex-post facto approval to that very committee on October 17, 2012

This approval remains valid and has never been cancelled

The Court found the State's action highly discriminatory, noting that while 20 schools followed the same appointment process, only the respondents in this specific school were singled out for disengagement

The Court emphasized that the respondents possessed the requisite qualifications at the time of entry

and had completed a decade of "blemishless service"

Since the DPM had actually participated in the selection meeting as Vice-Chairman, the procedural objection was deemed a "non-starter"

It held that the respondents' appointments were validly protected by the DC's ex-post facto approval and that their disengagement after ten years was arbitrary and discriminatory

The Court vacated the interim stay dated November 9, 2022, and directed the State to ensure the seven respondents resume their work forthwith to avoid understaffing the school

No order as to costs was made