Judge m v Muralidaran ordered Writ of Quo Warranto. In the result, a) The Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2018 is allowed. b) This Court issued quo-warranto by declaring the promotion of the 5th respondent to the post of Joint Director SCERT dated 28.3.2014 is unconstitutional. [3/2, 16:44] Sekarreporter 1: P a g e | 28 W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018 c) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 are hereby directing to remove the 5th respondent from the post of Joint Director SCERT immediately. d) No cost. JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil

[3/2, 16:44] Sekarreporter 1: P a g e | 1
W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018
Shri Sukham Premjit Singh, aged about 42 years, S/o
S. Jugindro Singh, a resident of Thongju Pheija
Leitong, P.O. M.U., P.S. Singjamei, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795003.
Sri Chingangbam Sanjoy Singh, aged about 35 years,
S/o Ch. Guno Singh, Mayang Imphal Konchak
Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur – 795142.
…… Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Manipur through the
Commissioner/Secretary (SCERT), Govt. of Manipur,
New Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001.
The Director, SCERT, Govt. of Manipur, D.M. College
Campus, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
The Commissioner/Secretary (DP), Govt. of Manipur,
New Secretariat Building, P.O & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001.
The Manipur Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, North AOC, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District,
Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
Sri Jim Golden Thingujam, aged about 54 years, S/o
Late Thingujam Yaima Singh, resident of Sagolband
Meino Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
.
…… Respondents
[3/2, 16:44] Sekarreporter 1: P a g e | 27
W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018
of Joint Director. The non-inclusion of the post of Lecturer of Higher
Secondary School as a feeder post for promotion to the post of Joint
Director, SCERT which was earlier known as Producer, SCERT has
been clearly reflected in the letters of the Director, SCERT and the
Under Secretary (DP). Therefore, the case of the fifth respondent
that he was the only feeder incumbent available is not acceptable.
As stated supra, the legal position has been restated
that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Writ of Quo
Warranto is a limited one which can only be issued if the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the Court has to
satisfy itself that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
In the instant case, this Court after analysing the factual matrix
found that the appointment of the fifth respondent as Joint Director
is contrary to the statutory rules, for which it became necessary to
issue a Writ of Quo Warranto.
In the result,
a) The Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2018 is allowed.
b) This Court issued quo-warranto by declaring the
promotion of the 5th respondent to the post of Joint
Director SCERT dated 28.3.2014 is
unconstitutional.
[3/2, 16:44] Sekarreporter 1: P a g e | 28
W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018
c) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 are hereby directing
to remove the 5th respondent from the post of Joint
Director SCERT immediately.
d) No cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME