Case: THE STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. TAKHELMAYUM KHELENDRO MEITEI

Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited (MSPDCL). Manipur State Power Corporation Limited issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Junior T echnical 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 advertisement was 10 th standard whereas in the year 1999 the minimum qualification required was 8 th 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 T echnical Assistants out of the 100 posts which were advertised. However, the advertisement notifying the selection to the posts of Junior T echnical Assistants was withdrawn by the Government.8.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 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 the advertisement dated 11 th 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, 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 Assistants in the posts advertised on 11 th May, 2016?11. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 , 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 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 been scrapped. The policy decision of the Government dated 19 th 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 Government of Manipur dated 19 th March, 2001 was bona fide and the Respondents cannot assert any right for appointment on the basis of 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 dated 19 th 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 selections stood cancelled by the policy decision dated 19 th 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The said decision of the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary under any circumstances. The policy decision of the Government of Manipur dated 19 th March, 2001 was bona fide and the Respondents cannot assert any right for appointment on the basis of 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 dated 19 th 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 selections stood cancelled by the policy decision dated 19 th 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.