IT News
Imphal, Feb 5
The Manipur High Court has quashed a writ petition challenging the validity of the appointment order of the Chairperson for Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Right (MCPCR) yesterday but directed the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Manipur to initiate the process of selection for appointment of a new Chairperson, in accordance with law, by giving wide publicity to the general public.
An order issued by the Deputy Secretary (SW), Government of Manipur dated 29-09-2017 appointed Sumatibala Ningthoujam as the Chairperson of MCPCR. Petitioner Sanoujam Shyamcharan Singh challenges the validity of the appointment order on the ground that it was not made public and no advertisement of the post has been published at any of the media.
What is more interestingly noted by the judgment and order by the court of Justice Kh. Nobin Singh is that the petitioner Sanoujam Shyamcharan Singh who challenged the govt. order for appointment of Sumatibala Ningthoujam as Chairperson of the MCPCR happened to be a candidate who had applied for the post.
In judgment and order, as per affidavit filed by the counsel of the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of the Social Welfare Department which is also a respondent to the writ petition, Justice Kh Nobin Singh observed that the petitioner has concealed material facts.
“Although the petitioner submitted his application for appointment to the post of Chairperson of the State Commission, he concealed it and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed”, the judge noted the affidavit filed by the state government.
Regarding the validity for the selection process, the judgment order observed that in exercise of the power conferred by the Child Rights Act, 2005, the State Government framed the rule called “The Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2011” wherein there is no provision of Rule 6(A). It is nowhere provided in the said rules that for selection of the Chairperson or its members of the State Commission, the State Government ought to make an advertisement or wide publicity for submission of application. In other words, it is not mandatory for the State Government to make advertisement or wide publicity for the selection of the Chairperson or member of the State Commission. Rule 6(A) referred by the petitioner concerns about the selection and appointment of Chairperson or member of the National Commission and not with the selection and appointment of Chairperson of the State Commission.
The judgment orders Sumatibala Ningthoujam to continue as Chairperson of the MCPCR till the completion of the term of three years and not beyond that. The court also directed the state government to initiate the process of selection for appointment of a new Chairperson within six months prior to the expiry of three years from 29-09- 2017, and the selection process be done in accordance with the law, by giving wide publicity to the general public.
Mention may be made that in February 2014 the Supreme Court of India in its ruling had stayed the appointment of members for the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) over failure in following proper guidelines.
The Supreme Court bench led by Justice T S Thakur prohibited the government from issuing notification for appointment of members for the NCPCR, after noting there were no norms and guidelines in place for selecting such members, who were being paid out of the public money. The court underlined neither any advertisement had been issued for inviting applications from people at large nor any criteria with respect to a candidates’ eligibility and suitability was laid down.
