Writ petition has been filed at the High Court of Manipur located in Imphal against the appointment of an Under Secretary in Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat on account of illegality and improper recruitment procedures.
The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Dr Roseena Khuraijam, who is resident of Sagolband Pukhrambam Leikai in Imphal West district, seeks that a writ of Quo Warranto be issued to set aside the appointment order issued on December 28, 2016, in terms of which the private respondent, also referred to as respondent number three, has been appointed as the Under Secretary of Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
The petitioner has further sought that a writ of mandamus be issued declaring that such appointment had all along remained illegal and void.
As per the writ petition, Dr. Roseena Khuraijam was appointed as the Committee Officer in the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat on the 26th of April, 2016, and later was promoted to the level of Under Secretary regularly. The petition alleges that at the time of such selection, the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat Under Secretary Recruitment Rules of 2011 were applicable for such posts of Under Secretary, which required that 65 percent posts be filled through promotion and 25 percent through direct recruitment.
As argued by the petitioner, while the process for filling the post of Under Secretary through a notification issued on the 10th of May, 2016, was already ongoing, the rules were later modified in two thousand sixteen. According to the petitioner, the manner by which the post should be filled was modified to be divided equally by fifty-fifty between promotion and direct recruitment. The petitioner argues that the new rules were applied retrospectively to appoint the respondent, which is illegal.
The writ petition further avers that the private respondent was first appointed as Committee Officer without advertising, in contravention of the provisions of the Employment Exchanges Compulsory Notification of Vacancies Act of 1959. It is also averred that the private respondent was then appointed as Under Secretary on the basis of the tender of resignation from the post of Committee Officer due to the emergence of a vacancy consequent on the promotion of the incumbent, though the recruitment had been made on the basis of the earlier rules.
The petitioner has also argued that the process of recruitment, under the rules of 2011, should have been conducted in terms of the said rules and the advertisement, and the rules of 2016 can at best apply from the date of the amendments. Otherwise, it shall amount to arbitrariness and mala fide action.
On this basis, the petitioner seeks the intervention of the courts in setting aside the impugned appointment as well as in holding that the continuance of the private respondent in the position of Under Secretary, being illegal, is nullified. This is an issue that is now pending before the Manipur High Court.