MOIRANGTHEM MONITA DEVI v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 7 ORS
Court: High Court of Manipur
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Manipur judgment dated 2024-11-07. MOIRANGTHEM MONITA DEVI v. STATE OF MANIPUR AND 7 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Digitally signed by JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2024. 11. 15 TELEN KOM 07:17:08 +05'30' Item No. 27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C)No. 951 of 2021 Moirangthem Monita Devi …Petitioner - Versus- State of Manipur & 7 Ors. …Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA O R D E R 07. 11. 2024. [1] Heard Mr. H. Bisheshwari, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. SH. Athoi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Mr. TH. Sukumar, learned GA on behalf of the State respondents. None appeared on behalf of the private respondents. [2] The grievance of the petitioner is that she should be the senior most in the cadre of laboratory Attendant on the basis of joining report as she has joined first amongst all selected candidates and she has not been sent for approval by the Governing Body, Pravabati College, Mayang Imphal. [3] Mr. Th.
Sukumar, learned GA draws attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Governing Body of the Pravabati College, Mayang Imphal for the post of Laboratory Attendant where the petitioner is shown at serial No. 5 and private respondent Nos. 5,6,7 & 8 are placed at serial Nos. 1,2,3,&4 in the merit list of the Laboratory Attendant. [4] In the seniority list issued for the Laboratory Attendant, the name of the petitioner is placed at serial No. 5 where the names of the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are placed at serial No. 1 to 4. Mr. TH. Sukumar, learned GA pointed out that the placing of the petitioner and the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 is strictly done in terms of the merit list in pursuance of the initial appointment. Hence, there is no error in the preparation of the merit list. [5] Mr. Sh. Athoi, learned counsel has endorsed the submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. [6] Mrs. H.
Bisheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seniority list of the Laboratory Attendant is not prepared strictly in terms of the merit list, [7] This Court is of the opinion that the seniority list of the direct recruitment has to be prepared as per merit list and not on the basis of the date of joining the service. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the seniority list issued by the School Management Committee. However, if the petitioner is in the zone of consideration, the name of the petitioner may be forwarded for approval and her case may be considered as per rules. [8] With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. [9] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. JUDGE John Kom
Source: High Court of Manipur. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.