Manipur HC Orders Absorption of Non-Teaching Staff Denied Due to College’s Lapse | Says Employees Cannot Suffer for Employer’s Failure to Forward Names
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Manipur Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Somashekar and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma has directed the State Government to absorb two non-teaching employees of Kakching Khunou College, noting that their exclusion from the absorption process occurred solely due to a lapse on the part of the college's Governing Body. The court held that "employees should not suffer for the lapses on the part of their employer, especially when they are not at fault," and ordered the State authorities to absorb the respondents as government employees within two months.
The directive came in response to two writ appeals: one filed by the State of Manipur challenging a previous order directing absorption, and a cross-appeal questioning factual inconsistencies in the earlier judgement. The Court ultimately dismissed the State’s appeal, modified certain factual findings, and maintained that failure to forward the names of eligible staff by the college could not be a valid ground to deny them government employment. The decision underscores the principle that similarly situated employees must receive equal treatment.
The appeals, WA No. 92 of 2023 and WA No. 102 of 2023, arose from a common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 543 of 2018. The State of Manipur challenged the direction to absorb two petitioners as government employees following the conversion of Kakching Khunou College into a full-fledged government institution.
The original petitioners were appointed on 21.11.2017 as Lower Division Clerk and Laboratory Assistant in Kakching Khunou College, which at the time was a Government Aided College. Their grievance was that, although similarly appointed staff had been absorbed into government service after the college was upgraded, their names were excluded from the list forwarded to the State Government.
The petitioners claimed that their appointments were made by the Governing Body of the college, and they had duly submitted their joining reports on the same day. A key basis for their claim was a Government Order dated 28.06.2018 that outlined the process of converting aided colleges into full-fledged government colleges.
Through an RTI application, the petitioners discovered that their names had been omitted from the list of non-teaching staff submitted by the college Principal. In contrast, names of other employees, including private respondents in the case, were included and found at various serial numbers in the submitted list.
The petitioners approached the court seeking either to quash the submitted list or to direct the authorities to include their names for absorption.
In response, the State Government filed a counter affidavit asserting that it had no role in deciding which employees would be absorbed. The affidavit stated that the Governing Body of the college was the appointing authority and solely responsible for submitting names of eligible staff. The State's role was confined to examining the eligibility of forwarded names under existing rules.
Significantly, the college and private respondents did not file any counter affidavits before the Writ Court to rebut the petitioners' contentions.
The Single Judge noted that the petitioners had been appointed on the same date as other staff who were later absorbed. Observing a precedent in a similar case involving Jiribam College, the court found that the petitioners were entitled to equal treatment.
Subsequently, the Single Judge directed the State Government to absorb the petitioners as government employees in accordance with the Government Order dated 12.08.2016.
The State, however, challenged the order through WA No. 92 of 2023, raising multiple grounds, including the claim that the appointment of one of the private respondents (Sarangthem Kishan) was under enquiry and that the petitioners' names were never forwarded by the college.
WA No. 102 of 2023 was filed by Sarangthem Kishan, who argued that the Single Judge had erred in stating his appointment date as 21.11.2017 when it was actually 01.12.2016. He contended that this misstatement had led to an unnecessary enquiry and the suspension of his absorption order.
The High Court noted that the State had taken inconsistent positions throughout the litigation. The initial counter affidavit before the Writ Court only stated that the names had not been forwarded. In the writ appeal, the State introduced new grounds, including concerns about the authenticity of the appointments. Further, after the appeal was reserved for judgment, the State submitted a written note raising entirely new allegations of fraud and introduced a cut-off date of 17.12.2016, which was not part of the original proceedings.
During arguments, the petitioners pointed out that the Governing Body had never disputed their appointments. Additionally, it was stated that the appointment of private respondent Sarangthem Kishan was clarified in another writ petition—WP(C) No. 990 of 2021—where the Governing Body confirmed his appointment date as 01.12.2016 and admitted a clerical mistake in including him in the 21.11.2017 order.
It was further submitted by the petitioners that the date of absorption of all similarly situated employees was 19.03.2020, much after their appointment. The error in the Single Judge’s order noting prior absorption did not affect the substantive merit of the claim for equal treatment.
The petitioners relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments, including (2015) 1 SCC 347 and (2023) 8 SCC 116, in support of equal treatment and against taking contradictory stands in litigation. They also cited Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashist Chakraborty and a recent Division Bench decision in WA No. 90 of 2023, which held that failure of the employer to forward names cannot be a ground to deny absorption.
The Division Bench recorded: "Employees should not suffer for the lapses on the part of their employer, especially when they are not at fault. Benefits given to similarly situated employees cannot be denied to them."
Regarding the college's role, the Court stated: "It is the sole prerogative of the Governing Body of the College upon verification of credentials of the employees."
Further, the Court found: "There is no justification nor explanation given by the Governing Body of the College as to why the names of the respondent No. 1 & 2 were not included in the list of the names forwarded to the State Government for absorption."
The Court also noted: "It is not the case of the Governing Body of the College nor the State Authority that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not eligible for absorption as per the existing rule."
Addressing the belated claims of fraud and new cut-off dates, the Bench observed: "The State appellant is taking different and inconsistent stands at each stage of the litigation... It is the settled proposition of law that a person cannot take inconsistent and totally divergent stands in the same transaction."
Quoting from a previous Supreme Court case, the Court stated: “It is needless to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model employer.”
With respect to the private respondent’s appointment, the Court recorded: "With this clarification what remains that vide order dated 21.11.2017, only two persons were appointed i.e. the respondent No. 1 as LDC and the respondent No. 2 as Lab Assistant in Kakching Khunou College."
On the issue of factual error by the Single Judge, the Bench stated: "Perhaps, the parties before the Writ Court did not appraise the true facts of the case properly. In the circumstances, there might be some inconsistency in the observations made by the Ld. Single Judge."
On the issue of new contentions in appeal, the Court noted: "In the memo of appeal, the State has taken new pleas not pleaded before the writ court... In the written submissions... the plea of fraud and justification of cut-off of date for absorption has been introduced for the first time."
Referring to WA No. 90 of 2023, the Court recalled: "The argument of the State that original writ petitioner was not absorbed because his name was not sent by the concerned managing committee, is untenable and would not be available to them."
The Division Bench stated: "WA No. 92 of 2023 filed by the State Government is dismissed, being devoid of any merit." It further clarified: "The finding and observation of the Ld. Single Judge in the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 in WP(C) No. 543 of 2018 is modified to the extent that the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were regularized on 19.03.2020 and not prior to the date of impugned order i.e. 17.10.2019."
"This fact alone cannot negate the case of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2." The Court firmly directed: "The failure of the Governing Body of Kakching Khunou College to forward the names of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for absorption to the Government, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of absorption to them."
It further ordered: "It is directed that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be absorbed as government employees as done to other similarly situated employees."
Regarding the cross-appeal, the Court stated: "WA No. 102 of 2023 is disposed of taking judicial note of the contents of the counter affidavit of the Governing Body of the College in the pending writ petition being WP(C) No. 990 of 2021 filed by S. Kishan himself... the matter is left to be decided in that proceeding."
Finally, the Court concluded: "State authority is directed to issue necessary order of absorption of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
"Send a copy of this judgment to the Administrative Secretary (Higher & Technical Education), Government of Manipur, for information and necessary compliance."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Th. Sukumar, Government Advocate
For the Respondents: M. Devananda, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Jyotsana, Advocate; L. Shashibhushan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Fakharuddin, Advocate
Case Title: The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Mayanglambam Chitaranjan Singh & Ors.
Case Number: WA No. 92 of 2023 with WA No. 102 of 2023
Bench: Chief Justice K. Somashekar, Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma
