Manipur High Court
Davi Datt Joshi vs Union Of India on 19 December, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 42-43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 924 of 2018 with
MC(WP(C) No. 370 of 2018
Davi Datt Joshi
.....Petitioner/s
- Versus -
Union of India
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
19.12.2024
[1] Heard Mr. Murari Tiwari, learned counsel along with Mr.
Rahulkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. L.
Anand, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Kirankumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
[2] The petitioner was appointed as Scientist-E (Natural
Product Chemistry) in pursuance to the advertisement No. 01/2011
dated 20.04.2011 issued by the respondents and his service was
terminated vide order dated 06.07.2018 on the ground that his
performance was not satisfactory as accessed by the Assessment
Committee.
[3] The petitioner challenged the same by way of writ petition
being WP(C) No. 772 of 2018 and vide order dated 23.08.2018, this
Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on
Page 1
the plea that he was not terminated by a person subordinate to the
appointing authority and vide order dated 23.08.2018, this Court
directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by a
speaking order.
[4] In pursuance to the direction of this Court vide order
dated 27.09.2018, the petitioner was informed that his service has not
been extended as his performance was found below average as per
the Assessment Committee report.
[5] By the present writ petition, the petitioner prayed for
setting aside the termination orders dated 06.07.2018, 13.07.2018 and
27.09.2018 issued by the respondents on the ground that none of the
members of the Assessment Committee are experts in the subject
matter of Chemistry (Natural Product) as required under Schedule 4 of
the statute of the respondents.
[6] Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
submits that out of 9 (nine) people, Dr. Amulya K. Panda and Dr.
Shekhar C. Mande are the two expert who assessed the performance
of the petitioner and as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in the
assessment proceeding.
[7] Mr. Murari Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
disputed the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner on the ground that Dr. Amulya K. Panda is a Chemical
Engineer and Dr. Shekhar C. Mande is a Master in Physics and as
such, they cannot be considered as expert.
Page 2
[8] Mr. L. Anand, learned senior counsel for the respondent,
submits that he may be given some time to satisfy this Court that the
two are expert to the subject concerned of the petitioner. The question
as to whether the two persons fulfilling the Assessment Committee are
expert in the trade or not by filing an affidavit with an advance copy to
the other side.
[9] It is clarified that there will be no further adjournment on
the next date on this ground.
[10] List this case on 23.01.2025.
[11] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA KH. JOSHUA
MARING
MARING Date: 2024.12.21
11:18:40 +05'30'
Page 3
