Manipur High Court
Leishangthem Samarendra Singh & 3 Ors vs State Of Manipur & 4 Ors on 19 June, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
LAIREN Digitally
signed by
MAYUM LAIRENMAYU
M INDRAJEET
INDRAJ SINGH Item No. 37
Date:
EET 2025.06.19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
16:48:54
SINGH +05'30' AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 460 of 2024
Leishangthem Samarendra Singh & 3 ors. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Manipur & 4 ors. Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
19.06.2025
Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms. Julekha Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners; Mrs.
L. Monomala, learned G.A. appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3; and
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Th.
Ningtamba, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4.
None appeared for respondent No. 5, despite service of notice.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 28.06.2024 issued by the Secretariat: Skills, Labour,
Employment and Entrepreneurship Department, Government of
Manipur, effecting transfer and posting of respondent Nos. 4 & 5. By
the said transfer order, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were allowed to
function as Principal, Government Women ITI Takyel and Principal,
Government ITI, Ukhrul respectively on in-charge basis. The grievance
raised by the present petitioners are that the petitioners are senior to
both respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in their substantive post of Instructor and
that without considering their cases, who were senior to respondent
Nos. 4 & 5, the Government has allowed respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to
function as Principal on in-charge basis. On behalf of the petitioners,
reliance has been placed on the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.2020
2
issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reform
(Personnel Division), wherein certain polices has been provided with
regard to making in-charge appointment.
The relevant portion of the said Office Memorandum are as
under:-
4. Thus, with a view to bring uniformity, clarity and enforceable
norms in making such in-charge appointments, the following
norms are hereby issued for compliance by all concerned:
i. Appointment on in charge basis shall be made against a
post only when there is no official eligible as per RR to fill
up the said post, either by direct recruitment or by
promotion through duly constituted DPC.
ii. In the absence of any official eligible as per RR to fill up a
particular post, the senior most person amongst
cadre/officials belonging to the feeder post of the said
particular post shall be appointed to hold the said post on
in-charge basis, at no extra remuneration and in addition
to the substantial post held by the appointee in the lower
post. Needless to say, the appointee shall draw pay
against the lower post substantially held by him.
According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, who
are admittedly juniors to the present petitioners, have been given in-
charge appointment of the higher post of Principal in the guise of the
transfer and in complete violation of the standing policy of the State
Government as contained in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated
03.10.2020. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners,
accordingly, submitted that the impugned transfer and posting order
dated 28.06.2024 may be quashed and set-aside in respect of
respondent Nos. 4 & 5 .
Mrs. L. Monomala, learned G.A. appearing for respondent Nos.
1 to 3, placed before this Court the relevant Government File in terms
of the earlier direction given by this Court and fairly submitted that on
perusal of the said official record it is clearly revealed that the cases of
3the present petitioners were not considered at the time of issuance of
the said impugned transfer order.
The learned G.A., also submitted that if in case, this Court is
inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order on the ground
that the case of the present petitioners have not been considered, the
authorities may be given liberty to consider the case of the present
petitioners along with the case of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for issuing a
new transfer order and for giving in-charge appointment of the
Principal, Government Women ITI, Takyel and Principal, Government
ITI, Ukhrul. The learned G.A., further, submitted that till a fresh order
is issued by the authorities, the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 may be allowed
to continue in their present posting in the interests of administrative
exigency.
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No. 4, also endorsed the submission made by the learned
G.A. and also prays for allowing the respondents to continue at their
present place of posting till a fresh order is issued by the government
after considering all the cases of the present petitioners including the
present respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the
present writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following
directions:-
(i) The impugned order dated 28.06.2024 effecting
transfer and posting in respect of the present
respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is hereby quashed and set-
aside;
(ii) The respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are given liberty to
consider the case of the present petitioners, as well
as, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for issuing a fresh transfer
4and posting order and also for allowing to hold the
charge of the Principal, Government Women ITI,
Takyel and Principal, Government ITI, Ukhrul;
(iii) The whole process should be completed within a
period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order; and
(iv) It is made clear, until a fresh transfer and posting
order is issued, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 should be
allowed to continue in their present place of posting.
Needless to mention here that while considering for in-charge
arrangement, the authorities should keep in mind of the Office
Memorandum issued by the State Government for giving in-charge
appointments.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
JUDGE
Indrajeet