THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR. versus SMT. CHABUNGBAM THOIBISANA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 19-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE ST A TE OF MANIPUR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SMT. CHABUNGBAM THOIBISANA DEVI AND ORS. 
APRIL 19, 200i 
[ASH OK BHAN AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
·-< 
Service Law: 
Appointment-Post of Assistant Government Advocate-cum-Assistant 
Public Prosecutor-Conducting of writing as well as oral test-Subsequently, C 
ban of direct recruitment and declaration of results by State Government-
Cha/lenge to-Writ Petition allowed without giving opportunity to the 
opposite party-Division Bench of High Court upholding the order without 
considering the additional facts on record-On appeal held: Orders of courts 
below cryptic and bereft of any reasons, thus, order of Division Bench set D 
aside and matter remitted back. 
Appellant-State issued advertisement for appointment to the posts of 
Assistant Government Advocate-cum-Assistant Public Prosecutor. Since only 
the dates were fixed for interview, on a writ petition, Single Judge of High 
Court directed the State Government to notify fresh date for conducting written E 
as well as oral test Thereafter, State Government banned direct recruitment 
and declaration of results of D.P.Cs. in respect ofall the Departments except 
the appointments made in the Department of Home and Education, under 
Centrally sponsored scheme. Respondents filed writ petition. Single Judge 
"!' 
of High Court allowed the same without giving any opportunity to the opposite 
party to file a reply and directed appellant-State Government to declare the F 
result of the examination held in pursuance to the advertisement Appellants 
filed writ appeal. It also filed an application to bring on record additional facts 
for which the Single Judge did not give any opportunity. Division Bench of 
the High Court upheld the order of Single Judge without referring to any of 
the facts. Hence the present appeal. 
Remitting the matter to the Division Bench of High Court, the Court 
HELD: The orders passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division 
Bench were cryptic and bereft of any reasons. The Division Bench should 
G 
3~ 
H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) S S.C.R. 
A have recorded that the Single Judge did not permit the respondents to file 
their response to the averments made in the writ petition. Since the Single 
Judge did not permit the respondents to file the response; the Division Bench, 
before which the facts had been brought by way of additional affidavit, should 
have taken the additional facts into consideration and it was up to the Division . 
Bench to either accept them or reject them. The Division Bench did not assign 
B any reason for upholding the order of the Single Judge except to say that 
they are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Single Judge. Thus, 
the impugned order Is set aside. [Para 9) (388-A-C) 
c 
D 
E 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2065 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2006 of the High Court of 
Guhati, Bench at Imphal in Writ Appeal No. 75 of 2000. 
Jaideep Gupta, and Khwairakparn Nobin Singh for the Appellants. 
S.B. Sanyal, and Aribam Gtineshwar Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by q 
ASHOK BHAN, J. I. Leave granted. Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned 
Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned counsel for the 
respondents. 
)tr 
··--
2. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Manipur and 
another against judgment and order passed by the Gauhati High Court, 
lriiphal Bench, in Writ Appeal No. 75 of 2000 dated 12th April, 2006, by which 
the Division Bench of the High Court has upheld the order passed by the 
learned Single Judge of the High Court .. 
F 
~ 
3. The facts of the matter are narrated here in brief. An advertisement 
was iSsued by the appellant-State on 12.4.1999 for appointment of the two 
posts of Assistant Government Advocate-Cum-Assistant Public Prosecutor. 
Thereafter, the State Government issued two notifications informing the dates 
G of interview for appointment to the said posts. A writ petition (being WP (C) 
No. 570/99) was filed before the High Court challenging the Said notifications 
informing the date of interview on the grounds that (a) appointments could 
not be made only on the basis of oral interview, and (b) a written test was 
required to be taken. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single ··. 
Judge of the High Court on 9th June, 1999 and a directiori" was issued to the 
H State Government for notifying a fresh date for conducting writt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.