The order issued by the under secretary (Education/S), Government of Manipur, canceling the decision for regularisation of the service of 502 ad-hoc teachers was suspended by a single bench of the High Court of Manipur, justice A Guneshwar Sharma until further orders on Friday.
The high court also added that out of 502 ad-hoc teachers, 230 were regularised, stating that their cancellation of regularisation should be done in pursuance to the directions of the High Court until further orders.
During the hearing, counsel of petitioner advocate N Jotendro submitted that the impugned order on October 10, 2024 issued by the under secretary (Education/S), government of Manipur had canceled the decision of the state government to regularise 502 ad-hoc teachers/graduate teachers.
The cancellation was done over the allegation of irregularities including non-production of attendance register of 502 ad-hoc teachers to show that they were still continuing in service at the time of their regularisation, it was submitted.
He pointed out that regularisation of the petitioners and others numbering 230 was on the basis of the direction of the HC made in the order of November 22, 2011.
It was also submitted that the directions passed by the Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions and in the contempt cases have attained finality and regularization of the petitioners and others are in compliance with the direction of the High Court. However, canceling the regularisation of 502 teachers including the petitioners herein who have been regularised by the directions of the HC is, prima facie, illegal and cannot be resorted to without modifying or setting aside the directions of the HC.
It was also submitted that the cancellation of the regularization orders was done without issuing any notice and without giving the names of any employees who had been regularised and it amounts to termination without any enquiry.
It was further submitted that the impugned order is prima facie illegal and is nothing but to circumvent the directions of the HC and prayed that the impugned order be suspended.
On the other hand, AG Lenin submitted that the state government has every power to rectify mistakes committed earlier and the impugned order is in exercise of such sovereign functions.
It was submitted that the prayer for interim order may be rejected and the state is contemplating filing review/appeal/any appropriate application against the directions issued by the HC on earlier occasions.
The high court considered an order passed by a single bench in 2021 that set aside a joint secretary order of rejecting special class-III DPC recommendation for regularisation.
The high court further stated that the first part of setting aside the cancellation of recommendation of the DPC is general order applicable to all 502 ad-hoc teachers and the second direction for considering regularisation was confined to the petitioners before the high court only in those cases.
Thereafter, in compliance of the various directions of the HC, 230 ad-hoc teachers were regularised by the state government and the remaining ad-hoc teachers out of 502 have also approached the HC by way of various writ petitions claiming parity with those ad-hoc teachers whose services have already been regularised by the state government and those matters are part heard before the HC, stated the the HC.
“This Court is of view that canceling the decision of the state government to regularise 502 ad-hoc teachers amounts to reviewing regularisation of 230 ad-hoc teachers in compliance with the various directions of this Court in the writ petitions and contempt petitions,” stated the HC.
The HC opined that the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 issued by the under secretary (Education/S), government of Manipur canceling the decision for regularisation of the service of 502 ad-hoc teachers is kept suspended, with respect to the cancellation of regularisation of 230 candidates done in pursuance to the directions of the High Court until further orders.
The HC made clear that the state government has every right to approach an appropriate forum and no permission is required from the High Court.