Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court Division Bench order and remanded the case for fresh disposal, emphasizing the need for reasons and an opportunity to be heard.

Summary

The State of Manipur advertised for two Assistant Government Advocate‑cum‑Assistant Public Prosecutor posts and conducted written and oral tests as directed by a High Court Single Judge. Subsequently, the State imposed a ban on direct recruitment and declaration of results for most departments, prompting the respondents to file a second writ petition seeking declaration of the test results. The Single Judge allowed the petition without giving the respondents a chance to reply, and the Division Bench upheld that order without examining additional facts or providing reasons. The Supreme Court held that both the Single Judge and Division Bench erred by failing to afford a hearing and by issuing cryptic orders lacking justification. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench's order and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision, allowing the parties to file affidavits and rejoinders.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court Single Judge violated principles of natural justice by not permitting the respondents to file a reply.
Whether the Division Bench erred in upholding the Single Judge's order without considering additional facts and without providing reasons.
Whether the State's ban on direct recruitment renders the direction to declare test results invalid.
Whether the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for being cryptic and bereft of reasons.

Subjects

service lawrecruitmentdirect recruitment banwrit petitionnatural justiceprocedural fairnessappointmentwritten testoral testappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

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

APRIL 19, 200i

[ASHOK 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. G
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
3~ H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) S S.C.R.
)tr
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)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2065 of2007.
c 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.
D
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.
E
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 written test as
STATE OF MANIPUR v. CHABUNGBAM THOIB!SANA DEVI [BHAN, J.) 387
well as oral test within one month. A
4. In pursuance to the directions issued by the High Court in W.P. (C)
No. 570/99, the written test was held on 1st of August, 1999 and the oral test
was held on 1st of December, 1999 for .the said posts.

5. On 19th April, 1999, due to serious financial crunch faced by the State B
Government, an MOU was signed between the Government of Manipur and
__ .., the Finance Ministry, Government of India to avail of Financial assistance
from the Government of India. Pursuant to the said MOU, the State Government
took a policy decision to ban direct recruitment and declaration of results of
D.P. Cs. and the said policy decision was expressed in the form of an order C
dated 6th November, 1999.

6. On 24th of March, 2000, the State Government issued an Office
Memorandum stating that the ban on direct recruitment and declaration of
results of completed D.P. Cs. would continue in respect of all the Departments
except in respect of appointments made in the Department of Home and D
Education, under Centrally sponsored scheme.

7. The respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as "writ petitioner")
filed writ petition no. 355 of 2000 in the High Court on 3rd April, 2000, which
was listed before the learned Single Judge on 6th April, 2000. The learned E
Single Judge, without affording any opportunity to the respondents therein
to file a reply, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-State
Government to declare the result of the examination held in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 12th April, 1999 within a period of seven from the date
of receipt of the copy of that judgment.
F
8. The State Government thereafter moved an application (C.M.A. no.
182/2000) for extension of time by six months to implement the order of the
High Court or till the ban is lifted, whichever is later. This application was,
however, rejected by the learned Single Judge on 12th June, 2000. Thereafter,
the appellants filed writ appeal, which had been disposed of by the impugned G
order. In the writ appeal, the appellants brought on record the relevant facts
(for which no opportunity was afforded by the learned Single Judge) by
» moving an application to take the additional facts on record. Subsequent facts
were also brought on record in the year 2005, which were not to the knowledge
of the State Government.
H
9. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the learned
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Single Judge, without referring to any of the facts and by simply observing
that it did not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. It was further held that subsequent developments
brought on record were not sufficient to interfere with the impugned judgment.
The orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench,
B to say the least, are cryptic and bereft of any reasons. The Division Bench
should have recorded that the learned Single Judge did not permit the
respondents to file their response to the averments made in the writ petition.
Since the Single Bench did not permit the respondents to file the response,
the Division Bench, before which the facts had been brought by way of
C 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 has not assigned any reason for upholding the order of the
learned Single Judge except to say that they are not inclined to !nterfere with
the order of the learned Single Judge.

D I0. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the Division
Bench of the High Court is set aside and the case is remanded back for a fresh
decision in accordance with law. We are remanding the case to the Division
Bench to avoid further delay in final disposal of the matter. The writ petition
pending before the learned Single Judge is ordered to be placed before the
Division Bench for final disposal. The appellants herein (the respondents in
E the writ petition) are put at liberty to file a proper response by way of an ·
affidavit in opposition (written statement). The Division Bench shall also
permit the writ petitioners (respondents herein) to file a rejoinder to the
affidavit in opposition filed by the appellants herein. All contentions are left
open.
F 11. We are not expressing any opinion on merits of the case as well as
on the rival contentions of the respective parties. The Division Bench shall
decide the writ petition without being influenced by any of the observations
made in this order or the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench and the
learned Single Judge. Counsel of the parties are directed to appear before the
G Registry of the High Court on 2.5.2007 for further direction with regard to their
case. We request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court to post the
matter for an early disposal. ..
12. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to
H costs.
N.J. Appeal disposed of.