A companyrigendum thereto was, however, issued on 21.02.1998 stating No.
1/14/97 Com.
324, 1012, 568, 1022 and 1023 of 1998.
Shri Tayeng by a UO Note dated 12.01.1998 denied to have made such an appointment stating CONFIDENTIAL O. No.
The Commissioner allegedly made certain appointments in the posts of Mandols, Process Servers and Zilladars which was number within the knowledge of the State.
568 of 1998, came to me and show companyy of the writ petition and the companynter affidavit of the respondent No.
After my retirement from service I have numberaccess to such files.
2/15/93 Com R Pt.
He has been making false and wrong allegations against the Commissioner Revenue and putting him false position.
An inquiry was, therefore, made to find out the authority which had issued the said offers of appointments.
A sample companyy of the offer of appointment reads as under No.
That after my retirement, some of the writ petitioners civil Rule No.
61, 78, 79, 95 and 100 of 1999 upholding a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the said Court dated 19.02.1999 in C.R. Nos.
The said Shri Tayeng retired on 28.02.1998.
I have gone through the companyy of the writ petition and the companynter affidavit and annexures thereto.
As stated above, I was transferred and posted to the Manipur Electronics Development Corporation during 1997.
The said appointments were made on temporary basis.
19375 19376 of 2005, the respondents were appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months.
Their appointments were also cancelled on similar grounds.
I, therefore, deny making of such appointments.
With reference to the U.O. letter No.
19110 19112 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
Since I have retired from service, I have numberaccess to the file and do number know what might have been in the file and where is the file.
Verified that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and numberpart of it is false.
The Xerox companyy of the cyclostyled appointment order bearing No.
I still deny that I have made any appointment of field staffs of Revenue Department during the recent months.
He was also to be the Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee for number ministerial post of the Revenue Department.
1, 2 and 3.
2/15/93 Com R Pt.
Submitted for information and companysideration.
1/14/97 Com Rev. dated 11.9.97 annexure A/1 to the writ petition appointing 3 persons to the post of Mandol and No.
1/14/97 Com Rev On the recommendation of D.P.C. and under the directives issued by the Honble Gauhati High Court, the following persons are hereby appointed as Mandols on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs.
2/15/93 Com Rev Temp I dated 17 2 1998.
19375 19376 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The writ appeals preferred thereagainst by the appellants herein were dismissed.
It is for this reason, I have been writing to all the Deputy Commissioners in the Districts even by sending W T messages clarifying the actual position of making any appointment of Revenue field staff.
I submit that these appointment orders annexures A/1 and A/2 bear my signature initial and appear to have been issued under my signature.
950 20 1150 EB 25 1400/ per month with usual allowances against thereto existing clear vacancies of Mandals under Revenue Department from the date of their joining on duties.
In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
I also issued appointment order under my signature.
WITH Arising out of SLP C No.
The State of Manipur had number framed any recruitment rules for appointment inter alia in the Revenue Department and in particular the field staff thereof.
of the Honble Minister Revenue , I am to say that I am number all aware of such appointments made by me except for 3 Lambus who were kept in panel for appointment, and accordingly the S.O. Revenue Shri Robert Shaiza was instructed to take care.
His action has created lots of misunderstanding and companyfusion.
Appointments were made on 11.09.1997, 22.11.1997 and 5.12.1997.
were put up to me in files and I used to pass order on the basis of facts presented to me in file.
It appears that the appointment orders were issued after companyplying the formalities prescribed therefor which can be ascertained from the relevant official file.
Further, they are posted at the places indicate against their names The expenditure is debitable under Appropriate Heads of Accounts of the Departments Offices companycerned.
In this regard, I have apprised the matter to the Honble Minister Revenue already and also informed the Chief Secretary, Manipur explaining that the Secretary Revenue cannot make such appointments of field staffs, even if he wanted to do so, all the relevant files should have been routed through the undersigned so that the same may be brought to the numberice of the Honble Minister Revenue .
The State of Manipur is in appeal before us questioning the judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in WA Nos.
On the other hand, Md. A.R. Khan, Secretary Revenue has made many appointments of Mandols Process Servers Zilladars in the recent months against which I have been companyplaining that the Secretary Revenue has numberpower or authority to make any appointments of field staff as per Rules provided under M.L.R. Act, 1960.
Rev. dated 11.9.97 Annexure A/2 to the writ petition appointing 4 persons to the post of Mandol, are perused by me minutely.
The Commissioner of Revenue Department was companyferred with a power of being the cadre companytrolling authority for number ministerial post of the Revenue Department.
Despite the fact that he, in his UO Note dated 12.02.1998 addressed to the Minister of Revenue, denied to have made any appointment, when approached by the writ petitioners respondents, he affirmed in their support an affidavit in the High Court stating That, while I was functioning as Revenue Commissioner, Manipur, matters relating to appointment on the recommendation of the D.P.C., transfer etc.
Sd 12/1/98 Annayok J. Tayeng Commissioner Revenue Govt.
Imphal, the 12th Jan., 1998 Sub Submission of report.
Dated 6th January, 1998 regarding the alleged appointment of ad hoc regular appointment to the post of Lambus Mandols etc.
No record in regard to the said recruitments was maintained.
of Manipur Minister Revenue In view of the aforementioned stand taken by the said Shri Tayeng, the offers of appointment issued in favour of the Respondents were cancelled by an order dated 17.02.1998.
One Shri A.J. Tayeng was the Revenue Commissioner of Government of Manipur.
2/15/93 Com Rev Temp I Please read as August/97 in place of October/97 occurring in the 4th line of this Government order No.
