Items No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(WA)No.11 of 2025 Phurailatpam Vivekanada Sharma. Applicant Vs. State of Manipur & 4 Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI ORDER 25.02.2025 D. Krishnakumar, C.J. : [1] Mr. Ng. Jotindra, learned counsel, appears for the applicant; Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel, appears for the private respondent and Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel, appears for the State respondents. [2] The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submit that though he wanted to rely upon para 9 of the judgement passed in Naseem Bano(Smt.) V. State of UP & ors [1993 Supp (4) SCC 46], however inadvertently Para 11 has been incorporated in the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by this Court and the relevant para No.9 is reproduced herein below: “9. The aforesaid reply would show that on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 , it was not disputed that 40 percent posts which have to be filled up by promotion had not been filled up and the denial of promotion to the appellant was justified on the sole ground that she was not qualified to be promoted to L.T. grade. This shows that in the pleadings before the High Court, there was no contest on the question that the post of L.T. grade which was sanctioned on August, 29 1977 was required to be filled up by promotion for the reason that 40 percent posts had not been so filled. Even though there was no contest on, this question the High Court has gone into JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2025.02.25 15:06:37 +05'30' it and has held that the appellant has failed to establish here case that at the time of appointment of respondent 6 by direct recruitment 40 percent of the total number of posts in the College were not filled by promotion as prescribed by Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Regulations. Since no dispute was raised on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 in their reply of to the averments made by the appellant in the writ petition that 40 percent of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion, inasmuch as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that said averments had been admitted by respondents. [3] The aforesaid paragraph relied by the applicant will be discussed on the merit of the case. The present application is filed by the applicant for granting interim order to stay the operation of order dated 16.05.2024. Therefore, we are of the view that the said decision will not apply for the decision taken for maintainability of the application. [4] In view of the above, Registry is directed to incorporated the said para 9 mentioned above instead of para 11 and issue fresh copy to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom