Md Tapsir And 24 Ors v. State Of Manipur And Another
WP(C)/82/2024 · 2025-02-03
A Guneshwar Sharma
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 546 (MAN) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 546 (MAN) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Item No. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 82 of 2024
Md. Tapsir & 24 Ors.
…..Petitioner/s
- Versus –
State of Manipur & Anr.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
03.02.2025 [1]
Present Mr. Ajmal Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Niranjan, learned G.A. for the State respondent. [2]
By the present writ petition, the petitioners who were once engaged as Home Guards personnel were utilized in the FCI Office, Manipur upon an agreement of MoU between the FCI and Manipur, their services were disengaged after the cancellation of the MoU by the FCI who have engaged their own arrangement. [3]
The petitioners submitted a representation dated 31.07.2023 to the (i) Commandant General (Home Guards)-cum-DGP, Manipur, (ii) Commissioner/Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur and (iii) Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur for consideration of their engagement in any available vacancies of Home Guards. It is submitted that the representation was considered and rejected by the
State Government and by the present petition, the petitioners are praying for re-consideration. [4]
During the course of hearing, Mr. Asmal Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he is not pressing the matter on merit and the petitioners will be satisfied if the State Government is ready to re-consider their representation. [5]
Mr. S. Niranjan, learned G.A., submits that this Court may pass appropriate order with respect to the amended oral submissions regarding the prayer for interim relief. [6]
Recording the submissions made at the bar, writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the State respondents to re-consider the representation submitted by the petitioners. [7]
It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case and State respondents are to pass appropriate order in terms of the relevant rules. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [8]
With this observation, writ petition is disposed of. [9]
Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. JOSHUA MARING Digitally signed by KH. JOSHUA MARING Date: 2025.02.05 09:57:47 +05'30'