Counter affidavit submitted in MCPCR chairman appointment row

By A Staff Reporter

IMPHAL | Oct 16

The social welfare department in response to a petition challenging the procedure that appointed the new chairman of the Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Rights (MCPCR) has clarified that necessary selection procedure were followed and there was no violation of any Act or rules while appointing the chairman of MCPCR.

The department on October 13 through its counsel submitted a counter affidavit against the petition which is pending with the single bench of acting Chief Justice, N. Kotiswar Singh, High Court (HC) of Manipur.

The counter affidavit was submitted by Sonia Oinam, serving as under secretary of social welfare, on behalf of the respondent No. 1, state government.

Advocate S. Syamacharan Singh, who is also one of the members of the MCPCR on October 3 in his petition challenged that new chairman of MCPCR was appointed violating the rules under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and pleaded the HC to passed an interim order to stay the appointment.

In the affidavit the respondent brought to the notice of the HC that the petitioner was one of the two applicants who had submitted their applications for appointment to the post of chairperson of the MCPCR and that he has concealed this fact as such the petition deserve to be dismissed.

It said the other applicant is Sumatibala Ningthoujam, (respondent No.2) was appointed for the post of chairman MCPCR following recommendation made by a three member selection committee formed by the department as per rule.

The department claimed that three member selection committee was constituted (as per government order No.9/25/2005-S(SW)Pt.I dated September 8, 2017) with Nemcha Kipgen minister social welfare as the chairperson and H. Deleep Singh commission (social welfare) and Jacintha Lazarus, director social welfare as members.

The advertisement or wide publicity for selection of chairperson or member of state commission was not mandatory, said the department adding that the interim relief sought for by the petition if granted shall amount to granting final relief.

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in his petition pointed out that under section 18 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 any vacancy for the post of chairperson or member shall be given wide publicity through open advertisement in at least four national daily newspapers before appointing the chairman.

Subsequently, the appointment should be conducted following the recommendation of the three member selection committee which shall consist of the chairperson of the committee, who is the minister in-charge of the department (social welfare) and two members of the commission. However, the department violated the procedure, it alleged.

After having examined the counter affidavit the HC fixed the next hearing of the petition on November 13 and also issued notice to the respondent No.2, to appear before the court.