Manipur High Court
Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 5 October, 2021
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh, aged about 71 years, S/O
(L) Laiphrakpam Sura Singh, resident of Kha-Naorem
Leikai, P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei and District
Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the
Commissioner/Secretary, Hr. and Tech.
Education, Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat
Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District-
Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
2. Manipur Technical University, represented by its
Registrar, Government Polytechnic Campus,
Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District-Imphal
West, Manipur-795004.
...... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner :: Mr. BP Sahu, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondents :: Mr. Th. Sukumar, GA for R1
Mr. N. Zequeson, Adv. for R2
Date of reserving Judgment
& Order :: 23.09.2021
Date of Judgment &Order :: 05.10.2021
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking to quash the impugned UO note bearing
No.12/1/Min/Edn/Fy/CAD/2021-MTU, dated 23.08.2021 issued by
the Minister, Education, Manipur and the letter dated 03.09.2021
of the Deputy Secretary, Higher and Technical Education,
Government of Manipur and also to direct the respondents to
allow the petitioner to function and impart his duties as Vice-
Chancellor of Manipur Technical University as per law without any
hindrance or interference till the appointment of the new Vice-
Chancellor.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as
regular Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University and after
attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service in the
month of October, 2020. After his retirement, no regular Vice-
Chancellor was appointed and the said post was illegally held by
the Commissioner, Higher Education. According to the petitioner,
by the order dated 17.08.2021, the Deputy Secretary in the Higher
and Technical Education Department appointed the petitioner as
Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University on a stop-gap
arrangement for a period till a regular Vice-Chancellor is
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |3
appointed. Pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2021, the petitioner
took charge and functioning as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University. While so, the Minister for Education, in his
UO note dated 23.08.2021 restricted the powers of the Vice-
Chancellor and the said UO note was directed to be
communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University by
the Deputy Secretary. Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary of Higher
and Technical Education vide letter dated 03.09.2021
communicated the same to the Registrar. According to the
petitioner, the Minister for Education has no authority to restrict the
power and functions of the Vice-Chancellor. Hence, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition.
3. Opposing the writ petition, the first respondent filed
affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has failed to
produce the relevant provision of any Act/Rule of the University,
which prohibits the Administrative Secretary in assuming the
charge of the Vice-Chancellor on in-charge basis as a stop-gap
arrangement. As such, the allegation of the petitioner that the
post of Vice-Chancellor was malafidely and illegally held by the
Commissioner, Higher Education is without any legal basis. It is
stated that the petitioner has been designated as Vice-Chancellor
of Manipur Technical University only as stop-gap arrangement till
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |4
a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed as per the order dated
17.8.2021. It is further stated that Section 14(2) of the Manipur
Technical University Act provides that the term of the office of the
Vice-Chancellor shall be five years from the date on which he
enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 70 years
whichever is earlier. The petitioner who was the first Vice-
Chancellor had completed his term of three years on 24.10.2020
and as per the official records, his recorded date of birth is
01.12.1950 and he has completed the age of 70 years on
01.12.2020. It is also stated that before the designation of the
petitioner as Vice-Chancellor as stop-gap arrangement,
appointment to the post of the Vice-Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University on a regular basis was already issued under
advertisement No.03/2021, dated 12.8.2021. Therefore, the
impugned UO note of the Minister dated 23.8.2021 cannot be
treated as curtailment on the power of the petitioner as Vice-
Chancellor and there is no malafide intension in the UO note,
which was communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical
University. The regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor being
in a very advanced stage and applications had already been
received and also the Selection Committee was constituted.
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |5
Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed.
4. Challenging the impugned UO note of the Minister for
Education dated 23.8.2021, which was communicated to the
Registrar of Manipur Technical University by the Deputy Secretary
of the Higher and Technical Education dated 03.09.2021, Mr. BP
Sahu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as
per the impugned UO note, the petitioner was directed to execute
only day-to-day administration of the University, which is patently
illegal and arbitrary in the eye of law. He would submit that
contrary to the provisions of Manipur Technical University Act, the
Minister has curtailed powers of the petitioner. In fact, the
Education Minister cannot interfere in the matter and also he
cannot dictate the terms of the University. Further, the Education
Minister has done so arbitrarily which is not tenable in the eye of
law.
5. Per contra, Mr. Sukumar, learned GA for the State
submitted that the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 forwarded
to the Registrar through letter dated 03.09.2021 cannot be treated
as restrictions imposed upon the petitioner, as in the impugned
communication dated 23.8.2021, it has been mentioned that the
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |6
process for formation of Select Committee for appointment of new
Vice-Chancellor may be expedited at the earliest. Further, the
said UO note cannot in any way be treated as restriction on the
powers of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor and that the petitioner
is trying to mislead the Court by submitting wrong facts.
6. Mr. Sukumar, learned GA for the State further
submitted that the Minister for Education is the administrative
head of the department and that there is no malafide intention in
the impugned UO note which was communicated to the Registrar
of Manipur Technical University. He would also submit that the
appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor is only a stop-gap
arrangement and that notification calling for applications for
appointment to a regular Vice-Chancellor has already been
issued. He further submitted that the petitioner being over-aged
and also since applications already received and the Selection
Committee has also been constituted, the petitioner cannot
question the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 of the Education
Minister and thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 Manipur Technical University has represented
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |7
that though he appeared for the respondent No. 2 the Manipur
University is nothing to do this matter.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by
learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Government
counsel for the State first respondent and also perused the
materials available on record.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any
authority, the Minister for Education, vide impugned UO note
dated 23.8.2021, has directed the petitioner to only execute the
day-to-day administration of the University by restricting the other
functions namely process for formation of the Selection Committee
for appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor, process for recruitment
for Assistant Professors, all financial matters and the casual
appointment under contractual basis. According to the petitioner,
the restrictions imposed by the Minister is arbitrary and he cannot
impose such restrictions.
10. It appears that by the order dated 17.8.2021, the
petitioner was designated as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University as stop-gap arrangement till a regular Vice-
Chancellor is appointed. The appointment letter of the Deputy
Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, reads thus:
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |8
"In supersession of al previous Orders issued in
this regard and in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 14(4) & (5) of Manipur Technical
University Act, 2016, the Governor of Manipur is
pleased to designate DrLaiphrakpamTombi Singh
as the Vice Chancellor of Manipur Technical
University only as a stop-gap arrangement till a
regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed."
11. On a careful reading of the order dated 17.08.2021, it
is clear that the order did not specify any restriction on the
functioning of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University as he then held in regular. However, vide
impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 of the Education Minister, the
following restrictions were imposed on the petitioner. For proper
appreciation, the impugned UO note is extracted herein under:
"In view of order No.22/3/MSTU/THE.16(Pt-III)
dated 17th August 2021 wherein
DrLaiphrakpamTombi Singh has been
designated as the Vice-Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University as stop-gap arrangement till
a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed. Pending
appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor, the
following may be communicated to Dr
Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh.
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |9
1. Process for formation of Select
Committee for appointment of a new
Vice-Chancellor notified vide order
No.15/1/2016-MTU dated 12th August
2021 may be expedited at the earliest.
2. No process for recruitment of Assistant
Professors will be taken up until a new
Vice-Chancellor is appointed for
Manipur Technical University.
3. All financial matters will be referred to
Secretariat: Higher Education
Department for approval until a new
Vice-Chancellor is appointed.
4. No casual appointment under
contractual basis/work charge basis
shall be affected without approval of
the administrative department.
5. The Vice-Chancellor appointed on
stop-gap arrangement may also be
directed that only day to day
administration of the University shall
be executed."
12. By referring to the provisions of Manipur Technical
University Act, 2016, particularly, Section 14(4) and (5), Mr. B.P.
Sahu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 10
when the petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor after his
retirement, the Minister for Education cannot restrict the power
and functions of the petitioner wholly or partly and the Manipur
Technical University Act does not stipulate such restrictions.
13. As stated supra, the petitioner was appointed as
Vice-Chancellor after his retirement under the provisions of
Section 14(4) and (5) of the Manipur Technical University Act,
2016. Sections 14(4) provides as under:
"Section 14(4) - When a permanent vacancy in
the office of the Vice-Chancellor occurs by
reason of his death, resignation, removal or the
expiry of his term of office, it shall be filled by the
Chancellor in accordance with sub-section (1),
and for so long as it is not so filled, stop-gap
arrangement shall be made by him under and in
accordance with sub-section (5)."
Section 14(5) provides as under:
"Section 14(5) - When a temporary vacancy in
the office of the Vice-Chancellor occurs by
reason of leave, suspension or otherwise or
when a stop-gap arrangement is necessary
under sub-section (4), the Registrar shall
forthwith report the matter to the Chancellor, who
shall make, on advise of the State Government,
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 11
arrangement for carrying on the functions of the
office of the Vice-Chancellor."
14. At this stage, Mr. Sukumar, learned GA for the State
submits that Section 14(2) of the Act provides that the term of the
office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be five years from the date on
which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 70
years whichever is earlier. In the case on hand, the petitioner,
who was the first Vice-Chancellor has completed his term of three
years on 24.10.2020 and the office records reveal that the date
birth of the petitioner is 01.12.1950 and had completed 70 years
on 01.12.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to continue
the post. The said submission of learned counsel for the State
cannot be countenanced, as the designation and/or appointment
of the petitioner as stop-gap arrangement is till a regular Vice-
Chancellor is appointed.
15. It is true that the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor
shall be five years from the date on which he enters upon his
office or until he attains the age of 70 years whichever is earlier.
The respondent authorities failed to produce any record to show
that the petitioner had completed 70 years at the time of his
appointment on 17.08.2021 or any material to show that the
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 12
petitioner is not entitled to hold the post. If really, the petitioner is
over-aged as alleged by the respondent authorities, the petitioner
would not have been given opportunity to serve as Vice-
Chancellor till a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed. More over,
the plea of over-age cannot be taken by the respondent
authorities, as the material produced would show that the
appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor after his
retirement is as per the provisions of the Act and in fact, nobody
questioned his appointment and/or his designation as Vice-
Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. The Act also does
not provide any restrictions to be imposed on the stop-gap
appointed Vice-Chancellor.
16. It is apposite to mention that Manipur Technical
University Act provides full power even to the stop-gap appointed
Vice-Chancellor. While things stood thus, the Minister for
Education on his own cannot impose restrictions on the petitioner
that no process for any recruitment and no casual appointment be
made by the petitioner. Similarly, the Minister for Education
cannot impose and dictate terms against the provisions that all
financial matters have to be handled by the Secretariat, Higher
Education Department and not by the petitioner herein. Further,
the direction of the Minister for Education to execute the day-to-
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 13
day administration of the University by the petitioner is against the
provisions of Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 and the
Minister for Education, on his own, cannot impose such
restrictions on the petitioner, who was appointed and/or
designated as Vice-Chancellor as per law till a regular Vice-
Chancellor is appointed.
17. The arguments of learned counsel for the State is
that the contents of the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 of the
Minister for Education cannot be treated as restrictions imposed
on the petitioner for the reason that the process for formation of
the Selection Committee for appointment of a new Vice-
Chancellor was directed to be expedited at the earliest and such
communication cannot in any way be treated as restriction on the
power of the petitioner.
18. It is not in dispute that applications for filling up the
post of Vice-Chancellor were called for and the Selection
Committee was also constituted in that regard. The petitioner has
also not disputed the process for formation of the Selection
Committee for appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor and in fact,
the petitioner submits that he is not interfering in the selection
process of the regular Vice-Chancellor. However, the petitioner is
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 14
concerned with the other restrictions imposed on him by the
Education Minister that the petitioner cannot process for
recruitment of Assistant Professors and cannot made any casual
appointment under contractual basis and also the petitioner is
aggrieved by direction of the Education Minister that all financial
matters are to be referred to the Secretariat.
19. As stated supra, since the said restrictions imposed
by the Minister for Education are against the provisions of the Act
and the Minister for Education cannot impose such restrictions
even on a stop-gap appointed Vice-Chancellor, this Court is of the
view that the impugned UO note of the Minister is unsustainable in
the eye of law. That apart, before issuing the impugned UO note,
no deliberations were taken place and it also violates the
principles of natural justice.
20. The Vice-Chancellor is the most important
functionary in a University not only on the administrative side, but
also for securing right atmosphere for the teachers and students to
do work effectively and in the right spirit. As admitted by the
respondent authorities, the petitioner is the first Vice-Chancellor of
Manipur Technical University and on his retirement in the month of
October, 2020, the Commissioner of Higher Education was
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 15
looking after the said post of Vice-Chancellor till the petitioner was
appointed and/or designated as Vice-Chancellor on 17.8.2021 as
stop-gap arrangement. Nearly nine-and-half months the
Commissioner held the post of Vice-Chancellor and thereafter, the
petitioner is holding the post. As state supra, before appointing
and/or designating the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor, a notification
was issued on 12.08.2021 calling for applications for filling up the
post and the said process is on. At best, the respondent
authorities can only speed-up the process for appointing the
regular Vice-Chancellor.
21. It is pertinent to note that no material has been
produced by the respondent authorities to show that the petitioner
has misappropriated funds of the University and has recruited the
Assistant Professors illegally and also illegally appointed the
casual staff.
22. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that
the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor after attaining
superannuation is pleasure appointment.
23. The pleasure appointments are made under the
pleasure of the President, like Governors etc, whereas statutory
appointments are made under the statute and the service
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 16
conditions of the incumbents are governed by the statute.
Therefore their appointments are not pleasure appointments.
Since the petitioner was appointed as per Sections 14(4) and (5)
of Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, contrary to the
provisions of the said Act, by the impugned UO note, the Minister
for Education cannot impose restrictions on the petitioner and the
impugned UO note dated 23.08.2021 is illegal, vindictive and
malafide in the eye of law and also not allowing the petitioner to
function as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University is
arbitrary in nature and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
24. For the foregoing discussions, a) the writ petition is
allowed; (b) the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 issued by the
Minister, Education, Manipur and the communication of the
Deputy Secretary to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University
dated 03.9.2021 are set aside except Clause No.1; (c) As a
consequence, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the
petitioner to function as Vice-Chancellor as per Manipur Technical
University Act and the Rules framed thereunder till the regular
Vice-Chancellor is appointed; (d) There will be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is
closed.
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 17
It is made clear that this order will not prevent the
respondent authorities from filling up the regular Vice-Chancellor
of Manipur Technical University in accordance with law.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
SHAMURAIL Digitally signed by
ATPAM SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL Date: 2021.10.06
SHARMA 13:01:04 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
