Manipur High Court

Shri Sarungbam Nimai Singh Aged ... vs The State Of Manipur on 10 October, 2022

SHAMURAILATPAM             Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
                           SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA              Date: 2022.10.12 12:51:08 +05'30'
                                                                                Page |1



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                    AT IMPHAL

                                  WP(C) No. 1143 of 2018

                  Shri Sarungbam Nimai Singh aged about 54 years,
                  S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh of Keishamthong Elangbam
                  Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur 795001 now
                  residing at Yumnam Leikai, Lairembi Maning, P.O. &
                  P.S. Imphal- 795001;
                                                                        ....Petitioner

                                         -Versus-


                  1. The State of Manipur, represented by the
                      Commissioner/Secretary                    (Arts     &   Culture),
                      Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex,
                      Babupara, Imphal- 795001;

                  2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound,
                      Imphal East District, Manipur- 795001;

                  3. The Vice-Chairman, College Governing Body,
                      Imphal West, D.M. College Road, near war
                      Cemetery, Manipur-795001;

                  4. Arambam Hemanta Singh, Sr. Lecture, Imphal Art
                      College, near War Cemetery, D.M. College,
                      Manipur- 795001;
                                                                        .....Respondents

WP(C) No.1143 of 2018, Cont.Cas(C) No. 50 of 2021, WP(C) No. 567 of 2019, WP(C) No. 576 of 2021, WP(C) No. 898 of 2019, WP(C) No. 920 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 12 of 2020, MC(WP(C)) No. 16 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 28 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 314 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 98 of 2020 Page |2

Cont. Cas (C) No. 50 of 2021

Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh, resident of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.

.... Petitioners

- Versus -

1. Shri. M. Joy Singh, The Commissioner (Art and Culture), Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariate Block, Imphal Manipur, 795001.

2. Shri. Ng. Uttam Singh, The Director, Art and Culture, Govt. of Manipur, Palace Compound, Imphal East District, Manipur 795001.

3. Shri. Y. Ibochouba, The Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Arts College, Imphal, Near War Cemetery, DM College Road, Manipur 795001.

4. Shri. A. Hemanta Singh, Principal in-charge, Imphal Arts College, Near War Cemetery, DM College Road, Manipur 795001.

.....Respondents

WP(C) No. 567 of 2019

Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh, resident of Keishamthong

Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

                 1.     The      State      of     Manipur,       through      the
                       Commissioner/Secretary            (Arts      &     Culture),
                       Government         of     Manipur,     Old       Secretariat

Complex, Babupara, Imphal Manipur, 795001.

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Vice-Chairman, GB Imphal Art College, Imphal West, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

4. The Principal, Imphal Art College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

........ Respondents

WP(C) No. 576 of 2021

Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh, resident of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Manipur, through the Commissioner/Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal Manipur, 795001.

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Chairman, GB Imphal Art College, Imphal West, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

4. The Principal, Imphal Art College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

5. Shri. Y. Ibochaoba, the Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Arts College, Imphal, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

6. Shri. A. Hemanta Singh, The Principal (i/c) Imphal Arts College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

......... Respondents

WP(C) No. 898 of 2019

Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh, resident of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

               1.     The      State       of    Manipur,        through       the
                       Commissioner/Secretary            (Arts      &     Culture),
                       Government         of    Manipur,      Old       Secretariat

Complex, Babupara, Imphal Manipur, 795001.

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Chairman, Governing Body Imphal Art College, Imphal West, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

4. The Principal, Imphal Art College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

......... Respondents

5. Shri. Y. Ibochaoba, Vice-Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Arts College, Imphal at present serving as Principal Look After, Imphal Arts College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

....Private Respondent

6. The Office of the Registrar of Societies, through the Registrar of Societies, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal Manipur.

.....Proforma Respondent

WP(C) No. 920 of 2019

Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh, resident of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

               1.        The      State      of     Manipur,        through       the
                         Commissioner/Secretary            (Arts     &     Culture),

Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal Manipur, 795001.

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Chairman, Governing Body Imphal Art College, Imphal West, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

4. The Principal, Imphal Art College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

....... Respondents

6. Sarangthem Raju Meitei, S/o S. Thambalyaima Wangkhei Kethel Ashangbi, PO & PS: Porompat, Imphal East 795005.

7. Henba Tensuba, S/o Late Chaoba, Khurai Lamlong Bazar, PO: Lamlong, PS: Porompat, Imphal East - 795010

8. Thangjam Ranendrajit Singh, Takyel Khongbal, Moirangthong, PO: Imphal, PS: Lamphel, Imphal West - 795001

9. Leitongbam Mangi S/o Late L. Kalachand Singh, Yumnam Leikai Maning Ngakraba Leirak, PO & PS: Singjamei, Imphal West - 795008

10. Ningthoujam Khellen Singh, C/o Imphal Art College, DM College Road, PO: Imphal, PS: Porompat, Imphal East - 795001

11. Hanjabam Millan Sharma, S/o Late L Gosai, Ningthempukhri Mapal, PO: Imphal, PS: Porompat, Imphal East - 795001

12. M. Chitrabala Devi, S/o Khuraijam Dhiren, Chingamathak Nameirakpam Leikai, PO & PS: Singjamei, Imphal West - 795001

13. Laishram Satish, S/o L. Chaoba, Bashikhong, PO:

Singjamei, PS: Porompat, Imphal East - 795008

14. Dr. Laimayum Bisanath Sharma, Department of Philosophy, MU Canchipur, PO: Canchipur, PS: Singjamei, Imphal West

15. Shri Bhimjit Sharma, C/o Imphal Art College, DM College Road, PO: Imphal, PS: Porompat, Imphal East - 795001

16. Th Devendra Singh, Ningomthong Bazar, PO & PS: Singjamei, Imphal West - 795008.

......Private Respondents 5 to 16

17. The Office of the Registrar of Societies, through the Registrar of Societies, Govt. of Manipur, Imphal Manipur,

.....Proforma Respondent

MC(WP(C)) No. 12 of 2020 Ref:- WP(C) No. 898 of 2019

Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh, resident of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

               1.        The      State      of     Manipur,        through       the
                         Commissioner/Secretary            (Arts     &     Culture),

Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal Manipur, 795001.

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Chairman, Governing Body Imphal Art College, Imphal West, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

4. The Principal, Imphal Art College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

....... Respondents

...... Private Respondent

MC(WP(C)) No. 16 of 2019 Ref:- WP(C) No. 1143 of 2018

Shri. Yendrembam Ibochaoba Singh, aged about 68 years, S/o (Late) Shri Yendrembam Mangi Singh, Vice-Chairman, College Governing Body, Imphal Arts College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.

....... Applicant/ Present Respondent No.3

-Versus-

1. Shri Sarungbam Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh of Keishamthong

Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur- 795001 now residing at Yumnam Leikai, Lairembi Maning, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

.... Principal Respondent/Writ Petitioner

2. The State of Manipur, through the Commissioner/Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001;

3. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

4. Shri Arambam Hemanta Singh, Sr. Lecturer, Imphal Art College, near War Cemetery, D.M. College Road, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.

....... Proforma Respondents

MC(WP(C)) No. 28 of 2019 Ref:- WP(C) No. 1143 of 2018

1. Shri Sarungbam Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur- 795001 now residing at Yumnam Leikai, Lairembi Maning, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

               1.        The      State      of     Manipur,        through       the
                         Commissioner/Secretary            (Arts     &     Culture),

Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001;

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Vice-Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Art College, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.

4. Shri Arambam Hemanta Singh, Sr. Lecturer, Imphal Art College, near War Cemetery, D.M. College Road, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.

....... Respondents

MC(WP(C)) No. 314 of 2019 Ref:- WP(C) No. 920 of 2019

1. Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West District, Manipur.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Manipur, through the Commissioner/Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001;

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Arts College, Imphal West, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

4. The Principal, Imphal Art College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

....... Respondents

MC(WP(C)) No. 98 of 2020 Ref:- WP(C) No. 898 of 2019

1. Shri S. Nimai Singh, aged about 54 years, S/o (L) S. Ibomcha Singh of Keishamthong Elangbam Liekai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West District, Manipur.

....... Petitioner

-Versus-

               1.        The      State      of     Manipur,        through       the
                         Commissioner/Secretary            (Arts     &     Culture),

Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, 795001;

2. The Director, Arts & Culture, Palace Compound, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur, 795001.

3. The Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Arts College, Imphal West, DM College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

4. The Principal, Imphal Art College, D.M. College Road, near War Cemetery, Manipur-795001.

....... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners :: Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate, Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. Bipinchandra, Advocate Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Babita Th., Advocate Mr. Ch. Ngongo, Advocate Mr. L. Shyam, Advocate Mr. Th. Sukumar, GA

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 03.08.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 10.10.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

W.P.(C) No.1143 of 2018 has been filed

challenging the order dated 30.11.2018 as illegal and to direct

the official respondents to conduct a review Departmental

Promotion Committee by abiding the office memorandum dated

15.5.2014.

2. The petitioner is a gold medalist in Degree of Fine

Arts from the Banaras Hindu University. He pursued Master

Degree in Fine Arts in the year 1993 and was awarded

Fellowship by the State Kala Academy in the year 1999 and

Junior Fellowship Fine Art 2008-2010 Human Resource

Development, New Delhi. The petitioner was thereafter

appointed as Lecturer in the Imphal Art College vide order dated

15.2.1996. Considering the achievements and works of the

petitioner and being the senior-most among the teaching staff

of the Imphal Art College, the Deputy Secretary (Art and

Culture), Government of Manipur, vide letter dated 14.12.2017

conveyed approval of the Government to allow the petitioner to

hold charge of Principal, Imphal Art College, Manipur, as an

interim arrangement till a regular Principal is appointed through

a competent DPC. The petitioner was working as Principal in-

charge of the Imphal Art College for over eleven months. The

petitioner was required to furnish certain documents by the Joint

Director (Art and Culture), Manipur, which the petitioner duly

furnished. When the petitioner was awaiting appointment to the

regular post of Principal, the Vice Chairman, Governing Body,

Imphal Art College, issued an order dated 30.11.2018

appointing the fourth respondent, Arambam Hemanta Singh,

Senior Lecturer, on promotion, to the post of Principal, Imphal

Art College.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of

Principal is a selection post as per the Recruitment Rules and

the petitioner being the senior-most lecturer and having

discharged the duty of Principal in-charge, he ought to have

been considered for the said post. It is added that even as per

the Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2014, more especially Rule

5.7(b), the officers who are included in the panel for promotion

will have to be arranged in the order of their inter se seniority in

the lower category without reference to the overall grading

obtained by each of them, but ignoring the same, the

respondent authorities have adopted a different method than

stipulated in the Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2014 and

appointed the fourth respondent.

4. This court, vide order dated 6.12.2018,

suspending the impugned order dated 30.11.2018. The interim

order was extended periodically and is in force as on date. The

Vice-Chairman of the said college filed a Misc.Case No.16 of

2019 for vacating the interim order, which is still pending. The

person who has been appointed in the place of the petitioner

filed Misc.Case No.28 of 2019 seeking to vacate the exparte

interim order dated 6.12.2018.

5. When things stood thus, the Vice Chairman issued

a show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.1.2019 alleged that

he took away some important files and paintings, to which the

petitioner submitted his reply on 19.1.2019. Thereafter, the

Vice Chairman issued another show cause notice dated

16.5.2019 levelling certain allegations against the petitioner.

The petitioner, in his reply, submitted that the Vice Chairman

has no authority to issue the show cause notice as the term of

the Governing Body already expired on 2.5.2019. However, the

Vice-Chairman vide order dated 31.5.2019, which is under

challenge in W.P. (C) No.567 of 2019, placed the petitioner

under suspension and self-assumed himself as the Principal to

look after the Imphal Arts College.

6. Calling into question the appointment of the Vice-

Chairman as the Principal to look after the Imphal Arts College,

Imphal, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.898 of 2019 styled as a

quo-warranto alleging that no rule except Fundamental Rule

56(d) permits for re-engagement of a retired person, subject to

the fulfillment of the conditions as laid down in the said rule. The

fifth respondent in the said writ petition retired in the year 2012

and was allowed to teach the students as a visiting Lecturer only

for the session 2017 to 2018 and he his appointment is

unconstitutional and against all the known norms and rules and,

therefore, needs to be quashed. Seeking stay of the operation

of the dismissal order dated 15.1.2020, the petitioner filed Misc.

Case No.12 of 2020.

7. Be that as it may, the registration certificate of the

Imphal Arts College bearing No.67 of 1961-62, dated

11.10.1961 was issued by the Registrar of Societies, Manipur

under Section 20 of the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860.

It is the case of the petitioner that such registration is nowhere

in existence as per the information received under the Right to

Information Act dated 24.6.2019. It is further stated that the

Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 is the new Act

governing the field and inasmuch as the Imphal Arts College is

not registered under the either of the Acts, the registration dated

11.10.1961 is to be set aside and all the acts and things done

by the said non-existent Governing Body need to be declared

as null and void. Seeking such relief, the petitioner filed W.P.

8. Pending the aforesaid proceedings, the Principal

Look-after, the Imphal Art College, vide proceedings dated

15.1.2020, dismissed him from service with immediate effect.

The said order was passed despite the fact that the court vide

order 5.3.2020 extended the interim order passed in W.P. (C)

No.1143 of 2018 till the next date of hearing and that due to

pandemic Covid-19, all the interim orders granted by the courts

were extended by the High Court of Manipur vide notification

dated 23.3.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that for

appointing and removing staff, the approval of the government

is required. It is further stated that the suspension order and

departmental enquiry were under the provisions of the Central

Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965,

whereas the dismissal order was issued under the provisions of

the Constitution of Imphal Arts College, which is altogether an

illegal order. The Vice-Chairman cannot be a judge of his own

cause. Assailing the order dated 15.1.2020, the petitioner filed

W.P.(C) No.576 of 2021. He also sought a direction to the

official respondents to take over the administration of the Imphal

Arts College for any fresh departmental enquiry against the

petitioner, by excluding the participation of respondents 5 and 6

therein.

9. Inasmuch as during the currency of the interim

order passed in W.P.(C) No.1143 of 2018, the Chairman by

order dated 26.11.2020 appointed the fourth respondent therein

as Principal In-charge of the Imphal Arts College, the petitioner

filed Contempt Petition No.50 of 2021 to punish the

respondent/contemnors for their wilful and deliberate violation

of the order dated 6.12.2018.

10. The Vice-Chairman of the College, in his reply,

submitted that the Recruitment Rules cited by the petitioner are

not yet implemented and that they have followed the

Recruitment Rules in vogue and, therefore, there is no error in

recommending the name of the fourth respondent in W.P.(C)

No.1143 of 2018. It is further submitted that there is no violation

of Rule 5.7(b) of the Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2014, as

the post in question is a selection post and more meritorious

candidate has been recommended by the DPC. Therefore, it is

beyond the scope of judicial review.

11. The Vice Chairman and Principal, Imphal Art

College, further submitted that by virtue of Regulation No.9 of

the Imphal Art College, the Governing Body has got the power

for appointment and removal of all the staff and the government

approval shall be obtained as and when necessity arises and,

therefore, the approval of the Government is not mandatory.

12. Refuting the aforesaid submission, learned

counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the Director, Art

and Culture, Government of Manipur, in his report dated

31.12.2020 had categorically stated that the Government

approval is obligatory on the part of the Imphal Arts College for

any matter with direct or indirect financial implications.

Whereas in Contempt Case No.50 of 2021, the Commissioner,

Art and Culture, Government of Manipur has stated on oath that

Government Approval is required to be taken for the

appointment and removing of the teaching and non-teaching

staff. Thus, the respondent authorities are blowing hot and cold

at the same time.

13. It is submitted on behalf of the Vice Chairman and

Principal, Imphal Art College, that the college has obtained

registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and all

the registrations done under the earlier Act have now been

taken over by the new Act called the Manipur Societies

Registration Act, 1989 and inasmuch as the petitioner has an

alternative remedy under Section 22 of the Manipur Societies

Registration Act, 1989, W.P.(C) No.567 of 2019 is not

maintainable.

13. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused

the documents available on record.

14. It is beyond any demur that the Deputy Secretary

(Art and Culture), Manipur, vide letter dated 14.12.2017,

conveyed approval of the Government to allow the petitioner to

hold charge of the Principal, Imphal Art College, Manipur, purely

as an interim arrangement, till a regular Principal is appointed

through a competent DPC. The petitioner was thereafter

working as Principal In-charge of Imphal Art College after

approval of the Governing Body in its meeting held on

11.1.2018 and in this regard an order dated 29.11.2018 was

issued by the Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Art College,

declaring that the petitioner has been working as Principal In-

charge for the last 11 months.

15. When things stood thus, the Vice-Chairman,

Governing Body, Imphal Art College, issued an order dated

30.11.2018 to the effect that one Arambam Hemanta Singh is

appointed to the post of Principal, Imphal Art College. At this

juncture, it is apposite to refer to Office Memorandum dated

15.5.2014, more specifically, Clause 5.7(b) thereof, which

stipulates the principles to be observation and preparation of

panel and which reads as under:

"5.7. (b) For promotion to all posts/services below the pay band Rs.15600 - 39100 plus grade pay of Rs.7600, the bench-mark would be "Good". All Officers whose overall grading is equal to or better than the bench-mark should be included in the panel for promotion to the extent of the number of vacancies. They will be arranged in order of their inter se seniority in the lower category without reference to the overall grading obtained by each of them provided that each one of them has an overall grading equal to or better than the bench-mark of "Good"."

16. The Vice-Chairman of the College submitted that

the aforesaid Clause has been complied with inasmuch the

name of the writ petitioner was also included in the panel for

consideration of the DPC, however, the post being a selection

post, a more meritorious candidate has been recommended by

the DPC and, therefore, the writ court exercising jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere

with the same.

17. Barring such a bald statement that the writ court

should not exercise its jurisdiction, there is nothing placed on

record to show that the candidature of both the candidates was

arranged in order of their inter se seniority in the lower category

without reference to the overall grading obtained by each of

them.

18. That apart, vide order dated 6.12.2018, this court

passed an interim order suspending the operation of the

impugned order dated 30.11.2018 appointing Arambam

Hemanta Singh on promotion as the Principal of Imphal Art

College. It is not in dispute that the said interim order is still in

force.

19. During the subsistence of the interim order, the

Vice-Chairman, Imphal Art College, exercising the power

conferred under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Service

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, placed the writ

petitioner, addressing him to be the Lecturer of Imphal Art

College, under suspension with immediate effect.

20. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Rule 10(1)

of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1965, which reads as under:

"10(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-

                   (a)     Where a disciplinary proceeding
                           against him is contemplated or is
                           pending; or"
                                                   [emphasis supplied]

21. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear

that a suspension order is to be issued by the appointing

authority, etc. The petitioner has been appointed as Principal

WP(C) No.1143 of 2018, Cont.Cas(C) No. 50 of 2021, WP(C) No. 567 of 2019, WP(C) No. 576 of 2021, WP(C) No. 898 of 2019, WP(C) No. 920 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 12 of 2020, MC(WP(C)) No. 16 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 28 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 314 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 98 of 2020 P a g e | 25

In-charge and he continues to hold the said post by virtue of the

interim order dated 6.12.2018. Therefore, there is no one to

look after the charge of the Principal of the Imphal Art College.

To make the above said suspension order look proper, the Vice-

Chairman, added Principal Look after against his designation.

In effect, the Vice-Chairman assumed the charge of the

Principal of the Imphal Art College by himself without any

authority of law.

22. It is not in dispute that the post of Principal should

be filled from the existing/serving Lecturers or any other

government employee competent to hold the charge. The Vice-

Chairman, in the case on hand, is admittedly a retired

government employee and there is no order issued by the

government approving his appointment as the Principal Look-

after. Therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings against

the petitioner is by an authority, who is not empowered to do so.

23. To fortify the aforesaid view, it is apposite to refer

to the relevant portions of the judgment of this court in

Dr.Kangujam Rajo Singh v. State of Manipur and others,

[W.P.(C) No.295 of 2014, dated 2.9.2014], which read as under:

"4. Undisputedly, the respondent no.2 at the time of retirement was working as in-charge Director. From the counter affidavit, it is also clear that there was no officer who had the requisite years of service either in Grade-I or combined service in Grade-I & Grade-II to be appointed as the Director. Therefore, the State Government was resorting to in- charge arrangement for holding the two posts of Director, i.e. the Director (Medical & Health) and the Director of Family Welfare, Govt. of Manipur. Since the respondent no.2 was eligible to be appointed as a Director and had been kept as in-charge Director on his retirement, he could not have been appointed as the Director as the Rules do not provide for such appointment having not got the requisite qualification. Apart from above, F.R.56 (d) clearly lays down that no Government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years except in few cases as enumerated therein. The respondent no.2 does not come within the purview of the proviso under which extension could be granted. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that appointment of respondent no.2 after

retirement as Director is not sustainable as it not only contravenes F.R.56 but also is against the Rules which provide that an Officer who has completed 3 years regular service in MHS Grade-I or 8 years' combined service in Grade-I & II who could only be considered for promotion to the post of Director. Since the respondent no.2 did not have the said qualification, he had been posted as in-charge Director and therefore, on his retirement he could not be appointed as a Director.

4.1. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that he is the next officer to be considered for appointment to the post of Director. Since he is not eligible as per the rules to be promoted as Director of Family Welfare, as per the practice adopted by the State Government, he should have been appointed as in-charge Director of Family Welfare. From Annexure-A/5 it also appears that the Under Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) had recommended for appointment of the petitioner as in-charge Director (Family Welfare).

5. I, therefore, while quashing the appointment of respondent no.2 under an agreement as Director (Health Services) further direct that

the case of the petitioner for being appointed/promoted as in- charge Director(Family Welfare) be considered and a decision be taken within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order."

[emphasis supplied]

24. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Apex

Court in the judgment dated 25.9.2014 passed in SLP (C)

No.26510 of 2014, rejecting the appeal preferred by the State

of Manipur. In the case on hand, Y.Ibochaoba, Vice-Chairman,

retired in the year 2012 and was allowed to teach the students

as a Visiting Lecturer only for the season 2017 to 2018. Thus,

the appointment of Y.Ibochaoba, Vice-Chairman as the

Principal Look-after is contrary to Rule 56(d) of the

Fundamental Rules.

25. Coming to the dismissal of the petitioner from

service, it is apt to refer to Rule 7 of the Constitution of Imphal

Art College, which reads as under:

"7. The Governing Body shall have the power of appointing and removing staff (teaching & non teaching) deciding promotion and increment, granting leave of absence of staff (teaching & non teaching), fee of students and stipend, managing of funds of

WP(C) No.1143 of 2018, Cont.Cas(C) No. 50 of 2021, WP(C) No. 567 of 2019, WP(C) No. 576 of 2021, WP(C) No. 898 of 2019, WP(C) No. 920 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 12 of 2020, MC(WP(C)) No. 16 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 28 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 314 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 98 of 2020 P a g e | 29

the college, framing the annual budget and annual report, dealing with all schemes of developments and such other matter as are brought before them for consideration. However Government approval shall be obtained when necessity arises."

[emphasis supplied]

26. As already held in the preceding paragraphs, the

Vice Chairman, Governing Body, is not the competent authority

to initiate disciplinary action against the staffs, employees, etc.

Such action can be initiated only by the Principal. Inasmuch as

by dint of the interim order passed by this court, the petitioner

continues to be the Principal of the College, the Vice-Chairman,

assuming himself the power of Principal, ought not to have

passed the order of dismissal. In the instant case, no document

has been produced to show that government approval has been

obtained for removing the petitioner from service.

27. When the statute prescribes an act to be done in

a particular manner, it should be done in that manner only and

not otherwise. The Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs.

Singhara Singh and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 358, highlighting the

aforesaid proposition, held as under:

"8. In Nazir Ahmed's case L.R. 63 IndAp 372 the Judicial Committee observed that the principle applied in Taylor v. Taylor [1875] 1 Ch. D. 426 a Court, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that or nor at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to judicial officers making records under s. 164 and, therefore, held that magistrate could not give oral evidence of the confession made to him which he had purported to record under s. 164 of the Code. It was said that otherwise all the precautions and safe guards laid down in Sections 164 and 364, both which had to be read together, would become of such trifling value as to be almost idle and that "it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than which is laid down with such minute particularity in the section themselves."

9. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor [1875] 1 Ch. D. 426 is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statue has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the

doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted."

[emphasis supplied]

28. Moreover, no one can be a judge of his own cause.

In the case on hand, the Vice-Chairman, who can never be

considered to be a principal by virtue of the findings recorded in

the preceding paragraphs, cannot have passed the dismissal

order in the capacity of Principal Look-after. The initiation of the

proceedings against the petitioner right from the inception is bad

in law and, therefore, the same cannot be sanctified at a later

stage. To buttress the aforesaid proposition, a reference of the

judgment in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Mamata

Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, is apposite:

"ORDER BAD IN INCEPTION:

20. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate

such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (vide: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam and Ors. MANU/SC/0225/1998 : AIR 1998 SC 1289; Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. MANU/SC/0153/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 1964; and Ritesh Tiwari and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0742/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 3823)."

[emphasis supplied]

29. That apart, the registration No.67 of 1961-62,

dated 11.10.1961 issued by the Registrar of Societies, Manipur,

under Section 20 of the Societies Registration Act is nowhere

in existence in the office of the Registrar of Societies, Manipur

and the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 has its own

new provisions and rules which have to be complied. There is

nothing placed on record to show that such registration of the

college under the new provisions governing it have been

obtained.

30. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is

passed:

(i) W.P.(C) No.1143 of 2018 is allowed and

the order dated 30.11.2018 appointing

Arambam Hemanta Singh, as Principal,

Imphal Art College, is set aside;

(ii) W.P.(C) No.567 of 2019 is allowed and the

order dated 31.5.2019 suspending the

petitioner from service is set aside.

(iii) W.P.(C) No.898 of 2019 is allowed and the

appointment of private respondent No.5 as

Principal Look-after, Imphal Art College, is

set aside as illegal and unconstitutional

and consequently the resolution dated

7.1.2019 and appointment order dated

14.1.2019 are set aside.

(iv) W.P.(C) No.920 of 2019 is allowed with a

direction to the respondent college to

strictly comply with the provisions of the

Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989

and till the governing body in terms of the

Act in vogue obtains sanction, the

Government shall control the affairs of the

college.

(v) W.P.(C) No.576 of 2021 is allowed by

setting aside the dismissal order dated

15.1.2020, inasmuch as the initiation of the

proceedings itself is bad in law. The

petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith into

service with full service benefits, including

backwages.

(vi) As W.P.(C) No.1143 of 2018 is allowed,

M.C.Nos.16 and 28 of 2019 are dismissed.

(vii) Inasmuch as the order of dismissal dated

15.1.2020 has been set aside, no further

orders are required in M.C.No.12 of 2020

and it is accordingly dismissed.

                      (viii)      Contempt Petition No.50 of 2021 is

                                  allowed,            as          the            fourth

                                  respondent/contemnor             [or     all     the

respondents] has committed wilful and

deliberate violation of the interim order

dated 6.12.2018. The matter may be

posted on 14.11.2022 for the appearance

of the contemnor.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil