Manipur High Court
Shri Khundrakpam Sunilkeshor vs Manipur University Through Its ... on 21 February, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2023.02.24 13:04:19 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 462 of 2019
Shri Khundrakpam Sunilkeshor, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri
Kh. Mohori Singh a resident of Khurai Sajor Leikai, B.P.O
Lamlong & P.S Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin-
795010.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Manipur University through its Registrar, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O Manipur University & P.S
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
2. The Administrator/ Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O Manipur University & P.S
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
...Respondents
3. Soram Jibonkumar Singh, through the Vice-Chancellor,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O Manipur University &
P.S Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
4. K. Nando Singh, through the Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O Manipur University & P.S
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
5. T. Kamkhenthang, through the Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O Manipur University & P.S
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |2
6. Nongmaithem Kerani Singh, through the Vice-Chancellor,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O Manipur University &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
7. Ahanthem Manimohon Singh, through the Vice-Chancellor,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O Manipur University &
P.S Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
...Private Respondents
WP(C) No. 683 of 2019
Shri T. Kamkhenthang, aged about 53 years, S/o (L) T.
Pumphung, resident of Saikul Village, P.O., P.S. & District,
Churachandpur, Manipur-795128 and at present Quarter
No. Type-VI/1B, P.O. Manipur University, P.S. Singjamei,
District, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
.....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Manipur University through its Registrar, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University, P.S.
Singjamei, District, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
2. The Administrator/Vice-Chancellor, Manipur University, _
Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University, P.S. Singjamei,
District, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
.... Respondents
WP(C) No. 759 of 2019
Shri Khurdrakpam Sunilkeshor, aged about 36 years, S/O
Shri Kh. Mohori Singh a resident of Khurai Sajor Leikai,
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |3
B.P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur. Pin:795010.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Manipur University through its Registrar, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.Pi1: 795003.
2. The Administrator/Vice Chancellor, Manipur University,
Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphai West District, Manipur.Pin:795003.
....Respondents
3. Soram Jibonkumar Singh, through the Vice Chancellor,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University &
P.5. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur. Pin: 795003.
4. K. Nando Singh, through the Vice Chancellor, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O, Manipur University & P.S.
Singjemei, Imphal West District, Pin:795003.
...Private Respondents
5. The Central Bureau of Investigation through Head of Branch
(ACB) Imphal, Lamphelpat, Manipur P.O.& P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur.Pin:795114.
..Proforma Respondent
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |4
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019
Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019
Shri T. Kamkhenthang, aged about 53 years, S/o (L) T.
Pumphung, resident of Saikul Village, P.O., P.S. & District,
Churachandpur, Manipur-795128 and at present Quarter
No. Type-VI/1B, P.O. Manipur University, P.S. Singjamei,
District, Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
.....Applicant.
-Versus-
1. Shri Khundrakpam Sunilkeshor, aged about 36 years, S/o
Shri Kh. Mohori Singh, resident of Khurai Sajor Leikai,
B.P.O. Lamlong & PS. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur, Pin-795010.
.....Principal Respondent
2. Manipur University through its Registrar, Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
3. The Administrative/Vice Chancellor, Manipur University,
Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin795003.
.....Respondent
4. Soram Jibonkumar Singh, through the Vice. Chancellor,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
5. K. Nando Singh, through the Vice Chancellor. Manipur
University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |5
6. Nongmaithem Kerani Singh, through the Vice Chancellor,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
7. Ahanthem Manimohon Singh, through the Vice Chancellor,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O. Manipur University &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795003.
... Proforma Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate in
WP(C) No. 683 of 2019;
Mr.M. Devananda, Addl. AG in
WP(C) No. 759 of 2019 &
WP(C) No. 462 of 2019;
Mr. K. Roshan, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. BP Sahu, Sr. Advocate in
WP(C) No. 683 of 2019 &
WP(C) No. 462 of 2019;
Mr. W. Darakishwor, Sr. PCCG in
WP(C) No. 759 of 2019;
Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 19.01.2023.
Date of Judgment & Order :: 21.02.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 has been filed by the
petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 24.5.2019 and the
consequential orders and offer forms issued to the private
respondents.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |6
2. W.P.(C) No.683 of 2019 has been filed by the fifth
respondent in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 as petitioner to set aside
the order dated 8.8.2019 and to direct the respondents therein to
allow him to serve/function as Section Officer of the Manipur
University by maintaining his merit position secured by him in
view of the recruitment process initiated by the official respondent
in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.10.2014.
3. W.P.(C) No.759 of 2023 has been filed by the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 to quash the impugned
order dated 8.8.2019 and the consequential orders and offer
forms issued to the private respondent and to cause inquiry into
the illegalities and irregularities committed by the Manipur
University into the selection and appointment of Section Officer
by entrusting to an independent body i.e. Central Bureau of
Investigation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Since the challenges made in these writ petitions
are one and the same, all the writ petitions were heard together
and disposed of by this common order.
5. Out of three writ petitions, two writ petitions, being
W.P.(C) Nos.462 and 759 of 2019, have been filed by the
petitioner Khundrakpam Sunilkeshor, while W.P.(C) No.683 of
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |7
2019 has been filed by Kamkhenthang who has been arrayed as
respondent No.5 in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019.
6. Brief facts are as follows:
[W.P.(C) Nos.462 and 759 of 2019]
The Registrar, Manipur University issued a
notification dated 22.10.2014 calling applications from amongst
the eligible candidates for appointment to various posts including
the Section Officer and after the applications being received from
amongst the candidate for the posts of Section Officer, displayed
the names of 13 eligible candidates on its notice board. All
eligible candidates are categorized under the unreserved
category and there was no eligible Scheduled Caste candidates
for the post of Section Officer and none of the candidates
identified under the reserved category of Schedule Caste. On
26.8.2015, the Deputy Registrar issued a notification informing
generally the eligible candidates to appear at the written test.
7. Being eligible candidate, the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.462 of 2019 applied for the post of Section Officer in the open
category and after successful in the written test, he was called
for interview on 5.12.2015 and the petitioner also appeared
before the selection committee on the said date. Though the
result of the examination was not declared and uploaded in the
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |8
University website, the Registrar issued offer forms to the private
respondent vide its letter dated 16.12.2015.
8. Challenging the letter dated 16.12.2015 and its
consequential appointment orders, the petitioner has filed
W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 before this Court on the ground that
although Manipur University issued advertisement to fill up 3
posts of Section Officer - two for unreserved and one for SC, it
proceeded for appointment of 4 private respondents and also on
the ground that the selection process was not conducted in a
transparent manner. By the order dated 12.3.2019, the said writ
petition was allowed and the offer forms dated 16.1.22015 and
the appointment orders dated 28.12.2015 were quashed with a
direction that it is open to the Manipur University to take
appropriate steps to ensure that the process of selection is either
cancelled with a fresh notification being issued thereafter or
completed by declaring the result thereof. The official
respondents, by deliberately misinterpreting the order dated
12.3.2019, issued the impugned order dated 24.5.2019 declaring
the result of the Selection Committee held on 5.12.2015 for the
post of Section Officer in order of merit as (1) Soram Jibonkumar
Singh; (2) K.Nando Singh; (3) T.Kamkhenthang; (4)
Nongmaithem Kerani Singh. The Committee had also selected
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
Page |9
one Ahanthem Manimohon Singh as wait listed candidate.
Challenging the impugned office order dated 24.5.2019, the
petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019.
9. By the interim order dated 11.6.2019 passed in
W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019, the order dated 24.5.2019 was
suspended by this Court. During the pendency of W.P.(C)
No.462 of 2019, the order dated 8.8.2019 came to be issued
illegally by the Registrar, thereby declaring the result of the
Selection Committee in respect of (1) Soram Jibankumar Singh
and (2) K.Nando Singh for appointment and cancelled the result
of the Selection Committee dated 5.12.2015 in respect of
(1)T.Kamkhenthang and (2) Nongmaithem Kerani Singh as there
had been irregularities in inclusion of their names in the list of
selected candidates. Challenging the order dated 8.8.2019,
W.P.(C) No.759 of 2019 has been filed.
10. Resisting W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 and W.P.(C)
No.759 of 2019, the respondents 3 and 4 filed affidavit-in-
opposition stating that from the order dated 12.3.2019 passed in
W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017, it is clear that this Court left it to the
discretion of the Manipur University to ensure that the process of
selection is either cancelled with a fresh notification being issued
thereafter or completed by declaring the result thereof thereby
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 10
allowing the Manipur University to choose one or the other and
must not be separated distinctively in a different sentence or
connotations. It is stated that in order to avoid inconveniences to
the duly selected candidates whose positions were already
confirmed to their respective posts before filing the writ petition,
took the second option and thus declared the result notifying the
selection of four candidates vide order dated 24.5.2019.
11. It is stated that the petitioner has deliberately
misinterpreted the order dated 12.3.2019 passed in W.P.(C)
No.79 of 2017 in their own sense and is trying to mislead this
Court. In fact, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.15 of 2019 as
against the order dated 12.3.2019 praying for deleting the words
"either" and "or" mentioned in the order and by the order dated
1.4.2019, the said appeal was disposed of with liberty to seek
clarification or modification from the concerned learned Single
Judge. However, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 with
an intention to confuse this Court and to get an order in its terms
of interpretation of the order.
12. It is stated that the Manipur University had also
issued an order dated 22.6.2019 thereby keeping in abeyance
the order dated 24.5.2019 in compliance of the interim order
dated 11.6.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.462 of
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 11
2019. The University authority also issued an order dated
8.8.2019 thereby reviving the order dated 24.5.2019 after
granting permission by this Court. Challenging the order dated
8.8.2019, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.759 of 2019 and by the
interim order dated 17.9.2019, this Court granted status-quo,
thereby allowing the respondents 3 and 4 to discharge their
duties as Section Officer.
13. The respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.759 of 2019
filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the order dated 8.8.2019
has been reviewed by the authority with the permission of this
Court vide order dated 31.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.462 of
2019 and after careful consideration and in compliance of this
Court's order dated 12.3.2019 in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 which
directed to declare the result of the Selection Committee in the
alternative. It is stated that the successful four candidates who
were recommended and selected were given offer forms for
appointment to the post of Section Officer. The terms and
conditions of the advertisement states increase/decrease the
number of vacancies on its own discretion and to frame a panel
for filling up future vacancies arising during tenability of panel
which shall be normally operative for one year and not to fill up
any of the advertised positions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 12
overreact and say that the appointment of Section Officer was
not conducted in a transparent manner.
14. It is stated that having made clear by this Court in
the order dated 12.3.2019 where the University was given an
opportunity to choose either to cancel the selection process or to
declare the undeclared result, the University to avoid
inconveniences to the duly selected candidates whose positions
were already confirmed to their respective posts before filing the
said writ petition took the second option and declared the result
notifying the selection of four candidates vide order dated
24.5.2019. It is the petitioner who is intentionally misinterpreting
the order dated 12.3.2019 in his own sense and trying to mislead
the Court.
15. It is stated that the writ appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 12.3.2019 passed in W.P.(C)
No.79 of 2017 was disposed of on 1.4.2019 with liberty to seek
clarification before the learned Single Judge. Instead the
petitioner filed different writ petitions to confuse this Court and to
get an order. The directive portion of the order dated 12.3.2019
need to point out step by step, namely (1) It is open to Manipur
University to take appropriate steps to ensure that ... (2) The
process of selection is either cancelled with a fresh notification
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 13
being issued thereafter .... (3) or completed by declaring the
result thereof, in accordance with law. The above quoted
sentence shows that Manipur University has been given an
option to choose and act. Therefore, when the University chose
third option, there cannot be any fault on the part of the
University.
16. The respondent CBI filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that the CBI is unable to conduct an enquiry into the
matter for the reason that the averments relate mainly on the
misinterpretation by the respondent Manipur University in the
order dated 12.3.2019 and there are no specific instances
regarding involvement of corruption and there is also no
interstate ramification necessitating CBI enquiry.
W.P.(C) No.683 of 2019:
17. The case of the petitioner Kamkhenthangis that he
appeared in the recruitment test for the post of Section Officer of
the Manipur University in pursuance of an advertisement dated
22.10.2014. Basing on his performance and marks secured by
him in the said recruitment, he was appointed to the said post of
Section Officer on 28.12.2015. His service to the said post was
also confirmed on 23.5.2017. In W.P.(C) No.79 of 2019, the
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 14
petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshore Singh challenged the offer form
dated 16.12.2015 including the appointment order of
Kamkhenthang and three others to the said post. The said writ
petition was allowed whereby the offer form dated 16.12.2015
and the appointment order dated 28.12.2015 in respect of
Kamkhenthang and three others were quashed with a direction
to the Manipur University to take appropriate step to ensure that
the process of selection is either cancelled with a fresh
notification being issued thereafter or completed by declaring the
result thereof in accordance with law within a month from the date
of receipt of a copy of the said order. In compliance of the above
said order, the result of the Selection
Committee held on 5.12.2015 for appointment to the post of
Section Officer was declared in order of merit and the name of
Kamkhenthang appeared at Serial No.3. Thereafter, without
giving any opportunity of being heard, his appointment was
cancelled. Challenging the same, W.P.(C) No.683 of 2019 has
been filed.
18. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that the Manipur University invited candidates vide
advertisement dated 22.10.2014 for direct recruitment to various
posts including the post of Section Officer (2UR & 1SC).
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 15
However, none applied in the SC category. 13 candidates were
eligible for written test and all the eligible 13 were under the
category of UR including the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor and
petitioner T.Kamkhenthang and both applied in open category.
The petitioner Sunilkeshsor appeared in the written test and
interview for the said post, but he was not
recommended/selected by the Selection Committee and the
Committee recommended respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 in W.P.(C)
No.462 of 2019. The selection/appointment was increased from
2 UR to 4 UR out of the recommended 5 candidates for the said
post in view of the terms and condition No.8 for appointment of
Group B posts of the advertisement No.2/2014 dated
22.10.2014. Out of the five recommended candidates, 4 were
selected i.e. the private respondents 3,4,5 and 6 in W.P.(C)
No.462 of 2019 by applying the terms and condition No.8.
19. It is stated that the Manipur University had issued
an order dated 24.5.2019 thereby declaring the result so that no
inconvenience caused to the duly selected candidates. It is
stated that this Court never quashed the selection process but
quashed the offer forms and appointment orders only. That is
why in the order in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 the University was
given an option to either cancel the selection process with a fresh
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 16
notification or declare the result thereof. Thereafter, by the order
of this Court dated 31.7.2019 in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019, the
impugned review order dated 8.8.2019 has been passed in
partial modification of the earlier order dated 24.5.2019, thereby
selecting only 2 candidates in the UR category and the rest were
cancelled as there had been certain irregularities.
20. The third respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that in view of the observations made in paragraphs 8,9
and 10 of the order dated 12.3.2019, the direction contained in
paragraph 11 of the order is very clear that as the offer form dated
16.12.2015 and the appointment order dated 28.12.2015 were
quashed, the University was at liberty to take appropriate steps
to ensure that the process of selection is either cancelled with a
fresh notification being issued thereafter or completed by
declaring the result thereof, in accordance with law. This
direction does not mean that the University should declare the
results of the selection process for the four incumbents to be
declared again. There is no question of declaring the result of
the earlier selection process as the same had been quashed and
set aside by this Court. The direction as contained in the order
at paragraph 11 means that the process for selection should start
afresh from the stage of the advertisement and continued
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 17
thereafter by declaring the results according to law, however, the
respondents 1 and 2 had deliberately misinterpreted the order
dated 12.3.2019 and had illegally and arbitrarily accommodated
four incumbents including the petitioner by issuing the order
dated 24.5.2019.
21. Assailing the orders impugned in W.P.(C) No.462
and 759 of 2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that this Court earlier had quashed the offer forms dated
16.12.2015 and the appointment orders dated 28.12.2015 of the
private respondents, in view of the observations made in
paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 12.3.2019 passed in
W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 and that the direction contained in
paragraph 11 of the said order is very clear that as the offer forms
and the appointment orders were quashed and set aside, the
University is at liberty to take appropriate steps to ensure that the
process of selection is either cancelled with a fresh notification
being issued thereafter or completed by declaring the result
thereof, in accordance with law. According to the learned
counsel, the aforesaid direction does not mean that the Manipur
University should declare the results of the selection process for
the four incumbents to be declared again.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 18
22. The learned counsel would submit that even then
the order dated 24.5.2019 was issued illegally and arbitrarily.
When the order dated 24.5.2019 was again challenged and this
Court had suspended the same vide order dated 11.6.2019, the
impugned order dated 8.8.2019 was again issued in partial
modification of the earlier order dated 24.5.2019 illegally and
arbitrarily. There is no question of declaring the result of the
earlier selection process, as the same had been quashed and set
aside by this Court. In fact, the direction as contained in
paragraph 11 of the order dated 12.3.2019 is to the effect that
the process for selection should start afresh from the stage of the
advertisement and continued thereafter by declaring the results
according to law. However, the official respondents had
deliberately misinterpreted the order dated 12.3.2019 and had
illegally and arbitrarily accommodated the private respondents.
The issuance of the impugned orders itself is contempt of Court,
as they had misinterpreted the judgment dated 12.3.2019.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that
since the order dated 12.3.2019 quashed the forms dated
16.12.2015 and the appointment orders dated 28.12.2015 of the
private respondents, they cannot continue as Section Officers in
the Manipur University. However, the official respondents
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 19
allowed the private respondents to continue in service as Section
Officers illegally, which can be ascertained from the pay slips of
the private respondents.
24. Since there are irregularities in accommodating the
private respondents, the matter is required to be enquired by CBI.
In fact, in the order dated 8.8.2019 itself it was clearly mentioned
that there has been gross irregularities in the order dated
24.5.2019, but the same illegality was repeated by issuing the
impugned order dated 8.8.2019, which cannot stand in the eye
of law.
25. The appointment of four Section Officers including
that of the private respondents 3 and 4 are quashed by this Court
vide order dated 12.3.2019 in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017. However,
the respondents 3 and 4 in violation of the said order were
allowed to continue in service and paid salary and allowances.
The subsequent orders dated 24.5.2019 and 8.8.2019 cannot
justify the illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondents 1 and 2
in accommodating the private respondents in violation of the
order dated 12.3.2019. Thus, a prayer has been made to set
aside the impugned orders dated 24.5.2019 and 8.8.2019.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.683 of 2019, inter alia, submitted that though the petitioner
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 20
Kamkhenthang belongs to ST category, he applied for the post
in question under the unreserved category as unreserved
category vacancies can be applied by a reserved category
candidate. He passed the written test and appeared for the
interview. Based on his merit position, he was selected for the
post of Section Officer and offer form was issued to him on
16.12.2015 which he accepted for appointment. Accordingly, on
28.12.2015, he was appointed as Section Officer with effect from
17.12.2015 and he was confirmed to the said post with effect
from 17.12.2016.
27. The learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.462 and 759 of 2019 who appeared in
the above said recruitment but could not pass the said selection
test because of his poor performance filed a writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 by challenging the legality of the offer
forms and appointment orders issued in favour of respondents 3,
4, 5 and 6 in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 who were appointed to the
said post of Section Officers. The said writ petition was heard
and allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.3.2019 whereby
the offer forms dated 16.12.2015 and the appointment orders
dated 28.12.2015 were quashed with a direction to the University
to take appropriate steps to ensure that the process of selection
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 21
is either cancelled with a fresh notification being issued thereafter
or to declare the result thereof in accordance with law within a
month.
28. The learned counsel then submitted that the
University had opted the second option given in the order dated
12.3.2019 and declared the result on 24.5.2019 in compliance to
the aforesaid directive of this Court and, accordingly, the
Selection Committee found the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.683 of
2019 selected among the other selected candidates. However,
by the impugned order dated 8.8.2019, the declaration of result
of the above said selection which was issued in compliance to
the afore said order was cancelled in respect of the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.683 of 2019 and another person namely Kerani
Singh without giving any show cause notice nor any reason.
29. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.683 of 2019, the order dated 8.8.2019 is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. There is no illegality in the order
dated 24.5.2019 issued by the Registrar of Manipur University for
declaring the result of the said recruitment. Hence, without
challenging the legality of the order dated 12.3.2019 passed in
W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017, the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.462 and
759 of2019 cannot indirectly challenge the order dated 24.5.2019
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 22
which was issued in compliance to the direction of this Court
dated 12.3.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017.
30. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent State contended that the University
as practiced earlier issued offer forms only to the selected
candidates as recommended by the Selection Committee. In
other words, the successful four candidates who were
recommended and selected were given offer forms for
appointment to the post of Section Officer of the University.
Since the petitioner was not selected, he was not selected and
was not given the offer form.
31. The learned Government Advocate further
submitted that the para 11 of the order dated 12.3.2019 clearly
directed the University that "it is open to the Manipur University
to take appropriate steps to ensure that the process of selection
is either cancelled with a fresh notification being issued thereafter
or completed by declaring the result thereof, in accordance with
law". According to the learned Government Advocate, it may be
seen that the words used in the directive portion of the order
dated 12.3.2019 i.e. "it is open" "either cancelled" "or completed
by declaring the result thereof. ..." are to be read as collectively
by allowing to choose one or the other and must not be separated
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 23
distinctively in a different sentence or connotations. Having
made very clear by this Court in the said order dated 12.3.2019
where the University was given an opportunity to choose either
to cancel the selection process or to declare the undeclared
result, the University in order to avoid inconveniences to the duly
selected candidates whose positions were already confirmed to
their respective posts before filing the writ petition took the
second option and declared the result notifying the selection of
four candidates vide order dated 24.5.2019.
32. The learned Government Advocate then submitted
that the petitioner had clear knowledge of the option choosen by
the University, but he persistently filed writ petitions to confuse
this Court. The petitioner has no cause of action in filing the writ
petitions as the order dated 12.3.2019 is very clear for issuance
of orders by the University authorities. Thus, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the writ petitions.
33. The learned counsel for the private respondents,
namely, the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C) No.759 of 2019, inter
alia, contended that the impugned review order dated 8.8.2019
in partial modification of the earlier order dated 24.5.2019 was
issued with the permission of this Court in its order dated
31.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019. It has not been
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 24
issued at the whims of the authorities, but has been issued with
the prior permission of this Court. In fact, this Court vide order
dated 12.3.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 quashed the
offer forms dated 16.12.2015 and the appointment orders dated
28.12.2015 of the respondents 3 and 4.However, the directive
portion of the order gave an option to the University to choose
and act and thus, the University choose to act by declaring the
result for which the University cannot be put on fault.
34. The learned counsel further submitted that this
Court never quashed the selection process, but has quashed the
offer forms and appointment orders only. The statement made
by the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.462 and 759 of 2019 is his own
interpretation and the same is not proportionate with the
observations and directions made by this Court. As such, the
same cannot be acted upon under any circumstances.
35. The learned counsel then submitted that the
respondents 3 and 4 have not been allowed to discharge their
duties as Section Officers, but they have been paid for the post
of Section Officer as they have enjoyed its scale of pay before
they were appointed to the post of Section Officer and that they
have been serving as Senior Assistant for the interim
arrangement till further orders.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 25
36. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that
the University has also issued an order dated 22.6.2019 thereby
keeping in abeyance the order dated 24.5.2019 in compliance of
the order dated 11.6.2019 and that the University authority has
issued the impugned order dated 8.8.2019 thereby reviving the
order dated 24.5.2019 as this Court had granted permission for
reviewing the said order. However, in view of the status quo order
dated 17.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.759 of 2019, the
respondents 3 and 4 have been allowed to discharge their duties
as Section Officer by the University authorities. Thus, a prayer
has been made to dismiss all the writ petitions.
37. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also perused materials available on record.
38. The instant writ petitions have been filed
challenging the order dated 24.5.2019 and 8.8.2019 respectively.
W.P.(C) Nos.462 and 759 of 2019 have been filed by the
petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor challenging the order dated 24.5.2019
and 8.8.2019. W.P.(C) No.683 of 2019 has been filed by the
petitioner Kamkhenthang, who was not considered for selection
at later point of time vide order dated 8.8.2019.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 26
39. The respondent Manipur University issued a
notification dated 22.10.2014 inviting applications from amongst
the eligible candidates for appointment to various posts,
including Section Officer and after the applications being
received from amongst the candidates for the post of Section
Officer, the University displayed the names of 13 eligible
candidates on its notice board. On 26.8.2015, the University
issued a notification informing the eligible candidates to appear
at the written test and that they should submit their recent
passport size photographs on or before 4.9.2015. The written
test was held on 12.9.2015 and the Deputy Registrar of the
University, vide its letter dated 1.12.2015, informed the petitioner
Kh. Sunilkishore to appear for the interview to be held on
5.12.2015 and, accordingly, he appeared in the interview.
40. As could be seen from the records, subsequent to
the issuance of the advertisement dated 22.10.2014, two posts
of Sections Officers became vacant due to the promotion of
Subhash Singh and Budhapati Devi to the post of Assistant
Registrars and in view of the reservation policy as well as the
reservation provided in the recruitment rules, the University
proceeded for appointment as many as four post of Section
Officers. The Selection Committee was constituted for
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 27
appointment to the said post of Section Officer, which
recommended five persons namely (1) Soram Jibonkumar
Singh; (2) K.Nando Singh; (3) T.Kamkhenthang; (4)
Nongmaithem Kerani Singh and (5) Ahanthem Manimohon
Singh.
41. On 16.12.2015, the Registrar of the University
issued offer forms to the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.462
of 2019 containing the terms and conditions. The said offer forms
and the subsequent appointment orders came to be challenged
by the said petitioner in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2015 on the grounds
that the said offer forms and subsequent letters were issued
without publication of the result of the Selection Committee etc.
After contest, by the order dated 12.3.2019, this Court allowed
the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads thus:
"[11] In view of the above and for the reasons
stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is
allowed and consequently, the offer forms
dated 16.12.2015 and the appointment
orders dated 28.12.2015 issued by the
Registrar, Manipur University, are quashed
and set aside with the direction that it is open
to the Manipur University to take appropriate
steps to ensure that the process of selection
is either cancelled with a fresh notification
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 28
being issued thereafter or completed by
declaring the result thereof, in accordance
with law, within a month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
There shall be no order as to costs."
42. Assailing the order dated 12.3.2019 passed in
W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017, the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor filed
W.A.No.15 of 2017 to set aside the direction contained in
paragraph 11 of the order dated 12.3.2019. When the writ appeal
came up for admission on 1.4.2019, the learned counsel for the
appellant sought liberty to seek clarification from the learned
Single Judge and thereafter pursue the appeal remedy, if cause
survives. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of. However, the
petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor has not filed any clarification petition
before the learned Single Judge.
43. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for
the University pointed out that the direction portion of the order
dated 12.3.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 need to point
out the following step by step:
"(1) It is open to the Manipur University to
take appropriate steps to ensure that ...
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 29
(2) The process of selection is either
cancelled with a fresh notification being
issued thereafter ...
(3) Or completed by declaring the result
thereof, in accordance with law. ..."
44. The respondent University decided to comply with
the second option of the direction contained in the order dated
12.3.2019 i.e. it has decided to choose option "3" referred above.
Accordingly, it has declared the result of the Selection Committee
held on 5.12.2015 vide impugned order dated 24.5.2019 for the
post of Section Officer in the following order of merit:
(1) Soram Jibonkumar Singh
(2) K.Nando Singh
(3) T.Kamkhenthang
(4) Nongmaithem Kerani Sigh
45. It is also seen from the order dated 24.5.2019, the
Committee recommended on Ahanthem Manimohon Singh as
wait listed candidate. According to the respondent University,
the order dated 24.5.2019 is in compliance with the direction of
this Court dated 12.3.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 30
That apart, W.A.No.15 of 2019 has been filed assailing the order
dated 12.3.2019.
46. The order dated 24.5.2019 has been assailed by
the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor contending that it has been issued
contrary to the direction dated 12.3.2019. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor, the direction
contained in para 11 means that the process for selection should
start afresh from the stage of the advertisement and continued
thereafter by declaring the results in accordance with law.
However, the respondent University had deliberately
misinterpreted the order dated 12.3.2019 and had illegally
accommodated the private respondents.
47. The argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor cannot be countenanced for the
reason that the direction contained in paragraph 11 of the order
dated 12.3.2019 in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 clearly left it to the
discretion of the respondent University to take appropriate steps
to ensure that the process of selection is either cancelled with a
fresh notification being issued thereafter or completed by
declaring the result thereof in accordance with law. In order to
avoid inconveniences to the duly selected candidates whose
positions were already confirmed to their respective posts before
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 31
filing W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019, took the second option and thus,
declared the result notifying the selection of four candidates vide
the order dated 24.5.2019. This Court finds no fault in it and it is
the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor misinterpreting the order dated
12.3.2019 passed by this Court in his own sense and is trying to
mislead the Court.
48. As stated supra, the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor had
also filed W.A.No.15 of 2019 challenging the order dated
12.3.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017 and later on allowed
the said writ appeal to be disposed of with liberty to seek
clarification from the learned Single Judge. However, contrary to
the liberty sought in the writ appeal and without filing any
clarification petition before the learned Single, the petitioner Kh.
Sunilkeshor has filed W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 challenging the
order dated 24.5.2019 with an intention to confuse this Court.
The approach adopted by the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor is legally
not sustainable in law and, therefore, this Court is of the view that
the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor fails.
49. Coming to the challenge made to the order dated
8.8.2019, the said order has been challenged by the Kh.
Sunilkeshor and Kamkhenthang on different grounds. As stated
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 32
supra, challenging the order dated 8.8.2019, Kamkhenthang filed
W.P.(C) No.683 of 2019 and Kh. Sunilkeshor filed W.P.(C)
No.759 of 2019.
50. The petitioner Kamkhenthang challenged the
impugned order dated 8.8.2019 on the following grounds:
(i) Though he belongs to SC category, he
applied for the said post of Section Officer
in the unreserved category as the
unreserved post can be applied by the
reserved category candidates.
(ii) He was recommended by the Selection
Committee in view of the merit position as
he secured 93 marks in total, whereas the
petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor secured only 72
marks.
(iii) He was appointed against the vacancy
which arose during the recruitment process
due to promotion of two persons. Hence,
there is no illegality in his appointment to
the post of Section Officer in view of his
merit position.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 33
(iv) The cancellation order dated 8.8.2019 was
issued without giving him any opportunity of
being heard as his service was already
confirmed to the post of Section Officer
after successful completion of the
probation period.
51. The petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor challenged the
impugned order dated 8.8.2019 on the ground that during
pendency of W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 and the subsistence of the
interim order dated 11.6.2019, the said order came to be passed
stating that in partial modification of the order dated 24.5.2019
the result of the Selection Committee meeting held on 5.12.2015
for appointment to the post of Section Officer in order of merit
was declared as under:
(1) SoramJibankumar Singh
(2) K.Nando Singh
52. According to the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor, when
the order dated 24.5.2019 was challenged and this Court
suspended the same, the impugned order dated 8.8.2019 was
again illegally and arbitrarily issued and there is no question of
declaring the result of the earlier selection process as the same
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 34
had been quashed by this Court vide order dated 12.3.2019 in
W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017.
53. On a thorough reading of the order dated 12.3.2019
in W.P.(C) No.79 of 2017, more particularly, paragraph 11, it is
clear that while passing the order, the learned Single Judge of
this Court has not quashed the selection process. But only
quashed the offer forms and appointment orders. That is why in
the said order, the authorities of the Manipur University was given
an option to either cancel the selection process with a fresh
notification or declare the result thereof.
54. When the petitioner Kh. Sunilkeshor challenged the
impugned order dated 24.5.2019 in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019, this
Court, by the order dated 11.6.2019, granted interim order
suspending the order dated 24.5.2019 till further orders. The
said interim order still continued and the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.683 of 2019 (Kamkhenthang) had also filed MC (WP) No.239
of 2019 to vacate the interim order dated 11.6.2019. The said
Miscellaneous Case was also heard along with these writ
petitions.
55. It appears that on 22.6.2019, the Registrar of the
University has passed an order stating that the order dated
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 35
24.5.2019 has been suspended till further order vide interim
order dated 11.6.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.462 of 2019 and as
one candidate has retired on superannuation, the services of the
other three Section Officers are kept in abeyance until further
orders.
56. It is the case of the respondent University that upon
the permission granted by this Court dated 31.7.2019 in W.P.(C)
No.462 of 2019, the order dated 24.5.2019 has been reviewed
and the impugned order dated 8.8.2019 came to be passed
selecting 2 candidates in the unreserved category and the rest
were cancelled as there had been certain irregularities.
57. The order dated 31.7.2019 passed in W.P.(C)
No.462 of 2019 reads thus:
"Heard Ms. N. Jyotsana Devi, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. Juno Rehman, learned counsel enters
appearance on behalf of private respondent
Nos.3 to 7 and prays for 3 (three) weeks'
time to file counter affidavit.
Prayer is allowed.
Mr.B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the Manipur
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 36
University/respondent No.1 & 2, prays for
liberty to review the impugned order dated
24.5.2019.
Prayer is allowed.
List the matter on 05.09.2019.
Furnish a copy of this order to the learned
counsel for both the parties."
58. When the review of the order dated 24.5.2019 is
pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.7.2019, it cannot be
contended that the respondent University has arbitrarily issued
the impugned order dated 8.8.2019. Since the terms and
conditions appended to the advertisement dated 22.10.2014
stipulate (a) to increase/decrease the number of vacancies on its
own discretion; (b) to frame a panel for filing up future vacancies
arising during tenability of panel which shall be normally
operative for one year; and (c) not to fill up any of the advertised
positions, it cannot be contended that there is legality in issuing
the impugned order dated 8.8.2019. It is to be noted that
Ordinance 4.1 under Statute 25(1) and (2) of the Manipur
University Act, 2005 also gives power to the University to
increase/decrease the number of posts at the time of selection
and make appointments accordingly.
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 37
59. The impugned order dated 8.8.2019 reads thus:
"No.MU/6/14/2012/Admn.I: In continuation
of the Office Order No.531 dated
8.08.2019, the services in respect of (1)
Soram Jibonkumar Singh and 92) K.
Nando Singh as Section Officer of the
University appointed vide the order dated
3.06.2019 issued by the Registrar, Manipur
University subsequent to the result
declaration order dated 24.05.2019 is
hereby revived.
Further, the order dated 22-06-2019 by
which the order dated 24-05-2019 was kept
in abeyance is hereby revoked and the
above two incumbents are to resume their
duties in their respective posts, subject to
the final outcome of the pending writ
petitions.
This is issued with the approval of the
authority."
60. Since the order dated 8.8.2019 has been passed
based on the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated
31.7.2019 and the said order dated 31.7.2019 has not challenged
by the affected parties allowing to attain finality, it cannot be said
that the order dated 8.8.2019 has been passed without authority.
In fact, the filing of W.A.No.15 of 2019 has been purposefully
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 38
omitting to be stated in his writ petitions by the petitioner Kh.
Sunilkeshor. Moreover, he has not filed any clarification petition
before the learned Single Judge as prayed for by him. On the
other hand, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court dated
31.7.2019, the respondent University passed the order dated
8.8.2019.
61. The petitioners, namely Kh. Sunilkeshor and
Kamkhenthang having participated in the interview and after
realizing that they were not succeed in the interview, they cannot
turn around and contend that the process of interview was unfair.
62. It is settled law that if a candidate takes a chance
and appears in the interview, then only because the result of the
interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and
subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or
the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
63. As stated supra, since the University authority had
issued the order dated 8.8.2019 thereby reviving the order dated
24.5.2019 as this Court granted permission for reviewing the said
order, this Court cannot find fault in issuing the order dated
8.8.2019. The way in which and the circumstances, the order
dated 8.8.2019 came to be issued is not arbitrary and only after
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
P a g e | 39
taking in to account all relatable facts, the order dated 8.8.2019
was passed. There is no valid ground to interfere with the said
order. There is also no specific instances regarding involvement
of corruption in this case. While that being the finding of this
Court, the order dated 8.8.2019 is sustained.
64. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petitions
being W.P.(C) Nos.462, 683 and 759 of 2019 fail and the same
are dismissed. The interim orders granted in the writ petitions
stands vacated. The respondent University is directed to proceed
further in accordance with law. Consequently, MC (WP) No.239
of 2019 is closed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No.462 of 2019, WP(C) No. 683 of 2019, WP(C) No.759 of 2019 and
MC(WP(C)) No. 239 of 2019 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 462 of 2019.
