Manipur High Court
Shri Mutum Shyamkesho Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 27 January, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2023.01.27 16:09:50 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021
Shri Mutum Shyamkesho Singh, aged about 64 years
S/o Mutum Yaima Singh, a resident of Kwakeithel
Akham Leikai P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001.
---Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by
Commissioner/Secretary, Hr. and Tech.
Education, Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat
Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. District Imphal
West, Manimpur-795001.
2. Manipur Technical University, represented by its
Registrar, Government of Manipur, Polytechnic
Campus, Takyelpat, P).O. P.S. Lamphel, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
3. Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram, Vice-Chancellor,
Technical Manipur Technical University,
Government of Manipur, Polytechnic Campus,
Takyelpat, P).O. P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal
West, Manipur-795004.
---Respondents
WP(C) No. 791 of 2021
Dr. Khaidem Joychandra Singh, aged about 65
years, S/O Kh. Chingthoi Singh, resident of Thongju
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |2
Part - II, P.O. Canchipur P.S. Singjamei, District
Imphal East, Manipur-795008.
...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 of Manipur, Polytechnic
Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
.... Respondents.
WP(C) No. 825 of 2021
Dr. Ningthoujam Ram Singh, aged about 69 years,
S/O (Late) Ningthoujam Babu Singh, resident of
Chinga Makha, Liwa Road, P.O. Canchipur, P.S.
Singjamei, 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.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |3
2. Manipur Technical University, represented by its
Registrar, Government of Manipur, Polytechnic
Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
3. Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram, Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
Technical University, Government of Manipur,
Polytechnic Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
.... Respondents.
WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Dr. Khaidem Joychandra Singh, aged about 65
years, S/O Kh. Chingthoi Singh, resident of Thongju
Part - II, P.O. Canchipur P.S. Singjamei, District
Imphal East, Manipur-795008.
...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 of Manipur, Polytechnic
Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
3. Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram, Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
Technical University, Government of Manipur,
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |4
Polytechnic Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
.... Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Adv. in
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021;
Mr. BP Sahu, Sr. Adv. in
WP(C) No. 791 of 2021,
WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 &
WP(C) No. 825 of 2021;
For the Respondents :: Mr. Y. Ashang, GA
Mr. T. Momo, Advocate
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 22.12.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 27.01.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P.(C) No.805 and 807 of 2021 have been filed
by the petitioners Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh and Mutum
Shaymkesho Singh to quash the order dated 8.11.2021 issued
by the Chancellor, Manipur Technical University along with the
entire recruitment process initiated for appointment to the post
of Vice-Chancellor and to direct the respondents to initiate fresh
recruitment process by issuing re-advertisement for filling up
the said post as per the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |5
and/or its statutes etc. and the UGC norms and to complete the
same as per law.
2. W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh for issuance of writ of
quo-warranto to declare the appointment of the third respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur
Technical University and his continuance in the said post.
3. W.P.(C) No.791 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioner to quash the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and/or
the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to the said
advertisement and to direct the respondents to re-advertise the
post of Vice-Chancellor as per the Manipur Technical University
Act, 2016 and/or its statutes etc. and UGC norms.
4. Since the challenge made in these writ petitions is
one and the same, all the writ petitions were heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
BRIEF FACTS:
W.P.(C) No.791 of 2021:
5. The petitioner is a retired teacher/academician
and former Head of Department in the Manipur College, Imphal
having more than 10 years of experience in academic
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |6
administration organization. The petitioner came across an
advertisement dated 12.8.2021 issued by the Registrar,
Manipur Technical University inviting applications for the post of
Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. However, in
the advertisement, an additional eligibility criteria, namely,
experience in technical education and/or academic
administration organization has been added against the
prescribed criteria as indicated in the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The aforesaid act of the official respondents, clearly shows that
the same has been done to favour and appoint some blue-eyed
persons so as to exclude the other eligible candidates. Such
an action of the official respondents is in gross violation of law.
Hence, the writ petition.
6. Resisting the writ petition, second respondent
Manipur Technical University filed affidavit-in-opposition stating
that for better administration and for bringing qualitative
improvement in the overall functioning of the newly established
Technical University, "experience in technical education and/or
academic administration organization" was inserted in the
advertisement after the approval accorded by the Hon'ble
Governor of Manipur. It is stated that in the appointment of
Vice-Chancellor of Technical Universities across the country,
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |7
experience in technical education etc. has been specified apart
from other qualifications contained in the UGC Regulations,
2018 at the time of notification. Therefore, the said added
additional criteria is not illegal or unlawful and also is not in
violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
W.P.No.805 of 2021:
7. The petitioner is a Professor/Academician and
former Head of Department Life Science in the Manipur
University. The Registrar, Manipur Technical University, invited
applications for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor
specifying the eligibility criteria. The petitioner applied for the
said post and was called for interview vide letter dated
21.10.2021 and he was requested to appear before the
Selection Committee along with original copies of academic and
other related documents and the interview was accordingly held
as per schedule. Thereafter, the Chancellor, Manipur Technical
University issued an order dated 8.11.2021 appointing the
private respondent No.3 to the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
Technical University, though he is not at all qualified/eligible for
appointment to the said post. According to the petitioner, the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |8
private respondent is only a Selection Grade Lecturer which is
equivalent to the post of Associate Professor in Government
Polytechnic, Takyelpat and at present, he is working as Deputy
Director, Technical Education, Government of Manipur.
Challenging the order of appointment dated 8.11.2021, the writ
petition has been filed.
8. Resisting the writ petition, the first respondent
State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that for better
administration and also for bringing qualitative improvement, an
additional criterion was inserted in the advertisement calling for
applications for filling up the post of Vice-Chancellor. It is
stated that for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
Technical Education, a Selection Committee under Section
14(1) of Manipur Technical University Act was constituted on
18.10.2021 and the Selection Committee has recommended
the private respondent No.3 as he possesses all the required
eligibility criteria and has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor by
the Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. The second respondent Manipur Technical
University filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Selection
Committee consisting of (i) State Government nominee and
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |9
Chairman; (ii) Nominee of the Chancellor; (iii) Nominee of the
Board of Manipur Technical University; and, (iv) Nominee of the
UGC having found the respondent No.3 eligible for the post of
Vice-Chancellor had called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and
after interviewing the short-listed candidates and after due
consideration of the suitability, the Selection Committee had
made its recommendation for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor, Manipur Technical University. Thereafter, the third
respondent was appointed by the Chancellor on 8.11.2021 and
he had joined the office of the Vice-Chancellor on 10.11.2021.
It is stated that the third respondent fulfilled all the eligibility
criteria set out in Regulation 7.3 and also he possess all the
required eligibility criteria and has been appointed as Vice-
Chancellor. Therefore, there is no infirmity in appointing the
third respondent as Vice-Chancellor. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
10. The third respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor as per the
advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and he had submitted his
application on 9.9.2021. Thereafter, Selection Committee
having found the respondent No.3 eligible for the post of Vice-
Chancellor had called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and he
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 10
appeared for the interview along with the other short-listed
candidates. The Selection Committee after interviewing the
short-listed candidates and after due consideration of the
suitability of the candidate had made its recommendation for
appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and, thereafter, he
was appointed as Vice-Chancellor on 8.11.2021. Since the
third respondent fulfilled the eligibility criteria set out in the UGC
Regulations, the official respondents have selected and
appointed the third respondent to the post of Vice-Chancellor of
Manipur Technical University. That apart, the third respondent
possesses all the required eligibility criteria as mentioned in the
second limb of Regulation 7.3(i), i.e., ten years of experience in
a reputed research and/or academic administrative
organization with proof of having demonstrated academic
leadership. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of W.P.No.805 of
2021.
11. The fourth respondent UGC filed affidavit-in-
opposition stating that it is for the
institution/organization/employer to prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference and it
is for the employer/institution/organization who is best suited to
decide the requirements of a candidate according to the needs
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 11
of the employer and the nature of work to be employed thereon
subject to the fulfillment of other criteria as per the rules and
regulations of the UGC or which do not go in conflict with such
rules and regulations of the UGC. It is stated that as per
Regulation 7.3, the Vice-Chancellor is to be selected by a
Search-cum-Selection Committee. The members of the
Search-cum-Selection Committee as per UGC guidelines is an
expert body, wherein a nominee of the UGC was also included,
after considering all the issues like qualifications, experience
etc. and has recommended the name of the respondent No.3
who claims to be eligible for appointment as Vice-Chancellor as
per the experience of 10 years working in the Department of
Technical Education, Manipur since 2011 and also on the
ground that the Department of Technical Education is an
academic administrative organization. As such the collective
wisdom of the Selection-cum-Search Committee could not be
questioned in any manner as it is the prerogative of the
Committee based on the collective judgment after examining
the candidates educational background and performance in the
interview and also without any deviation from the UGC
regulations prevailing at the relevant point of time. Since the
petitioner subjected himself to the selection process without
actually challenging the stipulations made in the advertisement
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 12
dated 12.8.2021 and appeared before the interview committee
without any demur, cannot question the selection process.
Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
W.P.No.807 of 2021:
12. The petitioner is a retired Associate
Professor/Academician and former Head of Department in the
Manipur College having more than 10 years of experience in
academic administration organization. It is stated that he came
to know the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 issued by the
Registrar of Manipur Technical University thereby inviting
applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Since in the said
advertisement an additional eligibility criteria has been added
against the prescribed criteria and being aggrieved by the said
advertisement, he has filed W.P.No.791 of 2021 before this
Court with a prayer to quash the advertisement dated 12.8.2021
and the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to the said
advertisement. During the pendency of the said writ petition,
the Chancellor of Manipur Technical University issued an order
dated 8.11.2021 thereby appointing private respondent No.3 to
the post of Vice-Chancellor inspite of the fact that he is not at
all eligible/qualified for appointment to the said post, as he is
only a Lecturer (Selection Grade), which is equivalent to an
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 13
Associate Professor in Government Polytechnic. Hence, the
writ petition.
13. Resisting the writ petition, the second respondent
Manipur Technical University filed affidavit-in-opposition stating
that for better administration and also for bringing qualitative
improvement, the additional criteria was inserted in the
advertisement calling for applications for filling up the post of
Vice-Chancellor. It is stated that for appointment of Vice-
Chancellor, Manipur Technical Education, a Selection
Committee under Section 14(1) of Manipur Technical University
Act was constituted on 18.10.2021 and the Selection
Committee has recommended the private respondent No.3, as
he possesses all the required eligibility criteria and has been
appointed as Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University.
14. It is stated that the Selection Committee consist of
(i) State Government nominee and Chairman; (ii) Nominee of
the Chancellor; (iii) Nominee of the Board of Manipur Technical
University and (iv) Nominee of the UGC having found the
respondent No.3 eligible for the post of Vice-Chancellor had
called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and after interviewing the
short-listed candidates and after due consideration of the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 14
suitability of the candidates to Manipur Technical University's
requirement had made its recommendation for appointment to
the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University.
Thereafter, the third respondent was appointed by the
Chancellor on 8.11.2021 and he had joined the office of the
Vice-Chancellor on 10.11.2021. It is stated that the third
respondent fulfilled all the eligibility criteria set out in Regulation
7.3 and also he possesses all the required eligibility criteria and
has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
15. The third respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present
writ petition, as he had not applied for the post of Vice-
Chancellor as per the advertisement. Therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable. It is stated that pursuant to the
advertisement dated 12.8.2021, the third respondent applied on
9.9.2021 for the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical
University. Thereafter, the Selection Committee having found
the respondent No.3 eligible for the post of Vice-Chancellor had
called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and he appeared for the
interview along with the other short-listed candidates. The
Selection Committee after interviewing and finding suitability
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 15
made its recommendation for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor and, thereafter, he was appointed as Vice-
Chancellor on 8.11.2021. Since the third respondent fulfils the
eligibility criteria set out in the UGC Regulations, the official
respondents have selected and appointed the third respondent
to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University.
That apart, the third respondent possesses all the required
eligibility criteria as mentioned in the second limb of Regulation
7.3(i). i.e. ten years of experience in a reputed research and/or
academic administrative organization with proof of having
demonstrated academic leadership. Thus, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the writ petition.
W.P.No.825 of 2021:
16. The petitioner is a retired Professor and Head of
Department, Acting Dean of the College of Agriculture, Central
Agricultural University and a bare perusal of the advertisement
dated 12.8.2021, it is seen that the eligibility criteria prescribed
in the advertisement is "as prescribed under Section 7.3 of the
UGC Regulation dated 18.7.2018 on minimum qualification for
appointment of teacher and other Academic Staffs in
Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of
standards in Higher Education, 2018 is provided. Apart from
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 16
the aforesaid UGC eligibility criteria, an additional requirement
has also been added in the advertisement as "experience in
technical education and/or academic administration
organization" so as to appoint a person of their choice by
misinterpreting the eligibility criteria which has been done in this
case.
17. According to the petitioner, as per Regulation 7.3
of the UGC Regulations, the eligibility criteria for appointment to
the post of Vice-Chancellor has been provided and the
advertisement itself indicates about the requirement of the UGC
regulation and it has been stated that the person having 10
years of experience as Professor in a University or ten years of
experience in reputed research and/or academic administration
organization is qualified for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor in any Universities. Such inclusion of technical
qualification clearly shows the mala fide intention of the
respondent authorities to pick up and give appointment only to
a person having experience of technical education, thereby
narrowing the area for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor in Manipur Technical University which has
happened in the instant case whereby an ineligible person
namely respondent No.3 has been appointed as Vice-
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 17
Chancellor vide order dated 8.11.2021, which is in gross
violation of the eligibility criteria provided in the UGC
Regulations and the Manipur Technical University Act. Thus,
the third respondent has usurped the said post of Vice-
Chancellor. The third respondent who has been appointed as
Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is not at all
qualified/eligible as per the advertisement itself and therefore,
the same is in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and, as
such, his appointment is liable to be set aside.
18. Further case of the petitioner is that as per the list
of AICTE approved Institutes in Engineering and Technology
(Diploma) for the academic year 2021-2022, the name of the
Polytechnic in which the third respondent was working is given
and his name is found place in the list of faculty of Government
Polytechnic in the capacity as Lecturer. The notification of the
AICTE dated 1.3.2019 stipulates the designation in respect
Diploma Level Institute/Polytechnic is only three which are
Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal. There is no post
of Professor in the Diploma level. As per the relevant
notification, the experience at degree level and diploma level
are to be considered to be equivalent provided scale of pay etc.
are same for the post.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 18
19. According to the petitioners, the experience of the
third respondent cannot be equated with that of degree which is
apparent from the pay matrix given in the notification and there
is huge difference of pay scale between diploma and degree.
The Government Polytechnic is below the grade of even a
College and even a College does not have a post of Professor
and the third respondent is a Selection Grade Lecturer which is
equivalent to Associate Professor and as per the UGC
regulations, the person appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should
be a distinguished academician with minimum of 10 years of
experience as Professor in a University or 10 years of
experience in a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organization with proof of having demonstration
academic leadership. Since the act of the respondent
authorities in appointing the third respondent to the post of Vice-
Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is in violation of the
UGC guidelines and the third respondent cannot hold the post
of Vice-Chancellor in the larger public interest, the writ petition
has been filed for issuance of writ of quo-warranto.
20. The second respondent Manipur Technical
University filed affidavit-in-opposition, inter lia, stating that a writ
of quo-warranto does not lie against the appointment of the third
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 19
respondent, as he has been appointed by following all statutory
provisions including Regulation 7.3.(i) of the UGC Regulations
dated 18.7.2018 for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, in
the absence of violation of any statutory rules in the
appointment of the third respondent, the writ petition is not
maintainable. The third respondent is very much qualified to
hold the post as per the UGC Regulations, 2018.
21. It is stated that the petitioner has misconstrued the
meaning of academic administrative organization in the
advertisement and the said interpretation is false. The
Department of Technical Education, Manipur is an organization
which has overall control of all the institutes imparting technical
education in the State. The Department is involved in the
Planning and Implementation of Expansion and Development
of all the technical, pharmaceutical and management institutes
and any other work of the Government relating to technical
education as may be assigned from time to time. Therefore, it
is an academic administrative organization and the respondent
No.3 has worked in different positions in the Department of
Technical Education since 2011. Therefore, the respondent
No.3 possesses the required eligibility criteria as mentioned in
the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and thus, the third
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 20
respondent has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University.
22. It is stated that the third respondent was selected
by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per Regulation
7.3 after he was found suitable for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
Therefore, the duly constituted Committee being an expert
body, the opinion of the expert body would normally be
accepted by the Court and the Court would not substitute its
view in this regard. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
ARGUMENTS:
23. Assailing the impugned advertisement dated
12.8.2021 and the appointment order dated 8.11.2021, Mr. BP
Sahu, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
Nos.791 and 807 of 2021 submitted that without authority of law
in the impugned advertisement, an additional qualification -
"Experience in Technical and/or Academic Administration
Organisation" - was inserted, which is nowhere found neither in
the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, nor in the UGC
Regulations which is binding as per Section 9 of the Manipur
University Act. He would submit that the said qualification was
inserted after more than 4 months after the appointment of the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 21
Vice-Chancellor, who was appointed on 8.11.2021 and the
decision to insert the said qualification was taken on 17.3.2022.
24. The learned senior counsel further submitted that
the Board of Governors was presided by the Vice-Chancellor
himself whose appointment was under challenge, hence, the
advertisement and all the consequential proceedings initiated
pursuant to the impugned advertisement, including the
appointment of the respondent Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as
Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University is liable to be
quashed.
25. The learned senior counsel then submitted that
the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official respondents would
reveal that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents
was illegal, as the Selection Committee was constituted in gross
violation of the provisions of the Manipur Technical University
Act, 2016. Furthermore, as per Section 14 of the Act, the
Chairman of the Selection Committee is to be appointed by the
Chancellor from amongst the members. However, in the instant
case, the Chairman was appointed by the Government along
with the formation of the Committee, as indicated in the
Resolution. Thus, highlighting the above grounds, the learned
senior counsel prays for setting aside the impugned
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 22
advertisement and also the order of appointment issued in
favour of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram thereby
appointing him as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical
University.
26. Challenging the impugned order of appointment
dated 8.11.2021, Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel
for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.805 and 825 of 2021
submitted that the Registrar of Manipur Technical University,
Imphal, issued an advertisement calling upon applications for
the post of Vice-Chancellor by prescribing eligibility criteria and,
apart from the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, an
additional requirement is added to the effect that "Experience in
Technical Education and/or Academic Administration
Organisation", which according to the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of law. In fact,
Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018
provides eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor.
27. The learned senior counsel further submitted that
Regulation 7.3 clearly provides that person having 10 years of
experience in reputed research and/or academic administration
organisation is qualified for appointment to the post of Vice-
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 23
Chancellor in any Universities. However, as per the impugned
advertisement, the candidates need to possess "Experience in
Technical Education", which has been made more specific in
the advertisement.
28. The learned senior counsel next submitted that
though the petitioner Mutum Shyamkesho Singh applied for the
said post and was called upon to appear before the Selection
Committee along with the original copies of academic and other
related documents, he was not selected. According to the
learned senior counsel, the said petitioner is not only eligible as
per the UGC Regulations, but also he is highly qualified person.
29. The learned senior counsel urged that though the
advertisement prescribes an additional eligibility criteria, the
third respondent who was appointed as Vice-Chancellor is not
at all qualified/eligible as per the advertisement and his
selection/appointment is in violation of the UGC Regulations
and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned senior
counsel added that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram
was found not eligible even for appointment to the post of
Principal of his own Institution. Therefore, the act of the official
respondents in appointing the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram is illegal and arbitrary to the extent that they have
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 24
deprived the petitioner and other similar incumbents, who are
otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor
of Manipur Technical University.
30. Adding further, the learned senior counsel
submitted that as per the list of AICTE approved Institutes in
Engineering and Technology (Diploma), Government of
Manipur for the academic year 2021-2022, the name of
Polytechnic, in which the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram
worked, was noted and his name was also found in the list of
faculty of Government Polytechnic in which he joined as
Lecturer on 18.1.1991. As per Section 9 of the Manipur
Technical University Act, 2016, the University shall strictly
adhere to the rules and regulations, norms and standards,
procedures and guidelines, which are binding to the University.
As per the notification of AICTE dated 1.3.2019, the designation
in respect of Diploma Level Institute/Polytechnic is only
Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal and that there is no
post of Professor in the Diploma Level. Therefore, the
experience of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram cannot
be equated with that of the Degree which is apparent from the
pay matrix given in the notification in respect of Diploma as well
as Degree.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 25
31. The learned senior counsel argued that the
Government Polytechnic is below the grade of even a College
and even a College does not have the post of Professor. The
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is a Selection Grade
Lecturer, which is equivalent to Associate Professor and he was
working as Deputy Director, Technical Education, Government
of Manipur. According to the learned senior counsel, as per the
UGC guidelines, the person appointed as Vice-Chancellor
should be a distinguished academician with a minimum of 10
years of experience as Professor in a University or 10 years of
experience in a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated
academic leadership. Since the Polytechnic is an Institute for
teaching only Diploma courses and of any Degree level, it is not
an academic administrative organisation.
32. The learned senior counsel then contended that
the petitioner Dr.Ninghoujam Ram Singh, who is a retired
Professor and Head of Department and served over 19 years
has every right to challenge the validity of the appointment of
the private respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to a public
office, as the law is well settled that writ of quo-warranto can be
filed by any citizens when the fundamental or other legal right
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 26
of such person has been infringed and in the larger interest of
the general public. The petitioner Dr.Ninghoujam Ram Singh
has filed the writ petition to save the image of the Manipur
Technical University and in the interest of students. If the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is allowed to continue as
Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University, the people will
certainly lose their faith and confidence in the democratic
system of this nation where the official respondents failed to
exercise their administrative power in a fair and transparent
manner and, hence, the appointment of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is required to be declared as illegal
and unconstitutional.
33. Per contra, Mr. T. Momo Singh, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Manipur Technical
University has raised a preliminary objection as to the
maintainability of the writ petitions and submitted that the
petitioner Khaidem Joychandra Singh has not applied for the
post of Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, he has no locus to file
the writ petition. As far as the petitioner Mutum Shyamkesho
Singh is concerned, his writ petition is not maintainable, as he
had applied and participated in the selection process for the
post of Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, he cannot turn around and
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 27
challenge the additional criteria prescribed in the advertisement
dated 12.8.2021 and also the selection process and the
appointment order.
34. As far as W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 is concerned,
the learned counsel for the respondent Manipur Technical
University submitted that the said writ petition is also not
maintainable, as the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh has
not approached this Court with bona fide and in public interest.
In fact, the said writ petition was filed to over-come the plea of
non-maintainability of the other three writ petitions. He would
submit that the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as the
petitioner is busybody having absolute no public interest except
for personal gain or private profit either for himself or as a proxy
of others for extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity.
35. As far as challenge to the impugned
advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and the impugned order of
appointment dated 8.11.2021 is concerned, the learned counsel
for the respondent Manipur Technical University submitted that
the essential eligibility criteria has been stipulated in Regulation
7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and, therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned advertisement. In fact, the said
additional criteria is not illegal for the following reasons:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 28
(a) The UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribes
the minimum essential qualifications for
the post of Vice-Chancellor and there is no
bar in prescribing an additional desirable
qualifications.
(b) It is the Institution/Organisation/Employer
which may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any
grant of preference and it is for the
Institution/Organisation/Employer who is
best suited to decide the requirements that
a candidate must possess according to
the needs of the employer and the nature
of work.
(c) The petitioner Mutum Shyamkesho Singh,
who applied and appeared for interview is
a Professor of Botany (Life Sciences) and
the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
Technical University is not limited to
person with only technical background.
36. The learned counsel further submitted that the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram possesses (i) Bachelor of
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 29
Civil Engineering, (ii) Master of Civil Engineering and (iii) Ph.D.
- Traditional Housing and Architecture of Manipur. Further, he
submitted that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram fulfilled
the eligibility criteria set out in the second limb of Regulation
7.3(i) of UGC Regulations, 2018 i.e. 10 years of experience in
a reputed research and/or academic administrative
organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic
leadership, as he has worked in different positions in the
Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur
since 2011.
37. Coming to the constitution of the Selection
Committee which has been questioned by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent
Manipur Technical University submitted that the Selection
Committee for appointment in the Manipur Technical University
consists of one member, who was a nominee of the UGC
amongst the Chairman and other members. The Selection
Committee under Section 14(1) of the Manipur Technical
University Act, 2016 was constituted on 18.10.2021 by the
Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of
Manipur, for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor and the
Selection Committee consists of the following authorities (i)
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 30
State Government nominee and Chairman; (ii) nominee of the
Chancellor; (iii) nominee of the Board of Manipur Technical
University and (iv) nominee of the UGC.
38. Arguing so, the learned counsel urged that the
duly constituted Selection Committee being an expert body, the
opinion of an expert body would normally be accepted by the
Court and that the Court would normally not substitute its view
in this regard. It is also the submission of the learned counsel
that the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University
is not a promotional post for Professor of University. Thus, a
prayer has been made to dismiss all the writ petitions.
39. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram questioned the maintainability of the
writ petitions and contended that the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.805 of 2021 appeared before the Interview Board without
any protest and also without challenging the legality of the
advertisement dated 12.8.2021.Only when he was not selected
for the post of Vice-Chancellor, he has filed the writ petition
raising so many grounds for challenging the appointment of the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to the post of Vice-
Chancellor. Such an action of the petitioner is barred by the
principles of estoppel. Since the petitioner Mutum Shaymkesho
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 31
Singh participated in the recruitment process without any
protest and since the result is not found favourable to him, he
cannot turn around and challenge the impugned recruitment
process.
40. The learned senior counsel further submitted that
the petitioner Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh [W.P.(C) No.807
of 2021] does not have locus standi to challenge the
appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram, as he
is not a candidate for the impugned recruitment.
41. The argument of the learned counsel for the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is that W.P.(C) No.825 of
2021 is also not maintainable, as the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam
Ram Singh has not approached this Court with bona fide and in
clear public interest. In fact, he has filed the said writ petition
as proxy of petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.805 and 807 of 2021.
After knowing fully well that the said two writ petitions are not
maintainable, W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 came to be filed by the
petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh by impersonating as a
public spirited holy man. He is a proxy petitioner of the above
writ petition and is an imposter. Hence, W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021
is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 32
42. Qua merits of the matter, the learned senior
counsel submitted that the Registrar of Manipur Technical
University issued an advertisement dated 12.8.2021 inviting
applications for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor from
the intending candidates who have fulfilled the eligibility criteria
prescribed under Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations dated
18.7.2018 on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers
and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other
measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education
Regulations, 2018. Since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram possessed the minimum qualification, he applied for
the post of Vice-Chancellor and had also appeared before the
Selection Board as one of the eligible candidates. Based on his
performance, he was selected and appointed as Vice-
Chancellor on 8.11.2021 and since then he has been
discharging his duties as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur
Technical University.
43. The learned counsel added that after his
deputation as Deputy Director in the Department of Technical
Education, Government of Manipur in year 2011, the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has participated in
various administrative programmes with achievements and he
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 33
has enough academic experience and exposures at the
National and International level. He has also have a lot of
contribution to various research projects and won awards. That
apart, he possessed the minimum requisite qualification for
appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, there
is no illegality in the appointment of respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur Technical
University. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of
all the writ petitions.
44. This Court also heard the submission of Mr. Kh.
Samarjit, the learned Deputy Additional Solicitor General of
India appearing for the respondent UGC, who submitted that as
far as the additional criteria prescribed in the impugned
advertisement is concerned, it is for the Institution/
Organisation/Employer to prescribe the additional or desirable
qualifications, including any grant of preference and also it is for
the Institution/Organisation/Employer to decide the
requirements of a candidate according to the needs of the
employer and the nature of work to be employed thereon.
45. The learned Deputy Additional Solicitor General
further submitted that the members of Search-cum-Selection
Committee after considering the qualification and experience
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 34
etc. has recommended the name of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram for appointment as Vice-Chancellor
on the ground that he has got experience of 10 years in the
Department of Technical Education since 2011 and also the
Department of Technical Education is an academic
administrative organisation. As such, the collective wisdom of
the Selection Committee could not be questioned in any manner
as it is the prerogative of the Selection Committee based on the
collective decision after examining the candidates' educational
background and performance in the interview and also without
any deviation from the UGC Regulations prevailing at the
relevant point of time. Therefore, the petitioners have no right
to question the advertisement as well as the appointment of the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the
Manipur Technical University.
46. This Court considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
DISCUSSION:
MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITIONS:
47. Before adverting to the merits of the challenge
made to the impugned advertisement and the impugned
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 35
appointment order thereby appointing the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur
Technical University, let us first consider the maintainability
issue raised by the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram and
also the respondent Manipur Technical University.
48. According to the learned counsel for the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram, the petitioner
Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh had not applied for the post and,
therefore, he has no locus to question the appointment of the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram. In support of his
submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srinivasa
Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage
Board Employees' Association and others, (2006) 11 SCC
731, wherein, in paragraph (78), Hon'ble the Apex Court held
as under:
"78. The High Court, in the instant case, was
not exercising certiorari jurisdiction. Certiorari
jurisdiction can be exercised only at the
instance of a person who is qualified to the
post and who is a candidate for the post. This
Court in Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar,
(1973) 1 SCC 485 held that the appointment
cannot be challenged by one who himself is
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 36
not qualified to be appointed. In KumariChitra
Ghosh v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228 a
Constitution Bench of this Court held as under:
(SCC p. 234, para 12)
'12. The other question which was
canvassed before the High Court and
which has been pressed before us
relates to the merits of the
nominations made to the reserved
seats. It seems to us that the
appellants do not have any right to
challenge the nominations made by
the Central Government. They do not
compete for the reserved seats and
have no locus standi in the matter of
nomination to such seats. The
assumption that if nominations to
reserved seats are not in accordance
with the rules all such seats as have
not been properly filled up would be
thrown open to the general pool is
wholly unfounded.'"
49. The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram also
questioned the maintainability of W.P.(C) No.805 of 2021 by
contending that the petitioner Mutum Shaymkesho Singh has
failed to disclose true facts qua the filing of the Review Petition
No.23 of 2016 after the dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.56 of
2016 and the Division Bench of this Court allowed the Review
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 37
Petition on 3.3.2017. Moreover, he appeared before the
Interview Board without any protest and also without
challenging the legality of the advertisement. To fortify his
submission, the learned senior counsel placed reliance upon
the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of K.D.Sharma v.
Steel Authority of India Limited and another, (2008) 12 SCC
481 and Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Bihar and
others, (2017) 4 SCC 357.
50. In K.D.Sharma, supra, the Apex Court held as
under:
"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary,
equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs
mentioned therein are issued for doing
substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost
necessity that the petitioner approaching the
writ court must come with clean hands, put
forward all the facts before the court without
concealing or suppressing anything and seek
an appropriate relief. If there is no candid
disclosure of relevant and material facts or the
petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his
petition may be dismissed at the threshold
without considering the merits of the claim."
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 38
51. In Ashok Kumar, supra, the Apex Court held as
under:
"13. The law on the subject has been
crystallised in several decisions of this Court.
In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala
Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, this Court laid
down the principle that when a candidate
appears at an examination without objection
and is subsequently found to be not
successful, a challenge to the process is
precluded. The question of entertaining a
petition challenging an examination would not
arise where a candidate has appeared and
participated. He or she cannot subsequently
turn around and contend that the process was
unfair or that there was a lacuna therein,
merely because the result is not palatable. In
Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8
SCC 100, this Court held that: (SCC p. 107,
para 18)
"18. It is also well settled that those
candidates who had taken part in the
selection process knowing fully well
the procedure laid down therein were
not entitled to question the same.
(See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil,
(1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 39
Mishra v. M.P. Public Service
Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724.)"
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan
Jyoti Borooah, (2009) 3 SCC 227 wherein it
was held to be well settled that the candidates
who have taken part in a selection process
knowing fully well the procedure laid down
therein are not entitled to question it upon
being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar,
(2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was
reiterated in the following observations: (SCC
p. 584, para 16)
"16. We also agree with the High
Court, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321
that after having taken part in the
process of selection knowing fully
well that more than 19% marks have
been earmarked for viva voce test,
the petitioner is not entitled to
challenge the criteria or process of
selection. Surely, if the petitioner's
name had appeared in the merit list,
he would not have even dreamed of
challenging the selection. The
petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India only after he
found that his name does not figure
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 40
in the merit list prepared by the
Commission. This conduct of the
petitioner clearly disentitles him from
questioning the selection and the
High Court did not commit any error
by refusing to entertain the writ
petition. Reference in this connection
may be made to the judgments in
Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3
SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State
of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522,
Dhananjay Malik v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171,
Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of
Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227and K.A.
Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5
SCC 515."
52. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of B.Srinivasa Reddy, supra, the learned
counsel questioned the maintainability of W.P.(C) No.825 of
2021 by contending that the said writ petition is also not
maintainable, as the petitioner Dr.Ningtjoujam Ram Singh has
not approached this Court bona fide and in clear public interest
and in fact he is proxy petitioner.
53. In reply, Mr. BP Sahu, the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 submitted that the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 41
petitioner could not apply due to the illegal insertion of additional
qualification that was imposed in the advertisement, though he
is otherwise very much eligible. It is also the submission of the
learned senior counsel that the petitioner has every right for
challenging the validity of the appointment of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to a public office, as the law is well
settled that writ petition can be filed by any citizen if any
fundamental or other legal right of such person has been
infringed. Similarly, the submission of the other petitioners is
that their writ petitions are also maintainable as their legal right
has been infringed.
54. The petitioners in these writ petitions have
challenged the impugned advertisement, selection and
appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as
Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University and one of the
writ petitions is for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto.
55. Since the petitioners have narrated in detail in their
writ petitions qua the cause for filing the writ petitions and also
taking into consideration the given facts and circumstances of
the case put forth by the parties, this Court is satisfied with the
cause for filing all the writ petitions. Merely because the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.805 of 2021 has participated in the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 42
selection process and the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.807 and
825 of 2021 did not apply, the same cannot be a ground to hold
that the writ petitions are not maintainable.
56. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that the
law is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of
course. While exercising the extraordinary power a Writ Court
would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who
invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the petitioner makes a
false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to
mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that
ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the
case.
57. It is also settled that a party who invokes the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is supposed to be truthful, frank and
open. He must disclose all the material facts without any
reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed
to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes
to disclose and to suppress or not to disclose other facts. The
very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and
complete facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted,
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 43
the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become
impossible.
58. Nothing has been produced by the official
respondents and the private respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram to establish that the petitioners have approached this
Court with unclean hands and have also suppressed the
material facts. The non-mentioning of the review application
arising out of the order passed in Writ Appeal No.56 of 2016
cannot be a ground to dismiss the writ petition, as material facts
have been suppressed. Taking into consideration the cause
stated and also explained by the petitioners in their writ
petitions, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions filed by
the petitioners are very well maintainable.
CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT
DATED 12.8.2021:
59. Coming to the challenge made to the impugned
advertisement dated 12.8.2021, it is the say of the petitioner
Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh (W.P.No.791 of 2021) that the
impugned advertisement was issued by adding the additional
requirement as "Experience in Technical Education and/or
Academic Administration Organization". According to the
petitioner, the said additional requirement has been added in
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 44
the impugned advertisement to appoint a person of their choice
by misinterpreting the eligibility criteria.
60. For proper appreciation, the impugned
advertisement is quoted hereunder:
"No.15/I/20`6-MTU: Applications in
prescribed format are invited for the Post of
Vice-Chancellor in Manipur Technical
University from intending candidates having
"Experience in Technical Education
and/or Academic Administration
Organization"
2. Eligibility Criteria:
As prescribed under section 7.3. of the UGC
Regulation dated 18th July 2018 on minimum
qualifications for appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staffs in Universities
and Colleges and measures for the
maintenance of standards in Higher
Education, 2018.
3. Age and Tenure of office:
As prescribed under section 14(2) of the
Manipur Technical University Act, 2016
which is reproduced as under
"The term of the office of the Vice-
Chancellor shall be 5 (five) years from the
date on which he enters upon his office or
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 45
until he attains the age of 70 (seventy)
years, whichever is earlier."
4. The Advertisement, format of application,
salary, service conditions and other details
are available on the University website.
5. Pay and Allowances will be determined by
the Department of Higher and Technical
Education, Government of Manipur as per
existing FD(PIC) Norms.
6. The application in the prescribed format
should reach in the office of the undersigned
on or before 4.30 PM of 12th September
2021.
REGISTRAR
MANIPUR TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC CAMPUS
IMPHAL:795004
7. Application for the Post of Vice-Chancellor,
Manipur Technical University should be
clearly super-scribed on the sealed
envelope. This office shall not be
responsible for any postal delay."
61. As could be seen from the pleadings, on
18.7.2018, the UGC issued Regulations on minimum
qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic
staff in the Universities and Colleges and measures for the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 46
maintenance of standards in High Education, 2018. Regulation
1 (3) provides:
"3. If any University contravenes the
provisions of these Regulations, the
Commission after taking into consideration
the cause, if any, shown by the University for
such failure or contravention, may withhold
from the University, the grants proposed to
be made out of the Fund of the Commission."
62. Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated
18.7.2018 speaks about the eligibility criteria for appointment to
the post of Vice-Chancellor. The said Regulation also provides
that person having 10 years of experience as Professor in a
University or ten years of experience in reputed research and/or
academic administration organization is qualified for
appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in any Universities.
63. For proper appreciation, Regulation 7.3 is
extracted hereunder:
"7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR:
i. A person possessing the highest level of
competence, integrity, morals and
institutional commitment is to be
appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The
person to be appointed as a Vice-
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 47
Chancellor should be a distinguished
academician, with a minimum of ten
years' of experience as Professor in a
University or ten years' of experience in
a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organisation with proof of
having demonstrated academic
leadership.
ii. The selection for the post of Vice-
Chancellor should be through proper
identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons
by a Search-cum-Selection Committee,
though a public notification or nomination
or a talent search process or a
combination thereof. The members of
such Search-cum-Selection Committee
shall be persons of eminence in the
sphere of higher education and shall not
be connected in any manner with the
University concerned or its colleges.
While preparing the panel, the Search-
cum-Selection Committee shall give
proper weightage to the academic
excellence, exposure to the higher
education system in the country and
abroad, and adequate experience in
academic and administrative
governance, to be given in writing along
with the panel to be submitted to the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 48
Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the
Search-cum-Selection Committee shall
be nominated by the Chairman,
University Grants Commission, for
selection of Vice Chancellors of State,
Private and Deemed to be Universities.
iii. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the
Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of
names recommended by the Search-
cum-Selection Committee.
iv. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor
shall form part of the service period of the
incumbent making him/her eligible for all
service related benefits."
64. Thus, as per Regulation 7.3, person having 10
years of experience as Professor in a University or 10 years of
experience in reputed Research and/or Academic
Administration Organisation is qualified for appointment to the
post of Vice-Chancellor in any Universities. However, in the
impugned advertisement, it has been stated that candidates
need to possess "Experience in Technical Education, which has
been made specific in terms of Manipur Technical University".
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 49
65. At this juncture, the learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India appearing for the respondent University Grant
Commission submitted that for better administration and for
bringing qualitative improvement in the overall functioning of the
newly established Technical University, clause - Experience in
Technical Education and/or Academic Administration
Organisation - was inserted in the impugned advertisement
after obtaining approval from the Hon'ble Governor of Manipur.
The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further submitted
that in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors of Technical
Universities across the country, experience of technical
education etc. is also specified apart from other qualifications
contained in the UGC Regulations, 2018.
66. It is also the submission of the learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India that it is for the
institution/organisation/employer to prescribe additional
qualifications, including any grant of preference, and also it is
for the institutions to decide the requirements of a candidate
according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work
to be employed thereon, subject to fulfilment of other criteria as
per the existing rules and regulations of the UGC or which do
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 50
not go in conflict with such rules and regulations of the UGC. In
support, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India placed
reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its
Secretary v. Sandeep ShriramWarade and others, (2019) 6
SCC 362, wherein, it has been held as under:
"9. The essential qualifications for
appointment to a post are for the employer
to decide. The employer may prescribed
additional or desirable qualifications,
including any grant of preference. It is the
employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements a candidate must possess
according to the needs of the employer and
the nature of work. The court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less
can it delve into the issue with regard to
desirable qualifications being on a par with
the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-
writing of the advertisement. Questions of
equivalence will also fall outside the domain
of judicial review. If the language of the
advertisement and the rules are clear, the
court cannot sit in judgment over the same.
If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement
or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter
has to go back to the appointing authority
after appropriate orders, to proceed in
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 51
accordance with law. In no case can the
court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the
chair of the appointing authority to decide
what is best for the employer and interpret
the conditions of the advertisement contrary
to the plain language of the same."
67. By placing reliance upon the very same decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Shriram Warade,
supra, the learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram submitted that the employer has every right to
prescribe additional and desirable qualification, including any
grant of preference, for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor and no one, including the petitioners, have any right
to question the same.
68. It is true that the institution/organisation/employer
is the best authority to decide the requirements of a candidate
according to the needs of the institution/organisation/employer
and the nature of work for which a person is required to be
employed. However, the prescription of additional criteria
and/or desirable qualifications should not be in violation of the
UGC Regulations. In the case on hand, it is apparent that the
additional criteria made in the impugned advertisement is not in
accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 which were
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 52
prevalent at the relevant point of time and also not in
accordance with the Manipur Technical University Act, which is
in vogue and binding at the relevant point of time.
69. The appointment of Vice-Chancellor is governed
by Section 14 of the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 and
Section 14(1) would be relevant and the same is quoted
hereunder:
"14(1) The vice-Chancellor shall be a
whole-time paid officer of the University and
shall be appointed by the Chancellor in
consultation with the State Government
upon recommendation of a Selection
Committee consisting of -
(a) One person nominated by the
Board not connected with the
University or any College thereof;
(b) One person nominated by the
Chairman, University Grants
Commission;
(c) One person nominated by the
Chancellor
(d) One person nominated by the State
Government;
and the Chancellor shall appoint one of
these persons to be the Chairman of the
Committee:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 53
Provided that the first Vice-Chancellor, who
shall hold office for a term of three years,
shall be appointed by the State
Government.
Provided further that till the appointment of
the first Vice-Chancellor, the administrative
Secretary in-charge of the Department of
Higher and Technical Education,
Government of Manipur shall be the ex-
officio Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur
Technical University."
70. Neither the Manipur Technical University Act nor
the UGC Regulations specify the condition that the Vice-
Chancellor should have experience in technical education
and/or academic administration organisation. As per Section
2(xxiii) of the Manipur Technical University Act, technical
education means programmes of education, research and
training in Engineering, Technology, Architecture,
Management, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Computer
Applications and Applied Arts and Crafts and such other
programmes as the AICTE may by notification in the Official
Gazette declare. Section 2(xxiv) of the Manipur Technical
University Act provides that technical institutions means
institutions conducting programmes in the field of technical
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 54
education. Thus, it is clear that technical education means
programmes but not any official work of the Department of
Technical Education, Government of Manipur. Therefore, as
rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners,
there is conflict between the impugned advertisement and the
Manipur Technical University Act or UGC Regulations since, in
the impugned advertisement, an additional criterion has been
inserted without any authority of law.
71. At this juncture, it is to be highlighted that the law
is well settled that the Court has to be satisfied about (a) the
credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or
nature of information given by him and (c) the information being
not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity
and seriousness involved. Further, the Court has to strike a
balance between two conflicting interest: (i) nobody should be
allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching
the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and
to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique
motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however,
the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely
careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 55
the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The Court
has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and
busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as
public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of
justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono public,
though they have no interest of the public or even of their own
to protect.
72. As held supra, in the instant case, there is clear
conflict between the impugned advertisement and the Manipur
Technical University Act or UGC Regulations. When there is a
conflict between the executive order/advertisement and
statutory rules and regulations, the statutory rules and
regulations shall prevail above all.
73. As stated supra, the eligibility criteria for the post
of Vice Chancellor has been specifically stated in Regulation
7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018. More particularly,
three options are provided in Regulation 7.3. dated 18.7.2018 -
(i) Sense of equivalent status as that of a Professor in a
University whose Grade Pay is Rs.10,000 as per the 6th Pay
Commission; (ii) The first Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur
Technical University was Prof.Dr.Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh,
retired Professor (Economics) and Dean (School of Social
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 56
Science), Manipur University who was appointed to that
position by an order passed by the Commissioner (Higher and
Technical Education), Government of Manipur during October,
2017 and, (iii) The appointment of Dr.L.Tombi Singh as 1st Vice-
Chancellor of Manipur Technical University was made in
compliance with the provisions contained in Regulation 7.3 of
the UGC Regulations dated 30.6.2010 on minimum
qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic
Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the
maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010, which
was in force at that relevant point of time. On a perusal of the
pleadings, the first Vice-Chancellor was selected and appointed
only as per the stipulations made in Regulation 7.3 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and as per the Manipur Technical University
Act. Therefore, the selection of Vice-Chancellor of the
Technical University should be as per the Regulations of the
UGC existed and as per the provisions of the Manipur University
Act. In the instant case, it is apparent that the additional criteria
made in the impugned advertisement, more particularly,
"experience in technical education" is contrary to the UGC
Regulations, 2018 in vogue at the relevant point of time.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 57
74. Qua the argument of the learned counsel for the
respondent Manipur Technical University that the insertion of
additional criteria in the impugned advertisement is only after
the approval of the Governor of Manipur, the law is well settled
that nobody can act beyond the provisions of the Manipur
Technical University Act. As rightly argued by learned senior
counsel for the petitioners, the Chancellor also cannot act
beyond the law. Therefore, the approval, if any, accorded by
the Governor of Manipur, for insertion of additional criteria in the
impugned advertisement cannot be appreciated, as the same is
not in accordance with the UGC Regulations.
75. Thus, as rightly argued by learned senior counsel
for the petitioners, particularly, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.791 of 2021, the materials
produced by the parties prima facie establish that the official
respondents have added the additional criteria only with an
alternate motive to narrow down the area of eligible candidates
with an intention to give benefit to a particular individual having
experience in technical education thereby excluding the other
eligible candidates. The said act of the official respondents is
highly arbitrary in nature to the extent that they have deprived
not only the petitioners but also the other similarly situated
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 58
incumbents, who are otherwise eligible for appointment to the
post of Vice-Chancellor thereby violating the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India. As stated supra,
inserting an additional eligibility criteria which is found neither in
the Manipur Technical University Act nor Statutes nor
Ordinances nor in the UGC Regulations, 2018 is unlawful. More
particularly, the said additional criteria inserted in the impugned
advertisement dated 12.8.2021 is in violation of the Regulation
7.3, supra.
76. Further, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
collectively argued that since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram has experience in technical education, such an
addition in the advertisement has been made. To controvert the
said submission, the official respondents have failed to produce
any material.
77. It is well settled that when once the eligibility
criteria fixed by the UGC under its Regulations would, to the
mind of this Court, apply to all the Universities which are aided
and guided by the UGC, even in the absence of the same being
incorporated under the respective Universities Act of the
respective States, all the Universities are bound to adhere to
the same.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 59
78. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
view that the insertion of additional criteria - Experience in
Technical Education and/or Academic Administration
Organisation - in the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021
is clearly in violation of the Manipur Technical University Act and
also UGC Regulations. Therefore, the impugned advertisement
dated 12.8.2021 is liable to be set aside.
CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
08.11.2021:
79. As far as the challenge made to the selection and
appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram vide
order dated 8.11.2021 impugned in W.P.(C) Nos.805 and 807
of 2021 is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners contended that the selection of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is vitiated on the ground of ineligibility
and also violation of the procedure adopted by the official
respondents in selecting the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram.
80. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent Manipur Technical University, inter alia, submitted
that respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram possess (i) Bachelor
of Civil Engineering; (ii) Master of Civil Engineering and (iii) P.D.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 60
"Traditional Housing & Architecture of Manipur". He has also
fulfilled the eligibility criteria set out in the second limb of
Regulation 7.3(i) i.e. 10 years of experience in a reputed
research and/or academic administrative organisation with
proof of having demonstrated academic leadership, as he
worked in different positions in the Department of Technical
Education, Government of Manipur since 2011.
81. The learned counsel for the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram also argued that the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram applied for the post of Vice-
Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University under the option
- "academic administrative organisation with proof of having
demonstrated academic leadership" and that after his
deputation as Deputy Director in the Department of Technical
Education, Government of Manipur in the year 2011, he has
participated in various administrative programs with
achievements. In fact, he has enough academic experience
and exposures at the National and International level and he
also have a lot of contribution to various research projects and
won awards.
82. The learned counsel urged that even if a person is
not a Professor of the University but if he possessed the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 61
criteria/option i.e. 10 years of experience in a reputed research
and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of
having demonstration academic leadership mentioned in
Regulation 7.3, he/she can be appointed to the post of Vice-
Chancellor. Thus, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram
fulfilled the criteria and he is eligible for the post of Vice-
Chancellor.
83. In the earlier paragraph, this Court held that the
insertion of additional criteria - experience in technical
education and/or academic administration organisation - in the
impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 for appointment to
the post of Vice-Chancellor is in violation of the Manipur
Technical University Act and also UGC Regulations, 2018.
The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram himself admitted that
he had applied for the aforesaid post under the option
"academic administrative organisation". Once the impugned
advertisement dated 12.8.2021 is set aside by this Court on the
ground that the additional criteria inserted in the advertisement
is not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the
Manipur Technical University Act, automatically the selection
and appointment pursuant to the said advertisement will non-
est in the eye of law. However, for proper adjudication of the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 62
matter, this Court is inclined to further elaborate upon this issue
qua the selection and appointment of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice Chancellor of the Manipur
Technical University.
84. As could be seen from the records, the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was a Lecturer of Government
Polytechnic, Takyelpat, who was on deputation/utilization to the
Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur.
He was appointed as Lecturer of the Government Polytechnic
on 18.1.1991 and Government Polytechnic, Tayelpat is a
Diploma Institute recognized by AICTE and affiliated to Manipur
University.
85. There is no dispute that the eligibility criteria for the
post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University has
been as per the prescription in Section 7.3 of the UGC
Regulations dated 18.7.2018 on minimum qualifications for
appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in
Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of
standards in Higher Education, 2018. At the cost of repetition,
Regulation 7.3(i) is reproduced hereunder:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 63
i. A person possession the highest level of
competence, integrity, morals and
institutional commitment is to be
appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The
person to be appointed as a Vice-
Chancellor should be a distinguished
academician, with a minimum of ten
years' of experience as Professor in a
University or ten years' of experience in
a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organisation with proof of
having demonstrated academic
leadership.
86. Regulation 7.3(i) clearly worded that the person
having 10 years of experience as Professor in a University or
10 years of experience in reputed research and/or academic
administrative organisation is qualified for appointment to the
post of Vice-Chancellor in any Universities.
87. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
respondent Manipur Technical University as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram submitted
that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has got
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 64
administrative experience of 10 years in a reputed research
and/or academic administrative organisation in Government
Organisation/Autonomous Body such as Directorate of
Technical Education, All India council of Technical Education,
University Grant Commission, Ministry of Education,
Department of Science and Technology etc. They urged that
the word "or" is used to segregate the two options of
qualifications as the Vice-Chancellor of University. Therefore,
Section 7.3 of the Regulation clearly gives two options which
operates independently. The arguments aforesaid cannot be
countenanced, in view of the findings arrived at by this Court
that the additional criteria inserted in the advertisement dated
12.8.2021 is in violation of the Manipur Technical University Act
and the UGC Regulations. Moreover, it is the admitted case of
the respondents that the petitioners have also got academic
administrative organisation.
88. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor
of the Technical University should be a distinguished
academician, with a minimum of 10 years of experience as
Professor in a University.
89. The learned counsel for the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram contended that the petitioner is
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 65
deliberately misinterpreting the phrase "ten years of experience
as Professor" in Regulation 7.3(i) of UGC Regulations, 2018 for
the post of Vice-Chancellor to be an essential criteria for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical
University to favour his contentions that only Professor with ten
years of experience is qualified to be a Vice-Chancellor of a
University. Further, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram
worked in different positions in the Department of Technical
Education since 2011 and the said Department comes under
the ambit of academic administrative organisation. Therefore,
the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram possesses all the
required eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement
dated 12.8.2021.
90. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioners pleaded the ineligibility of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram in the following lines:
(a) The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram is not a distinguished
academician which is evident from the
fact that he has not produced proofs for
publication of research paper/book
published, production of Ph.D
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 66
produced, presentation of research
papers in seminars/conferences etc.
(b) The substantive post that the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram
holds in the parent organisation i.e. in
the Government Polytechnic is
Lecturer (Selection Grade). Moreover,
the Government Polytechnic is a
Diploma Institute whose status is lower
than a degree Engineering College.
This post of Lecturer (Selection Grade)
is far inferior to the grade of Professor
or its equivalent as required under
Regulation 7.3 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 dated 18.7.2018.
91. On a reading of the pleadings of the parties, the
Ph.D degree the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram holds is
in the subject of History on the topic "Traditional Housing &
Architecture of Manipur" from the Department of History,
Manipur University and it is not an Engineering subject.
Whatever the job assignments that the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram got on deputation/utilisation in the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 67
Department of Education can never be treated as being
equivalent to the status of Professor of University on the ground
that his regular position is Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the
Government Polytechnic, Takyelpat, which is even inferior to an
Assistant Professor of a degree Engineering College. Further,
whatever experiences that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram attained by working at different positions in the
Department of Technical Education are not at the level of
Professor, rather they are merely at the level of Lecturer
(Selection Grade) and, such experiences of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram cannot be taken into consideration for
the post of Vice-Chancellor, contrary to the stipulations made in
Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
92. That apart, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram does not possess qualifications as required under
AICTE Regulations, 2019 for direct recruitment either as
Professor or as Principal of an Engineering College on the
grounds that (i) He has not obtained Ph.D degree in
Engineering subject; (ii) He has not guided any Ph.D under his
supervision; (iii) He has not met minimum 8 research publication
in SCI journals/UGC/AICTE approved list of journal; (iv) He has
not fulfilled the minimum 15 years of experience in
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 68
teaching/research/industry, out of which at least 3 shall be at
the post equivalent to that of Professor. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has
not possessed the required qualification for selection of the post
of Vice-Chancellor at the relevant point of time.
93. Coming to the constitution of Search-cum-
Selection Committee, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submitted that while making selection and
appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram, the
UGC Regulations have not been followed strictly. Moreover,
Shri M.Harekrishna Singh was one of the members of the
Search-cum-Selection Committee Member, as the said Shri
M.Harekrishna Singh being the Chairman of the Committee
cannot be included as Chairman as per Section 14 of the
Manipur Technical University Act and also Regulation 7.3 for
appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram. As
such, the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram is liable to be quashed.
94. On the other hand, it is the say of the respondent
Manipur Technical University that the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was selected by the duly constituted
Search-cum-Selection Committee and in the present case, the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 69
Selection Committee for the appointment in the Manipur
Technical University consists of one member, who was the
nominee of the UGC amongst the Chairman and other
members. The Selection Committee under Section 14(1) of the
Manipur Technical University Act was constituted on
18.10.2021 by the Department of Higher & Technical
Education, Government of Manipur for the appointment of Vice-
Chancellor.
95. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for
the respondent UGC submitted that according to Regulation 7.3
of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Vice-Chancellor is to be
selected by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, according to
the composition and the procedure of the said Committee set
out therein.
96. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
further submitted that the nominee of the UGC is also to be a
part of the Selection Committee as contemplated by Section
14(1) of the Act and, as such, on both counts UGC remains only
a part of either of the Search-cum-Selection Committee under
Regulation 7.3 or under Section 14(1) of the Manipur Technical
University Act. As such, it should not painted as somebody who
solely decides upon everything and that the collective wisdom
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 70
of the Search-cum-Selection Committee could not be
questioned in any manner as it is the prerogative of the
Selection Committee to decide as to the eligibility criteria of
various candidatures of the post to be filled up.
97. Regulation 7.3(ii) provides as under:
"The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor
should be through proper identification by a
Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-
Selection Committee, though a public
notification or nomination or a talent search
process or a combination thereof. The
members of such Search-cum-Selection
Committee shall be persons of eminence in
the sphere of higher education and shall not
be connected in any manner with the
University concerned or its colleges. While
preparing the panel, the Search-cum-
Selection Committee shall give proper
weightage to the academic excellence,
exposure to the higher education system in
the country and abroad, and adequate
experience in academic and administrative
governance, to be given in writing along with
the panel to be submitted to the
Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the
Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be
nominated by the Chairman, University
Grants Commission, for selection of Vice
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 71
Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to
be Universities."
98. It is pertinent to note that any Committee is to be
appointed/formed as per Section 26(h) of the Manipur Technical
University Act. Section 26(h), provides:
"(h) to appoint such committees, either
standing or temporary, as it deems
necessary for its proper functioning"
99. As per Section 14(1) of the Act, the Selection
Committee must consist of the following members:
(e) One person nominated by the
Board not connected with the
University or any College thereof;
(f) One person nominated by the
Chairman, University Grants
Commission;
(g) One person nominated by the
Chancellor
(h) One person nominated by the State
Government
and the Chancellor shall appoint one of these persons to be the
Chairman of the Selection Committee.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 72
100. On a further perusal of the proceedings of the 14th
Board of Management Meeting of Manipur Technical University
held on 17.3.2022, the State Government constituted the
Selection Committee comprising the following members:
Sl. Name & Designation Position in the
No. Committee
1. Shri M.Harekhrishna State Government
Commissioner (Higher nominee and
& Technical Edn.) Chairman
Government of
Manipur
2. Shri Bobby Waikhom Nominee of the
Secretary to Governor Chancellor of
of Manipur Manipur Technical
University
3. Shri Dr.S.Venugopal Nominee of the
Director, National Board of Manipur
Institute of Technical
Technology, University
Chumukedima,
Dimapur
4. Shri Dinesh Kumar Nominee of the
Vice-Chancellor, JC University
Bose University of Se Grant Commission
& Tech, YMCA, (UGC)
Faridabad
101. The Selection Committee has been constituted to
recommend the candidates for appointment of a Vice-
Chancellor was confirmed by the 14th Board of Management on
17.03.2022, whereas the appointment was made on 8.11.2021,
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 73
which is after four months. A perusal of Resolution No.6 of the
13th Board of Management, it is seen that it only made a
proposal to the State Government to nominate its members so
as to constitute the Selection Committee for the appointment of
Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, the question of approval of any
Selection Committee by the 14th Board of Management does
not even arise, as something which was not in existence cannot
be approved. Thus, it is clear that the Selection Committee is
in contravention/violation of norms/guidelines for the reasons
that the Chairman is to be appointed by the Chancellor,
whereas in the instant case the Chairman has already been
appointed by the Board of Management. From the above, it is
clear that without the recommendation of the any valid Selection
Committee, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has been
appointed. Furthermore, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram himself was the Chairman of the 14th Board of
Management whereas the Chairman of the 13th Board of
Management was one of the members of the 14th Board of
Management.
102. It is also seen that the Selection Committee was
constituted in gross violation of the provisions of the Manipur
Technical University Act. Furthermore, as per Section 14 of the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 74
Act, the Chairman of the Committee is to be appointed by the
Chancellor from amongst the members. However, in the
present case, the Chairman was appointed by the Government
along with the formation of the Committee. That apart, the
Selection Committee members one and two are not proper
persons and they are not educationists and are IAS officers.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that violating the statutory
guidelines and the prescription prescribed in the UGC
Regulations, with a mala fide intention, the Selection Committee
found the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram eligible for
appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and called him for
interview, though he is not qualified and eligible for appointment
to the post of Vice-Chancellor in question.
103. Qua the role of the Selection Committee in the
selection of Vice-Chancellor of the University, time and again,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Search-cum-Selection
Committee plays a vital and significant role in the selection of
the Vice-Chancellor; yet the Vice-Chancellor's performance in
the Universities vary from University to University. Therefore,
the members of the Search Committee, who are given the
privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting names for the
appointment of Vice-Chancellor are directly or indirectly
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 75
responsible for the achievement of the University. Commitment
to the quality and the objectives of the Universities in particular
and higher education system in general are of course the
deciding factors in selecting the right person.
104. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is a Selection Grade
Lecturer at Government Polytechnic, Imphal West (Diploma
Level), which is equivalent to Associate Professor and at the
time of selection, he was working as Deputy Director, Technical
Education, Government of Manipur. The respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram claimed that he has fulfilled the
eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 7.3 - 10 years of
experience in a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated
academic leadership. But the fact remains that at the time of
his selection and appointment as Vice-Chancellor, the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram did not fulfil the eligibility
criteria required as per the UGC guidelines as well as even the
eligibility criteria fixed by the Selection Committee. That apart,
at the time of selection and appointment, the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was not having 10 years of
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 76
experience as Professor or even its equivalent which was the
mandatory requirement as per the UGC guidelines.
105. It is to be noted that UGC Regulations, 2010 has
been superseded by UGC Regulations, 2018. However, there
is no dispute that the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-
Chancellor and the constitution of the Selection Committee for
appointment of a Vice-Chancellor remains almost the same. On
a reading of Section 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, it
emerges that "a person possessing the highest level of
competency, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to
be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed
as Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician,
minimum of ten years' of experience as Professor in a
University system or ten years' experience in an equivalent
position a reputed research and/or Academic Administrative
Organisation. As stated supra, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram has not obtained Ph.D degree in Engineering
subject; not guided any Ph.D under his supervision; not met
minimum 8 research publication in SCI Journals/UGC/AICTE
approved list of journal; and (iv) not fulfilled the minimum 15
years of experience in teaching/research/industry, out of which
at least 3 shall be at the post equivalent to that of Professor.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 77
106. It is also clear from the pay scale of the candidate,
who claims to be eligible as per the second limb of Regulation
7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 will have to be equivalent to
that of a Professor in a University. However, in the instant case,
the pay scale of respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as
Deputy Director in the Technical Education under the
Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of
Manipur is stated to be Rs.9300-34800 plus GP 4400, which is
much lower than that of a Professor of a University i.e.
Rs.37400-67000 plus AGP Rs.10000. This Court is of the view
that since the UGC has prescribed certain qualifications for the
appointment for the post of Vice-Chancellor, such an
appointment must be in accordance with the provisions laid
down in the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Manipur Technical
University Act.
107. The argument of learned counsel for the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram that the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.805 of 2021 is estopped from challenging the
appointment order as he had participated in the selection
process is concerned, the law in this connection is settled that
where glaring irregularities are committed in the procedure, the
principle of estoppel or acquiescence has no application.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 78
108. The eligibility criteria and selection process when
once fixed by UGC under its Regulations at the relevant point
of time would apply to all the Universities, including the Manipur
Technical University, which are aided by the UGC. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered view that the act of the official
respondents in selecting and appointing the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to the post of Vice-Chancellor of
Manipur Technical University in violation of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 is not only illegal, but also arbitrary, mala fide
and capricious to the extent that the official respondents have
deprived the petitioners and other similarly situated incumbents,
who are otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor, thereby violating the fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioners have made
out a case for quashing of the impugned appointment order
dated 8.11.2021 issued in favour of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram. Accordingly, the impugned
appointment order dated 8.11.2021 along with the entire
recruitment process in regard to the selection of Vice-
Chancellor, Manipur Technical University, is liable to be
quashed.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 79
109. W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh, who is a retired
Professor and Head of Department and acting Dean of the
College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University having
served as Professor for over 19 years, alleging that the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has been appointed as
Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is not at all
qualified/eligible as per the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 itself
and the same is also in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
110. In support of the prayer, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 submitted
that as per the list of AICTE approved Institutes in Engineering
and Technology (Diploma) for the State of Manipur for the
academic year 2021-2022, the name of Polytechnic in which the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram worked has been
mentioned, wherefrom it is seen that the name of the
respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbram was shown in the list of
faculty of Government Polytechnic in which he joined as
Lecturer on 18.1.1991. He would submit that as per Section 9
of the Manipur Technical University Act, the University shall
strictly adhere to the rules and regulation, norms and standards,
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 80
procedures and guidelines etc. of the AICTE as well as the UGC
which are binding on the University.
111. The learned senior counsel further submitted that
as per the notification dated 1.3.2019 of the AICTE, the
designation in respect of Diploma Level Institute/Polytechnic is
only three which are Lecturer, Head of Department and
Principal. Hence, there is no post of Professor in the Diploma
Level. The experience at Degree Level and Diploma Level are
to be considered to be equivalent provided the scale of pay, etc.
are the same for the post. In the instant case, the experience
of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram cannot be equated
with that of Degree which is apparent from the pay matrix given
in respect of Diploma as well as Degree. In fact, there is huge
difference of pay scale between the two. He added that as per
Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2019, the pay scale of
Deputy Director, Technical Education is equal to that of
Foreman of Government Polytechnic.
112. Going ahead one step further, the learned senior
counsel submitted that the Government Polytechnic is below
the grade of even a College. The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram is a Selection Grade Lecturer, which is equivalent to
Associate Professor. Since the Polytechnic is an Institute for
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 81
teaching only Diploma courses and of any Degree Level, it is
not an academic administrative organisation. Academic
administrative means even if a person work in any other
establishment, that establishment must be predominated by
academic activities. Therefore, the Department of Technical
Education, Government of Manipur is not an academic
administrative organisation. Since the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is holding the public office, the
petitioner has every right to challenge the validity of his
appointment by filing a Writ of Quo-Warranto in the larger public
interest.
113. On the other hand, it is the plea of the respondent
Manipur Technical University that the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam
Ram Singh has not approached this Court with bona fide and
in public interest and it was filed only to over-come the plea of
non-maintainability of the other three writ petitions, namely
W.P.(C) Nos.791, 805 and 807 of 2021 and that the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was selected and appointed as per
the UGC Regulations, 2018 and as per the Manipur Technical
University Act after he was found suitable for the post of Vice-
Chancellor Therefore, there is no flaw in holding the office of
the Vice-Chancellor by Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 82
114. The learned counsel for the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram submitted that the petitioner
Dr.Ningtjoujam Ram Singh is proxy of the petitioners in W.P.(C)
Nos.791, 805 and 807 of 2021. The learned counsel further
submitted that there is no violation of statutory provision and
therefore, Writ of Quo-Warranto does not lie and on the other
hand, since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has been
selected and appointed after following the procedures laid down
for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, his appointment has to be
upheld.
115. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for
the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram that since the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was sent on deputation
as Deputy Director in the Department of Technical Education,
he has been discharging his duty in various Sectors and he has
already have 10 years of experience in the academic
administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated
academic leadership. Besides this, he has also achieved
various academic experience and the exposures at the National
and International Level, including research projects. Therefore,
there is no question of non-fulfilment of the eligibility
criteria/minimum qualification by the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 83
Tongbram. Indeed, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram
has possessed requisite qualification for appointment to the
post of Vice-Chancellor and as per the provisions of law then
existed, he was selected and appointed and now holding the
public office. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ
petition.
116. It is trite law that the power to issue quo-warranto
is to be exercised in cases where it is established that the
person whose appointment is under challenge does not
possess the requisite qualification. Writ of quo-warranto can be
issued when a person whose appointment is under challenge
does not fulfil the essential qualification and when due process
has not been followed even if such a petition is filed by a
stranger.
117. A writ of quo-warranto is a writ which lies against
the person, who according to the relator is not entitled to hold
an office of public nature and is only a usurper of the office. It is
the person, against whom the writ of quo-warranto is directed,
who is required to show, by what authority that person is entitled
to hold the office. The challenge can be made on various
grounds, including on the grounds that the possessor of the
office does not fulfil the required qualifications or suffers from
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 84
any disqualification, which debars the person to hold such
office.
118. In the preceding paragraphs, this Court held that
the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is not a qualified and
eligible person for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor of
Manipur Technical University. In such view of the matter, as
observed by the Apex Court in number of decisions, the
respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbram is debarred from holding
the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University.
119. A Writ of quo-warranto is not the same as a Writ of
Certiorari, or Prohibition or Mandamus and in a such a
proceeding for quo-warranto, it is not necessary for the
applicant to establish that he has been prejudicially affected by
any wrongful act of public nature or that his fundamental right is
infringed or that he is denied any legal right or that any legal
duty is owed to him. The scope of a proceeding for quo-
warranto is very limited and it is only for the determination,
whether the appointment of the respondent is by a proper
authority and in accordance with law, if there is some express
statutory provision.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 85
120. The High Court's power of interference in a
proceeding for quo- warranto is also limited and it cannot act as
an appellate authority. Quo-warranto is a remedy given in law
at the discretion of the Court and is not a proceeding or a writ
of course. The High Court can in a proceeding for quo-warranto,
issue an order not only prohibiting an officer from acting in an
office to which he is not entitled, but can also declare the Office
to be vacant.
121. It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus
standi are relaxed to an extent in a quo-warranto proceedings.
Nonetheless an imposter coming before the Court invoking
public law remedy at the hands of a Constitutional Court
supressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly.
122. In the case on hand, admittedly, no suppression of
material facts. The alleged suppression pleaded by the
respondents, particularly the third respondent Dr.Bhaneswar
Tongbram, is about the failure on the part of the petitioners in
disclosing the revision petition filed against the judgment
passed in W.A.No.56 of 2019 and orders passed thereon,
thereby setting aside the judgment passed in the writ appeal.
The said non-disclosure of the filing of the review petition and
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 86
its disposal does not have any adverse impact on the instant
case.
123. The petitioners have challenged the selection and
appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbra as Vice-
Chancellor of Manipur Technical University by stating as under:
(i) He does not possess/demonstrated
academic leadership as he was neither
Head of Department, nor held any
administrative post in any academic
administrative organisation.
(ii) His scale of pay is much lower than
that of a Professor which is mandatory
and should be equivalent to that of a
Professor as per law.
(iii) The Ph.D obtained by the respondent
Dr.BhabeswarTongbra is in History
which is not equivalent to Ph.D in
Engineering and Technology as per
the report of Equivalent Committee of
the Manipur University dated
16.6.2017.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 87
124. Therefore, the contention of the respondent
Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbram that the petitioner in W.P.No.825 of
2021 has not stated specifically which provision of Regulation
7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 has been violated while
appointing the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbra to the post
of Vice-Chancellor is incorrect. Further, all information has
been narrated in the pleadings by the petitioner and the same
is not vague and indefinite. That apart, the petitioner has
established the provision of law which attracts the appointment
of the respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbra as illegal.
125. Since the selection and appointment of the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is questioned and it has
been proved by the petitioners that the selection and
appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is not
as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, this Court is of the view that
there is substance in the argument raised by the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021.
126. The Apex Court, in a recent decision in the case of
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and others,
(2022) 5 SCC 179, held that "in case of any conflict between
State legislation and Central legislation, Central legislation shall
prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 88
enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject
"education" is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution". In the said decision, the Apex
Court further observed that "any appointment as a Vice
Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations
can be said to be I violation of the statutory provisions,
warranting a writ of quo warranto".
127. In the case on hand, as discussed and for the
reasons stated supra, the appointment of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur
Technical University is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018
and also the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016.
128. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards
New Educational Management by Professor A.Gnanam (also
called as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990) accentuated
the role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating that the Vice-Chancellor
should be a person with vision and qualities of academic
leadership and with a flair for administration because what the
Universities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair and bold
administrator. The Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished
educationist from the higher education system having highest
level of competence, integrity, morals and self-respect [Vide -
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 89
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and others, (2022) 5
SCC 179]
129. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has not fulfilled the
qualification, experience as stipulated by the UGC Regulations
for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and also to hold
the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University.
Further, nothing has been produced either by the respondent
Manipur Technical University or the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram to show that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram is having the highest level of competence, as the role
of Vice-Chancellor of Indian Universities has a paramount
importance in the recent times.
130. As held by the Apex Court in number of cases that
as Chief Executives and Academic Heads of Universities, the
Vice Chancellors are expected to be efficient and effective in
terms of:
a. Implementation of National Higher
Education Policy and programmes.
b. Institutional change in tune with the
national reforms package.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 90
c. Quality and innovation enhancement and
their sustainability.
d. Productive engagement with
'communities of scholars' from within their
Universities and from national and
international domains.
e. Nurturing of 'Research and Innovation
Ecosystem' and translation of deliverables
to society and economy.
f. Adoption of international best practices of
'Good Governance.
131. Further, the Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as
leader of a symphony of orchestra with the attributes of:
a. Developing teams and teamwork, building
partnerships and collaborations delicately
interwoven by collegiality, friendship and
intellectual engagement;
b. Devising a strategy and action plan with
defined milestones and deliverables;
c. Ensuring primary accountabilities of self
and the abovementioned University
governing bodies; and
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 91
d. Steering an institutional monitoring and
evaluation mechanism on University
performance built on principles of
transparency.
132. Thus, it is clear that holding the public office,
namely Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University by the
respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is not in the larger interest
of public, as he is not a qualified and suitable person for holding
such post. That apart, Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of
University's system and a keeper of the University's
conscience. It is repeated that his selection and appointment
to the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is
in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Manipur
Technical University Act. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021
succeeds.
133. For all the reasons stated above, this Court is of
the view that the petitioners have established their case for
interference in the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021,
selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar
Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University
vide order dated 8.11.2021.
RESULT:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 92
134. In fine,
(i) W.P.(C) Nos.791, 805, 807 and 825 of 2021
are allowed.
(ii) The impugned advertisement dated
12.8.2021 and the recruitment
process initiated pursuant to the
said advertisement are set aside.
(iii) The impugned order of appointment
issued in favour of the respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram dated
8.11.2021 is also set aside.
(iv) The respondents 1 and 2 are
directed to initiate fresh recruitment
process after issuing a fresh
advertisement for filling up the post
of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur
Technical University as per the
Manipur Technical University Act
and/or its statutes etc. and as per
the UGC Regulations and its norms.
(v) The said exercise is directed to be
completed within a period of three
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
P a g e | 93
months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
(vi) The official respondents are
directed to strictly comply fresh
process within the time limit as fixed
by this Court and report this Court
on 28.04.2023.
(vii) Till such fresh appointment, the
official respondents are directed to
make a stop-gap arrangement in
accordance with law.
(viii) There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
