Manipur High Court
Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 30 November, 2023
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023
Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh, aged about 71 years, S/O (L) Laiphrakpam
Sura Singh, resident of Kha-Naorem Leikai, P.O. Canchipur, P.S.
Singjamei and District Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the
Commissioner/Secretary, Hr. and Tech. Education,
Government of Maniur, old Secretariat Building, Babupara, P.O
& P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-79501.
2. The Chancellor, Manipur Technical University, Governor's
Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
3. Manipur Technical University, represented by its Registrar,
Government Polytechnic Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
4. Shri H. Gyan Prakash, IAS, Commissioner, Higher & Technical
Education, Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat building,
Imphal, Manipur-795001.
........Respondent/s
With
MC(WP(C) No. 58 of 2023
The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/Secretary,
Hr. & Tech. Education, Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat Building,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.
......Applicant
-Vs-
1. Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh, aged about 71 years, S/O (L)
Laiphrakpam Sura Singh, resident of Kha-Naorem Leikai, P.O.
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 1
Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei and District Imphal West, Manipur-
795003.
.....Respondent
2. The Chancellor, Manipur Technical University, Governor's
Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
3. Manipur Technical University, represented by its Registrar,
Government Polytechnic Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
4. Shri H. Gyan Prakash, IAS, Commissioner, Higher & Technical
Education, Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat building,
Imphal, Manipur-795001.
....Proforma Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioner :: Mr. BP. Sahu, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr.
DP. Sahu, Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Devananda, Addl. A.G. assisted
by Ms. N. Jyotsana, Adv., Dr. RK.
Deepak, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. L.
Rajesh, Adv and Ms. Th. Bandana,
Adv. representing Mr. L.
Shashibushan, Sr. Adv.
Date of Hearing :: 03.10.2023
Date of Judgment and Order :: 30.11.2023
ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. BP. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Deepak Prasad Sahu, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. M.
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 2
Devananda, learned Addl. A.G. assisted by Ms. Jyotsana Naorem, learned
counsel for respondent No. 1; Dr. RK. Deepak, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. L. Rajesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and
Ms. Th. Bandana, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
[2] It is the case of the petitioner that he was the first regular Vice-
Chancellor of the newly established Manipur Technical University (in short
MTU) and retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of
October, 2020. After his retirement, no Vice-Chancellor was appointed and
the said post of Vice-Chancellor was held by the then Commissioner, Higher
Education, Government of Manipur. Vide order dated 17.08.2021, the
petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor as a stop-gap arrangement for
a period till the appointment of regular Vice-Chancellor. Since the power of
the petitioner as stop-gap Vice-Chancellor was curtailed, he filed a writ
petition being WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 and vide order dated 05.10.2021, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with a direction to the
respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Vice-Chancellor as per the
Manipur Technical University Act and Rules framed thereunder till the
appointment of regular VC. The operative part of the judgment and order
dated 05.10.2021 @ Para 24 is reproduced herein below:
"24. For the foregoing discussions, a) the writ petition is
allowed; b) the impugned UO note dated 23.08.2021 issued by
the Minister, Education, Manipur and he communication of the
Deputy Secretary to the Registrar of Manipur Technical
University dated 03.09.2021 are set aside except Clause No.
1; (c) As a consequence, the respondent authorities are
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 3
directed to allow the petitioner to function as Vice-Chancellor
as per Manipur Technical University Act and the Rules framed
thereunder till the regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed; (d)
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed."
[3] Thereafter, the petitioner ceased to function as the Vice
Chancellor after one Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram was appointed as the regular
Vice-Chancellor. The appointment of Dr. Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram was
challenged by several persons before this Court on various grounds and the
writ petitions were heard together. Vide a detailed judgment and order dated
27.01.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021,
WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 & WP(C) No. 807 of 2021, the appointment of Dr.
Bhabeswar Tongbram to the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical
University was set aside by this Court. Upon the setting aside of the
appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of MTU, the
Governor of Manipur issued the impugned order dated 27.01.2023
appointing Shri H. Gyan Prakash, IAS, Commissioner, Higher & Technical
Education, Government of Manipur (Respondent No.4 herein) as Vice-
Chancellor of MTU as stop-gap arrangement till appointment of a regular
Vice-Chancellor.
[4] Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.01.2023, the
petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 27.01.2023 on
the ground that it is in violation of the provisions of Manipur Technical
University Act and also in violation of the law settled by the Apex Court. It is
stated that the Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education, Government
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 4
of Manipur does not possess the required eligibility criteria. It is also stated
that since the appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as regular VC of
MTU was set aside by this Court as illegal, the petitioner ought to have been
appointed as VC as stop-gap till the appointment of regular VC in pursuant
to para 24 of the judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 602 of 2021.
[5] Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits
that once the appointment of regular VC has been held to be illegal, there is
no appointment in the eye of law and as such, the petitioner who was
permitted to function as stop-gap VC till the appointment of regular VC by an
order dated 05.10.2021 passed by this Court, has to be given charge to
function as Vice-Chancellor till appointment of a regular VC. It is stated that
the order dated 27.01.2023 appointing the Commissioner (Hr. Education) as
VC is illegal and void ab initio and in violation of the directions passed by this
Court. Learned senior counsel relies upon the judgment of the Honb'le
Supreme Court in the case of Nabam Rebia and Bamand Felix vs. Deputy
Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors.: (2016) 8
SCC 1 to the point that once an order is not sustainable in the eyes of law
and set aside by the Court, the position that existed prior to the issuance of
the order so set aside, is to be restored.
[6] Mr. B P Sahu, learned senior counsel has emphasised that in
the present case, since the appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as
regular VC has been set aside by this Court as illegal, the position prior to
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 5
such appointment, i.e., continuation of the petitioner as stop-gap VC of MTU
has to be restored.
[7] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. A.G., has raised objection to
the maintainability of the writ petition by filing a misc. application being
MC[WP(C)] No. 58 of 20223 stating that the petitioner has no locus to
challenge the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 appointing the
Commissioner, Hr. & Tech. Education, Government of Manipur as stop-gap
VC of MTU as the petitioner is not eligible in terms of Section 14 (2) of
Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 as he is over 70 years of age. It is
also further stated that respondent No. 4, Commissioner, Hr. & Tech.
Education, Government of Manipur was appointed as stop-gap VC as
provided in MTU Act, 2016 by the competent authority and in terms of the
direction passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 791 of 2021 and the connected
matters wherein official respondents were directed to make stop-gap
arrangement in accordance with law till fresh appointments are made for the
post of VC. Learned Addl. A.G. submits that once Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram
was appointed as regular VC, the direction issued by the learned Single
Judge in Para 24 of WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 in the order dated 05.10.2021
has been complied and setting aside of the appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar
Tongbram in subsequent judicial proceedings cannot be a ground for re-
implementing the direction in para 24 in WP(C) No. 602 of 2021. Reliance is
placed on the decision in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka
Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Assn. reported as
(2006) 11 SCC 731 @ Para 43 to emphasise that even a writ of quo warranto
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 6
is not maintainable in challenging appointments made as 'until further
orders'. It was held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to challenge such order can be exercised only by the aggrieved person.
It is prayed that writ petition may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
[8] Dr. RK. Deepak, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 2
& 3 (MTU), has raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the
writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the
appointment of respondent No. 4 as stop-gap VC. It is stated that the
petitioner has neither lien to the post of VC nor a legal obligation that he
should only be appointed as VC in case of temporary vacancy to the post.
No injury or damage has been caused to the petitioner by stop-gap
arrangement of appointing respondent No. 4 as VC and the same is in the
interest of the student of the university for smooth running of the institute.
Writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not an eligible person for
appointment to the post of VC and he is over-aged as per the Rules. It is
submitted that the writ of certiorari can be exercised only at the instance of
a person who is qualified and eligible for the post at the relevant time. It is
also stated that the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 has been issued in
pursuance to the direction in the common judgment and order dated
27.01.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791
of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 & WP(C) No. 807 of 2021. On merit, Dr.
RK. Deepak, learned senior counsel, submits that vide order dated
05.10.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 602 of 2021, the petitioner was allowed to
function as VC of MTU till appointment of a regular VC and his appointment
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 7
as V.C. on stop-gap arrangement ceased to exist with the appointment of
Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as regular VC on 08.11.2021. It is stated that
setting aside of the appointment order of Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram by a
judgment and order dated 27.01.2023 cannot revive the direction passed in
Para 24 in WP(C) No. 602 of 2021. It is prayed that writ petition be dismissed
on the ground of non-maintainability as well as on merit as the direction
issued in WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 has no longer survived after the
appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as regular VC.
[9] Respondent No. 4 has also filed counter affidavit stating that as
per Section 14 of the MTU, the tenure of Vice-Chancellor is 5 (five) years or
till the incumbent attains the 70 years of age or whichever is earlier. It is
stated that once the incumbent attains 70 years of age, he cannot be
considered for re-appointment to the post of VC either temporary or stop-
gap arrangement. It is also pointed out that the direction in Para 24 in WP(C)
No. 602 of 2021 for appointing the petitioner as VC till appointment of regular
VC, ceased to have any effect once Dr. Bhabeswar was appointed as regular
VC. It is further submitted that under the 2nd proviso to Section 14(2) of the
MTU Act, the Administrative Secretary of the Higher and Technical
Edication, Govt. of Manipur shall be the ex-officio VC till the appointment of
first VC and the Administrative Secretary had actually functioned as VC till
appointment of first VC. Accordingly, it is submitted that appointment of the
respondent No.4 as stop gap VC till appointment of a regular VC cannot be
faulted. It is prayed that writ petition may be rejected.
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 8
[10] This Court has considered the submissions made at bar and
the materials on record.
[11] The case of the petitioner is that he was permitted by an order
dated 05.10.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 to function
as Vice-Chancellor till the appointment of regular VC. The petitioner
relinquished the stop-gap arrangement of being a VC on the appointment of
one Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as regular VC. However, in a subsequent
batch of writ petitions, the appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as
regular VC was set aside by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2023 and in
the same order, this Court directed the respondent authorities to make stop-
gap arrangement to function as Vice-Chancellor till fresh appointment to the
post of VC is made. In compliance of the direction passed by this Court in
order dated 27.01.2023 in the batch of writ petitions, the State authority
appointed respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor of MTU as stop-gap
arrangement till the regular VC is appointed.
[12] This Court does not find any merit in the submission of Mr. BP
Sahu, learned senior counsel that once the appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar
Tongbram as regular VC was set aside by this Court, the status prior to such
appointment ought to be restored. This Court is of the firm opinion that with
the appointment of Dr. Bhabeswar as regular VC, the direction in para 24 of
the judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.
602 of 2021 directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as stop-gap
VC till the appointment of regular VC, has fully been complied and the same
cannot be enforced in perpetual. It may be noted that the direction in para
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 9
24 of the judgment is not perpetual one and it does not give any direction to
the effect that whenever there is a vacancy in the post of VC of MTU, only
the petitioner has to function as VC as stop-gap arrangement. Being over
the stipulated 70 years of age, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the
appointment of VC of MTU by way of a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus
as he is not eligible person to challenge such appointment. The appointment
of stop-gap VC as stop-gap arrangement is also contemplated under Section
14 (5) of the MTU Act, 2016. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of
Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar reported as (1973) 1 SCC 485 that a
person who is not eligible for consideration for appointment at the relevant
point of time has no right to question the appointment since he is not an
aggrieved person. Admittedly, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment
as VC as he has exceeded the age of 70 years and he has no locus to
challenge the appointment of VC, whether regular one or otherwise.
[13] Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No
cost.
[14] In view of the above, the misc. application is also disposed of.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
joshua
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2023.11.30
MARING 13:12:14 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 83 of 2023 Page 10
