Manipur High Court
Sanjoy Ahanthem vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors on 22 July, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 132 of 2023
Sanjoy Ahanthem
.....Petitioner/s
- Versus -
State of Manipur & 2 Ors.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order (Oral)
22.07.2024
[1] Heard Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted
by Ms. Malemleima, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Th.
Sukumar, learned G.A. for the State respondent and Mr. I. Denning,
learned counsel for the DMU.
[2] The petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor in History
Department posted at NG College, applied for consideration of his
name for absorption in the newly established DMU in terms of the
notification dated 07.07.2022 issued by the Directorate of University
and Higher Education, Government of Manipur.
[3] Vide order dated 13.09.2022, the Principal, NG College
referred the names of 4 (four) Assistant Professors including the name
of the petitioner herein for absorption in DMU. However, out of 4 (four)
persons, only the name of the petitioner was left out from the list
published by the State authority for absorption.
WP(C) No. 132 of 2023 Page 1
[4] Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, submits that in the notification dated 07.07.2022, there was
no mention of sanctioned posts for the 30 departments. However, in
the order dated 24.11.2022 issued by the Commissioner (Hr. & Tech.
Edn.), Government of Manipur, 19 (nineteen) names were included as
transferred to DMU from the Directorate of University and Higher
Education, Manipur.
[5] Further, vide another order dated 12.01.2018 issued by
the Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.), Government of Manipur, another
list of absorbed teachers were issued and in History subject, 17
(seventeen) names were shown in place of 19 (nineteen) issued
earlier. In para 4 of the order dated 12.01.2023, it is especially
mentioned that 4 (four) more persons also applied for deleting their
names from consideration for absorption in DMU.
[6] In the counter affidavit filed by the State respondent, in
para 10 it is stated that there is no vacant post for absorption and the
case of the petitioner will be considered as and when vacancy arises.
[7] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned G.A., also refers to the
additional affidavit dated 27.06.2024, inter-alia, stating that there are
only 13 (thirteen) sanctioned posts in History subject in DMU and
hence, the name of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage.
[8] Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the DMU, submits that
they have to act upon the recommendation made by the State
respondent and at this stage, he has nothing to submit.
WP(C) No. 132 of 2023 Page 2
[9] Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, submits that assuming that there are only 13 (thirteen) posts
available in the History subject in DMU as stated in the additional
affidavit, 16 (sixteen) persons are deemed to be absorbed in DMU in
History subject in terms of the order dated 26.04.2023. It is also
submitted that this latest order dated 26.04.2023 is in violation of the
interim order dated 13.02.2023 passed by this Court whereby no
finalization for absorption as well as classification of faculty for UG and
PG courses in respect of History Department in DMU.
[10] During the course of hearing, Mr. HS. Paonam, learned
senior counsel, submits that one Lunneikhup Vaiphei, who is at serial
No. 1 in the list of absorbed Assistant Professor (History) issued vide
order dated 24.11.2022 has not joined till date and hence, one seat is
still available in the History subject. Further, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of (i) State of UP vs Mahesh Narian reported as
(2013) 4 SCC 169, (ii) Jose vs. Alice & Anr. reported as (1996) 6
SCC 342, (iii) Union of India vs. Mohan Singh Rathore & Anr.
reported as (1996) 10 SCC 469, (iv) All Bengal Excise Licensees'
Association vs. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. reported as (2007) 11
SCC 374 and (iv) Monohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs vs. Ugrasen (Dead) by
Lrs & Ors. reported as (2010) 11 SCC 557. It is submitted that the
subsequent order dated 26.04.2023 issuing in violation of the interim
order dated 13.02.2023 is per se illegal and has no legal sanctity.
[11] This Court has considered the materials on record.
WP(C) No. 132 of 2023 Page 3
[12] In order to avoid all complicacies, this Court is of the
opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by giving direction to
the State respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for
absorption as Assistant Professor (History) in DMU as there is no
impediment for considering more names than the sanctioned posts.
[13] On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the State
Government has not indicated number of sanctioned posts of other
subjects considered for absorption in the earlier as well as subsequent
notification. State respondents are directed to consider the name of the
petitioner for absorption in the available seat.
[14] The consideration of the petitioner shall be completed
within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
[15] With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.
[16] Any pending applications are disposed of and interim
order is vacated.
[17] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel
appearing for all the parties.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2024.07.23
MARING 11:20:50 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 132 of 2023 Page 4
