[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
State Of Manipur & 3 Ors vs Laikhuram Nandabir Singh on 10 December, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.12.11
10:52:41 +05'30'
Sl. No. 24-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No.2 of 2025
With
MC(WA)No.102 of 2025
With
MC(WA)No.13 of 2025
State of Manipur & 3 ors.
Appellants
Vs.
Laikhuram Nandabir Singh
Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)
10.12.2025
[1] Captioned 'writ appeal' ('WA' for the sake of brevity) is an
intra-Court appeal.
[2] Judgement and order dated 27.12.2024 made in
WP(C)No.304 of 2024 and MC(WP(C)No.274 of 2024 thereat has been
assailed in the captioned WA and therefore, this 'Judgement & Order dated
27.12.2024' made by Hon'ble Single Bench shall hereon and henceforth
be referred to as 'impugned judgment' for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
[3] In the hearing today, Mr. S. Nepolean, learned senior
advocate and senior counsel instructed by Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned
State counsel who is on record for the appellants and Mrs. G. Pushpa,
learned counsel for the sole respondent are before this Court.
[4] The main WA was taken up and heard out with the consent
of learned counsel on both sides.
[5] Short facts shorn of elaboration, in other words factual matrix
in a nutshell containing facts that are imperative for appreciating instant
order are that the entire matter pertains to 2(two) years B.Ed. training
course in DM College of teachers Imphal; that the sole respondent was
initially appointed as Science Graduate Teacher vide Government order
dated 07.03.2003 in the Charangpat High School; that thereafter the sole
respondent was promoted as Lecturer(physics), Higher Secondary School;
that State vide a Notification dated 02.12.2021 amended the Recruitment
Rules qua post of Lecturers, Higher Secondary Schools; that this was
followed by a notification dated 29.06.2022 re-designating the post of
Lecturers Higher Secondary Schools as Post Graduate Teachers; that
owing to the amendment of 'Recruitment Rules'('RR' for the sake of
brevity), it became necessary for the respondent to undergo 'two years
B.Ed. training course'('said course' for the sake of convenience) as in and
vide amendment to RR a distinction had been brought in between trained
and the untrained teachers which did not exist until that point of time; that
the sole respondent, pursuant to a notification from DM College of
Teachers Education submitted an application dated 16.06.2022 to the
jurisdictional Zonal Educational Officer(ZEO) seeking No Objection
Certificate(NOC) for undergoing B.Ed. Training course for the academic
years 2022-24 on deputation; that the Principal of the School(Lamding
Higher Secondary School where the respondent was serving) issued a
NOC certifying that he has no objection qua deputation; that the sole
respondent could not be admitted to 2022-24 course for want of NOC from
ZEO which was not given on the sole ground that the respondent sought
NOC only after the prescribed date in the notification; that thereafter the
respondent sought admission qua said course for the academic session
2023-25 but this was negatived citing a notification dated 14.03.2014
{paragraph 3(a)} which says that a minimum of 8(eight) years of service
before retirement on superannuation is necessary at the time of
deputation/nomination for B.Ed. programme i.e., said course; that the
respondent approached this Court vide afore-referred WP(C)No.304 of
2024 seeking a direction to allow the respondent to undergo two years
B.Ed. Training course(said course) in DM College of Teachers Education,
Imphal and this writ petition was allowed vide the impugned judgement
directing the State to admit the respondent in B.Ed. course (said course)
in DM College in any available seat; that in and vide impugned judgment,
paragraph 7 of 14.03.2014 notification which provided for removal of
difficulties was directed to be resorted to; that State contending that it is
aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed captioned WA; that in the
captioned WA in MC(WA)No.13 of 2024, on 19.03.2025, predecessor
Hon'ble Bench passed an order of interim direction to the effect that if
there is any vacancy in the two years B.Ed. course(said course) in DM
College, the same shall not be filled up until further orders; that 19.03.2025
interim order is now operating and that under such circumstances, main
WA was taken up and heard out with consent of both sides, as alluded to
supra.
[6] Learned senior counsel for State appellants contended that
8(eight) years service being left before superannuation is
imperative/mandatory vide para 3(a) of 14.03.2014 notification.
[7] Learned counsel for the sole respondent contended to the
contrary by stating that with regard to 2022-24 academic course qua said
course the respondent was eligible as he had 8(eight) years service left
and the application was rejected solely on the ground of non-production of
NOC from ZEO and in any event removal of difficulty (paragraph 7) of
14.03.2014 notification does not stand denuded.
[8] This Court now finds that a piquant situation has arisen in the
case on hand, as it is confirmed by the learned senior counsel for State on
instructions that one seat in B.Ed. training course(said course) for the
ongoing academic course is available(kept vacant) but the same will now
go abegging if the respondent is not admitted. Learned counsel for
respondent, on instructions, submitted that the respondent is ready to
abide by the Manipur University Regulations and Rules regarding writing
Semester Examinations, attendance etc., and pursue the course if he is
admitted.
[9] If the respondent is not permitted to pursue the course,
subject of course to adherence to University regulations for writing
examination, attendance etc., one seat will go abegging. On the contrary,
if the respondent is permitted to undergo the course, it would only be
subject to obtaining regulations and after all respondent was eligible for
2022-24 academic session when he made an application as he had more
than 8(eight) years service on that day(to be noted, respondent would
superannuate only in 2031). This is buttressed by undisputed obtaining
position that respondent is a in service candidate.
[10] In this backdrop, in the light of piquant situation adverted to
supra, one apprehension raised by the learned counsel for State is that the
instant case may become a precedent in the days to come and that can
lead to anomalies and difficulties. This Court deems it appropriate to make
it clear that neither this order nor the impugned judgement of Hon'ble
Single Bench will serve as a precedent as it is being made in the light of
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case i.e., inter-alia where
respondent was otherwise eligible qua 2022-24 stream of said course
viewed in the light of the piquant situation that has arisen wherein one seat
will go abegging.
[11] To be noted, other than '8 years service' point, there is no
other legal grind qua the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court deems
it appropriate to sustain the impugned judgment of the Hon'ble Single
Bench albeit with a rider that this order and the order of the Hon'ble Single
Bench shall not serve as a precedents and if such cases arise, the same
shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law.
[12] Captioned writ appeal is disposed of as closed sustaining the
impugned judgement directing admission of respondent in B.Ed. course in
DM College. Consequently, captioned MCs thereat are also disposed of
as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
