Manipur High Court
Mutum Shyamkesho Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 27 October, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
[1]
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.10.27 14:03:28
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021
Mutum Shyamkesho Singh, aged about 64 years, S/O (L) M.
Yaima, resident of Kwakeithel Akham Leikai, P.O. Singjamei,
P.S. Singjamei, District Imphal West, 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, Polytechnic
Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal
West, Manipur-795004.
4. University Grants Commission (UGC), represented by its
Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
(...impleaded vide order dated 06-05-2022
passed in MC(WP(C)) 283 of 2021)
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[2]
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner :: Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate asstd. by
Syed Murtaza Ahmad, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. Y. Ashang, GA;
Mr. R.K. Deepak, Sr. Advocate
asstd. by Mrs. I. Bimola, Advocate;
Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate asstd. by
Mr. Th. Ningtamba, Advocate &
Mr. S. Jasobanta, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 28-07-2025
Date of judgment & order :: 27-10-2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. N Jotendro, learned senior counsel assisted by
Syed Murtaza Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner;
Mr. Y Ashang, learned GA appearing for the respondent No. 1,
Mr. R.K. Deepak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. I. Bimola,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. N. Ibotombi,
learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Th. Ningtamba, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 08-11-2021 issued by the
Chancellor, Manipur Technical University (hereinafter referred to as
"MTU", for short) appointing the respondent No. 3 as Vice-Chancellor
along with the entire recruitment process on the ground that the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[3]
respondent No. 3 is not qualified and eligible for the said post. The
petitioner has also prayed for directing the official respondents to initiate
the recruitment process by issuing fresh advertisement for filling the
said post as per the applicable rules.
[3] The brief facts of the present case are that an Advertisement
dated 12-08-2021 was issued by the Registrar, MTU inviting applications
from intending candidates having experience in technical education and/
or academic administration organisation for appointment to the post
of Vice-Chancellor in MTU. The eligibility criteria as notified in the
said advertisement is as prescribed under Section 7.3 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 dated 18-07-2018 on minimum qualifications for
appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Universities and
Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education, 2018 (hereinafter "UGC Regulations, 2018", for short). The
qualifications/ eligibility criteria as prescribed under Section 7.3 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"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-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-
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[4]
Selection-Committee, through 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 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."
[4] By an order dated 18-10-2021 issued by the Secretariat:
Higher & Technical Education, Government of Manipur, a Selection
Committee comprising of four members was constituted for the
purpose of recommending a suitable candidate for appointment
as Vice-Chancellor of MTU. The Selection Committee comprises of the
following members:-
1) Shri M. Harekrishna, State Government nominee
Commissioner (Higher & and Chairman
Technical Edn.),
Government of Manipur
2) Shri Bobby Waikhom, Nominee of the Chancellor
Secretary to Governor of
Manipur
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[5]
3) Shri Dr. S. Venugopal, Nominee of the Board of
Director, National Institute of Manipur Technical University
Technology, Chumukedima,
Dimapur
4) Shri Dr. Dinesh Kumar, Nominee of the University
Vice-Chancellor, JC Bose Grants Commission (UGC)
University of Sc. & Tech.,
YMCA, Faridabad
[5] Interview of the candidates, including the present petitioner
and the respondent No. 3, was held on 28-10-2021 by the Selection
Committee and the Selection Committee recommended the respondent
No. 3 for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of MTU. On the basis of the
recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Chancellor,
MTU, issued an order dated 08-11-2021 appointing the respondent
No. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of MTU for a period of 5 (five) years from the
date on which he enters upon his office or until he attends the age
of 70 (seventy) years, whichever is earlier. The petitioner, who was not
successful in this said selection process, filed the present writ
petition assailing the appointment order of the respondent No. 3 dated
08-11-2021 and also praying for directing the respondents to initiate
recruitment process by issuing fresh advertisement.
[6] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel raised the following
points in challenging the validity/ legality of the order dated 08-11-2021,
appointing the Respondent No. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of MTU:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[6]
a) The MTU was established by the Government of Manipur
through an enactment of Manipur Technical University Act,
2016, which came into force w.e.f. 23-04-2016. The University
Grants Commission (UGC), from time to time, framed
regulations under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, laying
down the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers
and academic staffs, including Vice-Chancellors in all
universities established under a Central Act, State Act or
Provisional Act and that the said regulations are binding on all
such universities, including MTU. Since the MTU was
established by a State Act, it is mandatory that appointments
including that of Vice-Chancellors should be strictly in
compliance with the UGC Regulations, 2018, which were
in force at the time of issuance of the Advertisement dated
12-08-2021 for appointment of the second Vice-Chancellor in
MTU;
b) The term "Distinguished Academician" as used in Section
7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 refers to a highly
accomplished and recognized academic professional
possessing proven academic leadership, institutional
commitment and scholarly credentials, especially in higher
education. "Distinguished Academician" is not just a
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[7]
formally qualified individual, but one who has demonstrated
substantial academic distinction. This includes leadership
roles, Ph.D. supervision, notable publications and participation
in academic governance;
c) Based on judicial interpretation, academic norms and
institutional practice, the following criteria are generally
accepted to determine who qualifies as a distinguished
academician under Section 7.3 of the UGC Regulations,
2018:-
"Academic Position:
- At least 10 years of experience as a Professor in a University.
- OR 10 years of equivalent experience in a reputed academic/
research/ administrative organization.
Academic Achievements:
- Recognized contributions to academic field: publications,
research (supported by Ph. D. guidance and research
publications in peer reviewed journals), etc.
- Awards, honors, fellowships from national/ international
academic bodies.
Leadership in Academia:
- Experience in leading academic departments, faculties, or
institutions.
Reputation:
- Recognized within academic community for intellectual and
professional excellence.
Contribution to Education:
- Curriculum development, policy making, reforms in education."
d) The respondent No. 3 is a Lecturer (Selection Grade) in
Government Polytechnic, Takyelpat, a diploma-level
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[8]
institution. His career has been confined to diploma education
and he never held the position of a Professor in any University
nor has he held any equivalent position as understood in
Section 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018. A Lecturer (Selection
Grade) in a polytechnic is not equivalent even to an Assistant
Professor in a Degree Engineering College, let alone a
Professor in a University. The respondent No. 3 is not
competent even for appointment as a Principal of a Degree
Technical College. Even though the respondent No. 3 claimed
that he was serving as a "Guest Professor" in Manipur
University from 2001 to 2005, there is no post entitled "Guest
Professor";
e) Assignments carried out by the respondent No. 3 as Deputy
Director in the Office of the Controller of Technical Education,
Manipur on utilization basis does not confer upon him the
equivalence of a Professorship and cannot be construed as
having academic leadership;
f) The Ph.D. obtained by the respondent No. 3 is in History from
the Department of History, Manipur University on the topic
"Traditional Housing & Architecture of Manipur". Therefore,
he lacks a Ph.D. Degree in Engineering or Technology,
which is essential for leadership in a Technical University.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[9]
The respondent No. 3 is not even qualified to be appointed as
a Professor or Principal in a Degree Technical College under
the AICTE Regulations, 2019 as he has no Ph.D. in
Engineering, no Ph.D. guidance experience, no post-Ph.D.
research contribution, not having minimum eight research
publications in SCI journals/ UGC/ AICTE approved list of
journals and not having 15 years of experience in teaching/
research/ industry, out of which at least 3 years should be
at a post equivalent to that of Professor; and
g) As the respondent No. 3 does not possess any of the minimum
qualifications prescribed by the UCC for appointment as a
Vice-Chancellor of a University, which is the highest academic
institute, his appointment as the Vice-chancellor of MTU is
illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
[7] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel also submitted that
the inclusion of additional criteria "Experience in Technical Education
and/ or Academic Administration Organization" in the Advertisement
dated 12-08-2021 is impermissible as such additional criteria is not
supported either by the UCC Regulations or the MTU Act, 2016 and as
such, additional criteria is contrary to the statutory regulations. The
learned senior counsel further submitted that the constitution of the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[10]
Selection Committee under the order dated 18-10-2021 is illegal and
ultra-virus the provision of Section 14(1) of the MTU Act, 2016 as the
Chairman of the Selection Committee was appointed by the government
while the mandate of the statutory provisions provides that the
Chancellor must appoint the Chairman of the Selection Committee
from amongst the members of the Selection Committee.
[8] In response to the question of maintainability of the present
writ petition being filed by an unsuccessful candidate, the learned senior
counsel cited the following case laws:-
1. (1997) 9 SCC 527 "Raj Kumar & ors. Vs. Shakti Raj & ors."
wherein it has been held as under -
"15. In view of this legal position, the necessary requirement should
be that they should necessarily not only notify but also call the
names from employment exchange; in addition they should give
wide publicity in the media inviting applications from qualified
persons for selection. Instead, they have adopted the procedure
under the 1955 Rules. They did not call the names from the
employment exchange and conducted the examinations for
them. After the selection of the candidates, names of selected
candidates were called from the employment exchange.
Obviously, the successful candidates in the written
examinations were asked to approach the employment
exchange of the circle concerned and, accordingly, names came
to be sponsored. The procedure adopted is clearly illegal
denying equal opportunity to many a candidate waiting in the
register of the employment exchange concerned. Therefore, the
Government hereafter should strictly follow the procedure by
not only calling their names from the employment exchange, but
also by publishing in the local and national newspapers and
giving wide publicity in the media as well as getting the written
examination and the interview conducted by the SSSB; marks
should be awarded strictly according to the procedure."
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[11]
"16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken
out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the
examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the
results were announced, it exercised the power under the
proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken
out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection
Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The
entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended
by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of
J&K and other decisions referred therein had held that a
candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and
having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge
either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of
selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the
correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government
have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the
candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the
method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from
the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in
accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel
by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in
this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under
the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as
well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in
law."
2. (2019) 20 SCC 17 "Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & ors."
wherein it has been held as under -
"12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
questioned the maintainability of the appellant's challenge and
urged that once a candidate had participated in a recruitment
process, he/she could not at a later stage challenge its
correctness merely because of having failed in selection. It was
contended that the appellant was taking "two shots" at success,
and her challenge was opposed for being opportunistic. Further
it was argued by the respondents that the appellant's attempt to
draw inference from the Dentist Rules has rightly not been
accepted by the High Court. Moreover, the advertisement was
shown as being merely clarificatory in stating that marks shall
only be granted for work experience in hospitals of the
Government of Bihar."
"17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the
candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process
only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[12]
In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of
statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising
therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a
candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is
sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In
fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable
illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution,
unless he/she participates in the selection process."
3. (2020) 20 SCC 209 "Ramjit Singh Kardam & ors. Vs.
Sanjeev Kumar & ors." wherein it has been held as under -
"41. The above proposition has been reiterated in other judgments of
this Court noted above. In the present case, whether the
respondent-writ petitioners are estopped from challenging the
selection? While noticing the facts of the case, we have noted
above that both the appellants and the respondents had
submitted applications in pursuance of Advertisement dated
28-7-2006 No. 6/2006. In the advertisement, it was provided that
the Commission may shortlist the candidates for interview
by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rational
criteria to be adopted by the Commission. The Commission on
28-12-2006 published the criteria for calling the candidates for
interview. Notice dated 28-12-2006 provided that written
examination shall be held for post of PTI on 21-1-2007, on 100
objective type multiple-choice questions, each question
carrying two marks. The notification also prescribed the
minimum qualifying marks - 50% for General category, SC, BC
and ESM 45% and 25% marks was assigned to the viva voce. The
above criteria was implemented and written examination was
conducted on 21-1-2007, which examination was cancelled citing
complaints regarding malpractices in the written examination."
"42. Further notice dated 11-6-2008 was published fixing 20-7-2008
for written examination as per criteria earlier notified. Before
the above examination could take place, by public notice dated
30-6-2008, it was cancelled. Another public notice dated
11-7-2008 was published where the Commission decided to
shortlist eight times the candidates of the advertised post with
minimum weightage secured in each category. The said
shortlisting was also given up by notice dated 31-7-2009 when it
was decided to call all eligible candidates for interview. The
Commission did not publish any criteria or marks on the basis
of which interview was to be held. The criteria, which was
published by the Commission on 28-12-2006, 11-6-2008 and
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[13]
11-7-2008 were given up step by step and no criteria was
published for interview, which was scheduled to take place from
2-9-2008 to 17-10-2008. When the Commission had not published
any criteria on the basis of which candidates were going to be
subjected for selection process and the candidates participated
in the selection without knowing the criteria of selection, they
cannot be shut out from challenging the process of selection
when ultimately they came to know that the Commission step by
step has diluted the merit in selection. When the candidate is not
aware of the criteria of selection under which he was subjected
in the process and the said criteria for the first time is published
along with final result dated 10-4-2010, he cannot be estopped
from challenging the criteria of selection and the entire process
of selection. Further when the written examination as notified
earlier was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for
interview giving a go-bye to a fair and reasonable process for
shortlisting the candidates for interview, that too only by the
Chairman of the Commission whereas decision regarding
criteria of selection has to be taken by the Commission, the
candidates have every right to challenge the entire selection
process so conducted. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj
held that when glaring illegalities have been committed in the
procedure to get the candidates for examination, the principle of
estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application."
[9] On behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised on
the following grounds:-
(a) The petitioner knew and have knowledge all along about
the eligibility criteria of a candidate as notified under the
Advertisement dated 12-08-2021 and also the composition of
the constituted Selection Committee under the order dated
18-10-2021 issued by the Government and voluntarily
participated in the selection process/ Interview without raising
any protest. Only after he came to know that he was not
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[14]
successful and the respondent No. 3 have been selected and
appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the MTU, he filed the
present writ petition challenging the appointment of the
respondent No. 3 by questioning prescribing of additional/
desirable qualifications in the aforesaid advertisement and
also about the composition of the Selection Committee. As the
petitioner have consciously taken part in the selection process
and taken a chance to get himself selected in the Interview, he
cannot turn around and questioned the method of selection
and its outcome. The petitioner had waived his right to
question the advertisement or the methodology adopted in
making the selection. In support of such contentions, the
following case laws have been cited on behalf of the
respondents:-
(i) (1995) 3 SCC 486 "Madan Lal & ors. Vs. State of J & K &
ors." wherein it has been held as under -
"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the
salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting
successful candidates being respondents concerned herein,
were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written
test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage
there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also
appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members
concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as
well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the
petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said
oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have
emerged successful as a result of their combined performance
both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[15]
petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only
because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he
cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of
interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly
constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar
Shukla, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned
Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the
examination without protest and when he found that he would
not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the
said examination, the High Court should not have granted any
relief to such a petitioner."
(ii) (2013) 11 SCC 309 "Ramesh Chandra Shah & ors. Vs. Anil
Joshi & ors." wherein it has been held as under -
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the
process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and
question the method of selection and its outcome."
"19. One of the earliest judgments on the subject is Manak
Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi. In that case, this Court considered
the question whether the decision taken by the High Court on
the allegation of professional misconduct levelled against the
appellant was vitiated due to bias of the Chairman of the
Tribunal constituted for holding inquiry into the allegation. The
appellant alleged that the Chairman had appeared for the
complainant in an earlier proceeding and, thus, he was
disqualified to judge his conduct. This Court held that by not
having taken any objection against the participation of the
Chairman of the Tribunal in the inquiry held against him, the
appellant will be deemed to have waived his objection. Some of
the observations made in the judgment are extracted below:
(AIR pp. 431-32, paras 8-9)
"8. ... If, in the present case, it appears that the appellant knew
all the facts about the alleged disability of Shri Chhangani
and was also aware that he could effectively request the
learned Chief Justice to nominate some other member
instead of Shri Chhangani and yet did not adopt that course,
it may well be that he deliberately took a chance to obtain a
report in his favour from the Tribunal and when he came to
know that the report had gone against him he thought better
of his rights and raised this point before the High Court for
the first time. ...
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[16]
9. From the record it is clear that the appellant never raised this
point before the Tribunal and the manner in which this point
was raised by him even before the High Court is somewhat
significant. The first ground of objection filed by the
appellant against the Tribunal's report was that Shri
Chhangani had pecuniary and personal interest in the
complainant Dr Prem Chand. The learned Judges of the High
Court have found that the allegations about the pecuniary
interest of Shri Chhangani in the present proceedings are
wholly unfounded and this finding has not been challenged
before us by Shri Daphtary. The learned Judges of the High
Court have also found that the objection was raised by the
appellant before them only to obtain an order for a fresh
enquiry and thus gain time. ... Since we have no doubt that
the appellant knew the material facts and must be deemed to
have been conscious of his legal rights in that matter, his
failure to take the present plea at the earlier stage of the
proceedings creates an effective bar of waiver against him. It
seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to
secure a favourable report from the Tribunal which was
constituted and when he found that he was confronted with
an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the
present technical point."
"20. In G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, this Court held that the
appellant who knew about the composition of the Selection
Committee and took a chance to be selected cannot, thereafter,
question the constitution of the Committee.
"21. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, a three-Judge
Bench ruled that when the petitioner appeared in the
examination without protest, he was not entitled to challenge the
result of the examination. The same view was reiterated in Madan
Lal v. State of J&K in the following words: (SCC p. 493, para 9)
"9. ... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview
conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who
interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting
respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to
get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to have emerged
successful as a result of their combined performance both at
written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It
is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated
chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the
result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn
round and subsequently contend that the process of interview
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[17]
was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly
constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla,
it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned
Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the
examination without protest and when he found that he would
not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the
said examination, the High Court should not have granted any
relief to such a petitioner."
"22. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, this Court reiterated
the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:
(SCC p. 584, para 16)
"16. We also agree with the High Court 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 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."
"23. The doctrine of waiver was also invoked in Vijendra Kumar
Verma v. Public Service Commission and it was held: (SCC p.
156, para 24)
"24. When the list of successful candidates in the written
examination was published in such notification itself, it was
also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with
regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be
tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of
Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation
would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to
the appellant at the time of calling him for interview, the
aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore,
no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever
introduced during the midstream of the selection process.
All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection
process and were also fully aware that they must possess
the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning
thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office
operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also
appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[18]
expert of computer application and has taken a chance and
opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and
now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure
adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction."
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted
judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the
process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was
being made under the General Rules, the respondents had
waived their right to question the advertisement or the
methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the
respondents."
(iii) (2015) 11 SCC 493 "Pradeep Kumar Rai & ors. Vs. Dinesh
Kumar Pandey & ors." wherein it has been held as under -
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more
point that the appellants had participated in the process of
interview and not challenged it till the results were declared.
There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and
declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it
at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found
themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview.
This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and
reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have
participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they
should have challenged immediately after the interviews were
conducted. (See Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service
Commission and K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala)
(iv) (2020) 2 SCC 173 "Anupal Singh & ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & ors." wherein it has been held as under -
"55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents
cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12-10-2014
and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was
contended that after the revised Notification dated 12-10-2014,
the private respondents participated in the interview without
protest and only after the result was announced and finding
that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to
challenge the revised Notification dated 12-10-2014 and the
private respondents are estopped from challenging the
selection process. It is a settled law that a person having
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[19]
consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around
and challenge the selection process."
"56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged
by a candidate who has participated in the interview and
has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview
and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan
Lal v. State of J&K, it was held as under: (SCC p. 493, para 9)
"9. ... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview
conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission
who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting
respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance
to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to have emerged
successful as a result of their combined performance both
at written test and oral interview, they have filed this
petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only
because the result of the interview is not palatable to him,
he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the
process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee
was not properly constituted."
"57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, it was held as under: (SCC
p. 426, para 73)
"73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview
in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners
to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview
and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the
interview was not proper."
"58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, it was held as under: (SCC
p. 107, para 19)
"19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla ....
***
It was further observed: (SCC p. 149, para 34)
'34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel
by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the
law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate
appears at the interview and participates therein, only
because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him,
he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the
process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in
the process.'"
"59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali
Sheikh wherein, it was held as under: (SCC pp. 645-46, para 59)
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates
cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are
of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this
general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in
its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar ....
The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, where it has been
held specifically that when a candidate appears in the
examination without protest and subsequently is found to
be not successful in the examination, the question of
entertaining the petition challenging such examination
would not arise."
"60. Before the declaration of the result of the written examination on
15-9-2014, the State Government by its Government Order dated
20-8-2014 revised the requisition thereby revising the number
of vacancies in different categories. The U.P. Public Service
Commission issued Office Memorandum dated 12-10-2014
specifically mentioning the number of vacancies to be filled up
in various categories in accordance with the requisition sent by
the State Government. The said Office Memorandum dated
12-10-2014 published by the U.P. Public Service Commission
reads as under:
"UPPSC
INTERVIEW PROGRAMME
Month October/November/December, 2014 (24)
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
98 Post: Subordinate Agricultural
Service Class III (Provisional
Asstt. Group C) Agricultural
Deptt. U.P.
Reservation October -- 27, 28, 29, 30
2515 posts -- Non-reserved November -- 05, 07, 10, 11, 12,
1882 posts -- SC 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
201 posts -- ST 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
2030 posts -- OBC December -- 01, 02, 03, 04, 05,
Pay scale Rs. 5200-20,200 06, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16,
Grade pay Rs 2400 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 2014
Advertisement No. A-5/E- Before 10.00 a.m.
Last date : 21-11-2013
Dated 12-10-2014."
It is thus clear that the candidates who appeared in the
interview were well aware about the modification/revision in
number of vacancies of Technical Assistants in different
categories. The private respondents/intervening applicants have
appeared in the interview with their eyes wide open regarding the
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
modified vacancies to be filled up in various categories of the
posts. Having appeared in the interview without any demur or
protest, it is not open to the candidates to challenge the selection
process on the ground that there was modification in the number
of vacancies in different categories and they are estopped by the
principle of estoppel from challenging the same.
"61. The private respondents knew that by the revised Notification dated
12-10-2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have
been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the
interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without
any protest. Having participated in the interview and having failed
in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to
turn around and challenge the revised Notification dated 12-10-2014
and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different
categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the
Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief
to the private respondent intervenors."
(b) Relying on the judgment and order dated 12-09-2016 passed by
the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No. 56 of
2016 filed by the respondent No. 3 herein, it has been averred by
the petitioner in his writ petition that this court has already found
the respondent No. 3 not eligible even for appointment to the post
of Principal in his own institution. According to the respondents,
the petitioner has concealed material facts and did not disclosed
the fact that the said judgment and order dated 12-09-2016
passed in WA No. 56 of 2016 had already been set aside/
recalled by a judgment and order dated 03-03-2017 passed by
a Division Bench of this court in a review petition filed by the
respondent No. 3, which is reported in 2017 SCC OnLine
Mani. 41. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that
the petitioner did not come with clean hands and tried to mislead
this court by concealing or suppressing material facts and as
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
such, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected outright on
this count alone. In support of this contention, the counsel for the
respondents relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of "Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& ors." reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 wherein it has been held
as under:-
"7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI it was held that in exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not
just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who
invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court
without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts
or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will
be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment
of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners,
and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case, SCC p. 462, para 35)
In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct
of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does
not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is
otherwise guilty of misleading the court, then the Court may
dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The
rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by
deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts
are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very
functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."
"8. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. the Court held that Article
136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers
discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate
cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme
Court a regular court of appeal or a court of error. This Court only
intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require
such intervention."
"9. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India the Court held that while
exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage
of justice. If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands,
has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he
intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will non-suit him
on the ground of contumacious conduct."
"10. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL the Court held that 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 and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching
the writ court must come with clean hands and 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. The same rule was reiterated
in G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel."
(c) The prayer for issuing a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus does not
lie in the present case for the reason that there has neither been
infringement of any of the legal rights of the petitioner nor has the
petitioner been denied any of his legal rights by someone who
has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing
something. In support of such contentions, the counsel for the
respondents cited the following case laws:-
(i) (1976) 1 SCC 671 "Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan
Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & ors." wherein it has been held
as under -
"34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in
order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily
be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-
matter of the application, though in the case of some of the
writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed
or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement
of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest
inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus
standi in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
Rungta; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B.; Ram Umeshwari
Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa; Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P.; State of
Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall; Satyanarayana Sinha
Dr v. S. Lal & Co.)."
(ii) (1977) 1 SCC 486 "Mani Subrat Jain & ors. Vs. State of
Haryana & ors." wherein it has been held as under -
"9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is
elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask
for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a
judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected
right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a
mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when
a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal
duty to do something or to abstain from doing something.
(See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. I, para
122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha; Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and
Ferris: Extraordinary Legal Remedies, para 198.)"
[10] The case of the respondents is that in the Advertisement dated
12-08-2021, it has been clearly notified that the essential eligibility
criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor shall be as provided under
Section 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. It is also the case of
the respondents that in the said advertisement, it was also notified
that applications were invited from intending candidates having
"Experience in Technical Education and/ or Academic
Administration Organization". According to the respondents, inviting
applications from candidates having experience in technical education
and/ or academic administration organisation does not amount to
prescribing additional eligibility criteria as wrongly alleged by the
petitioner. Even if, for arguments shake, it is to be treated as prescribing
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
additional eligibility criteria, it will amount to only a desirable eligibility
criteria and not an essential eligibility criteria and that such desirable
eligibility criteria is not in derogation or in contravention of the essential
eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 7.3 of the UGC Regulations,
2018 and that the MTU can prescribe such desirable eligibility criteria.
To buttress this argument, the respondents relied on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Maharashtra Public
Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram
Warade & ors." reported in (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 prescribe 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 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."
[11] According to the respondents, as per Section 7.3 of
the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person is eligible for the post of
Vice-Chancellor, if he or she possesses the following qualifications:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
(i) A person possessing the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and institutional commitment;
(ii) The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should
be a distinguished academician having -
(a) a minimum of ten years' of experience as Professor
in a University
OR
(b) ten years' of experience in a reputed research and/
or academic administrative organization with proof
of having demonstrated academic leadership.
[12] The case of the respondents is that the respondent No. 3
possesses Bachelor of Civil Engineering, Master of Civil Engineering
and Ph.D. "Traditional Housing and Architecture of Manipur". The
respondent No. 3 has more than 10 years of working experience in
different positions in the Department of Technical Education,
Government of Manipur, which is an academic administrative
organization. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 possesses all the
required eligibility criteria as notified in the Advertisement dated
12-08-2021. According to the respondents, the Selection Committee,
who are all experts in the field, after evaluating the qualifications and
experiences and also after scrutinizing the merits and demerits of all
the candidates, having found the respondent No. 3 to be qualified
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
and eligible and to be the most suitable candidate recommended
him for appointment against the advertised post of Vice-Chancellor.
MTU. On the basis of such recommendation made by the Selection
Committee, the petitioner have been appointed as Vice-Chancellor in
the MTU.
According to the respondents, this court have to show
differences and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert
Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field and this
court should not sit as an appellate court to examine such
recommendation. In support of such contentions, the respondents
have relied on the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of "Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & ors." reported
in (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein it has been held as under:-
"25. ...... The Court observed as under: [M.C. Gupta (Dr.) case, SCC pp.
344-45, para 7]
"7. ... When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised
by experts having technical experience and high academic
qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching/research
experience in technical subjects, the courts should be slow to
interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are
allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be
prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic
matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they
face than the courts generally can be."
"26. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University the Court observed
that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of
academicians: (SCC p. 426, para 17)
"17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the
point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that
of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that
courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic
bodies."
"27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth the Court observed
thus: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29)
"29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court
should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to
what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters
in preference to those formulated by professional men
possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual
day-to-day working of educational institutions and the
departments controlling them."
"28. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal the Court relied on the
judgment in University of Mysore and observed that in the matter of
appointments in the academic field, the court generally does not
interfere. The Court further observed that the High Court should
show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts
constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on
which the Chancellor had acted."
"29. In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. B.J. Medical College the Court placed
reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of
Mysore and reiterated the same legal position and observed as
under: (Bhushan Uttam case, SCC p. 223, para 8)
"8. ... the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its
jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of
educational authorities should normally be left to their decision
and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it
must do so in the interest of justice."
"30. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan the Court in
somewhat similar matter observed thus: (SCC pp. 309-10, para 12)
"12. ... It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the
court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection
Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the
candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or
not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection
Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court
has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee
can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality
or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the
Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved
mala fides affecting the selection, etc. It is not disputed that in
the present case the University had constituted the Committee
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee
consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going
through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal
over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground
of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as
assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and
exceeded its jurisdiction."
"31. In Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar the Court observed thus: (SCC
pp. 174-75, para 9)
"9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the
academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with
by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite
qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to
be decided by the academic bodies and the Selection
Committees concerned which invariably consist of experts on
the subjects relevant to the selection."
"32. In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik the Court
while stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert body
observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from
different walks of life who were engaged in or interested in the field
of education and had wide experience and were entrusted with the
duty of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of
such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts."
"33. In Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust the
Court reminded the High Courts that the Court's jurisdiction to
interfere with the discretion exercised by the expert body is
extremely limited."
"34. In Medical Council of India v. Sarang the Court again reiterated the
legal principle that the court should not normally interfere or
interpret the rules and should instead leave the matter to the experts
in the field."
"35. In B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah the Court again
reiterated the legal principles and observed regarding importance of
the recommendations made by the expert committees."
"36. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University the Court
reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in
appeal over the opinion of the experts."
"37. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar
Dhawan again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule
of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic bodies."
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm
the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very
limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged
against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would
normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the
decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle,
the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the
decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its
constraints and limitations in academic matters."
It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the
present writ petition has been filed on the basis of misconceived
facts and law and the same is liable to be dismissed outright as being
devoid of merit.
[13] I have heard at length the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully
examined all the materials available on record.
In para. 1 of the Advertisement dated 12-08-2021, it is
clearly mentioned that applications are invited from intending
candidates having "Experience in Technical Education and/ or
Academic Administration Organization". In para. 2 of the said
advertisement, it is also notified that eligibility criteria of the candidates
will be as prescribed under Section 7.3 of the UCC Regulations, 2018.
By an order dated 18-10-2021, issued by the Secretariat: Higher &
Technical Education Department, Government of Manipur, the
Selection Committee comprising of four members were constituted to
recommend for appointment of a regular Vice-Chancellor of MTU. It is
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
not the case of the petitioner that he has no knowledge about the said
Advertisement dated 12-08-2021 prescribing the eligibility criteria or
the order dated 18-10-2021 constituting the Selection Committee.
Accordingly, this court can reasonably come to the conclusion that
the petitioner has knowledge about the said advertisement as well
as the order constituting the Selection Committee. After having
knowledge of the said advertisement as well as the constitution of
the Selection Committee under the said order dated 18-10-2021, the
petitioner voluntarily and consciously take part in the selection
process/ Interview without raising any objection or protest. Only after
knowing that he has not been successful in the Interview held on
28-10-2021 and only after issuance of the order dated 08-11-2021
appointing the respondent No. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of MTU, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition on 11-11-2021 challenging the
appointment order of the respondent No. 3 by raising grounds such
as impermissibility of prescribing additional eligibility criteria in the
advertisement and irregularity in the constitution of the Selection
Committee. In my considered view, the petitioner having voluntarily
participated in the Interview and having failed in the final selection, it
is not opened to him to turn around and challenge the appointment of
the respondent No. 3 on the aforesaid grounds raised by him as he
had waived his right to raise such objection. It is a well-settled principle
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
of law that an unsuccessful candidate who had taken a chance to get
himself selected in the Interview waived his right to question the
advertisement or methodology adopted for making the selection. In
this regard, this court can gainfully rely on the well-settled principle of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Madan Lal &
ors." (supra), "Ramesh Chandra Shah & ors." (supra), "Pradeep
Kumar Rai" (supra) and "Anupal Singh & ors." (supra). In view of
such well-settled principle of law, this court is not inclined to accept
the grounds raised by the petitioner and the same are hereby rejected.
[14] As per Section 7.3 of the UCC Regulations, 2018, a person
is eligible for the post of Vice-Chancellor, if he or she possesses the
following qualifications:-
(i) A person possessing the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and institutional commitment;
(ii) The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be
a distinguished academician and who possess:-
(a) a minimum of 10 years' of experience as Professor in a
University
OR
(b) 10 years' of experience in a reputed research and/ or
academic administrative organization with proof of
having demonstrated academic leadership.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[15] According to the respondents, the respondent No. 3
possesses the educational qualifications of Bachelor of Civil
Engineering, Master of Civil Engineering and Ph.D. "Traditional
Housing and Architecture of Manipur". The respondent No. 3
possesses the essential qualifications prescribed under Section 7.3 of
the 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. Such factum has not been
disputed by the petitioner and in fact, it is not the case of the petitioner
that the respondent No. 3 did not have 10 years of experience in a
reputed research and/ or academic administrative organization. The
sum and substance of the ground raised by the petitioner is that the
respondent No. 3 did not have a minimum of 10 years of experience
as Professor in a University.
[16] In the present case, a duly constituted Selection Committee,
consisting of experts in the field, after carefully examining and
scrutinizing the qualifications and experience of the respondent
No. 3, found him to be qualified and eligible for the advertised post of
Vice-Chancellor. It is also on record that after holding an Interview
and after examining and scrutinizing the merits and demerits of all
the candidates who participated in the said Interview, the Selection
Committee found the respondent No. 3 to be the most qualified
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
and suitable candidate and recommended him for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor of MTU. On the basis of such recommendation made
by the Selection Committee, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as
the Vice-Chancellor of MTU by issuing an order dated 08-11-2021,
impugned herein.
[17] In view of the above, this court, in exercise of its power for
judicial review, cannot act as an appellate court to examine the validity
of the recommendation made by such expert committee especially
when there is no material on record to support the allegations made
by the petitioner and particularly, when no allegation of mala fide had
been raised against the experts constituting the Selection Committee.
It is a well-settled principle of law that in the academic matters, the
courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have
been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee
and that It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the
courts to leave the decision to the academicians and experts. As a
matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit
in appeal over the decision of the experts and the court must realize
and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. In
this regard, this court can gainfully rely on the principle of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Basavaiah (Dr.)
(supra).
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
[18] In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
and for the findings and reasons given hereinabove, this court did
not find any reason or ground for interfering with the impugned
appointment order. In the result, the present writ petition is hereby
dismissed as being devoid of merit. Parties are to bear their own
course.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 Contd.../-
