State Of Manipur Through The Principal vs Thounaojam Priyoranjan
2026 Latest Caselaw 1141 Mani

Manipur High Court

State Of Manipur Through The Principal vs Thounaojam Priyoranjan on 24 February, 2026

Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma

Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma

KHOIROM Digitally
          KHOIROM
                   signed by

BIPINCHAN Date: 2026.02.25SINGH
          BIPINCHANDRA                                                          REPORTABLE
DRA SINGH 19:59:46 +05'30'                                                        Item No. 13 - 14

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                AT IMPHAL


                                             W.A. No. 108 of 2022


                     1.    State   of   Manipur    through   the  Principal
                     Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary,    Department     of
                     Education (S), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat Building,
                     Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
                     Manipur - 795001.

                     2.    The Director of Education, Govt. of Manipur, RIMS
                     Doctors Colony, Lamphelpat, PO & PS Lamphel, District
                     Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.

                     3.    The DC/Chairman, District Board of Education, SSA,
                     Imphal East, Govt. of Manipur Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan -
                     Manipur, Babupara PO & PS Imphal West, Manipur -
                     795001.
                                                                                  ... Appellants
                                                    - Versus -

                     1.    Thounaojam Priyoranjan, aged about 39 years, S/o
                     (L) Thaounaojam Yaikul, resident of Moirang Kampu Sajeb,
                     PO & PS Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur -
                     795005.

                     2.    Yaithengbam Ganga Chanu, aged about 41 years, S/o
                     Yaithengbam Khamba, resident of Khurai Sajor Leikai, PO
                     Lamlong, PS Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur -
                     795010.

                     3.    Khundongbam Naba Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o
                     (L) Khundongbam Kora Singh, resident of Phaknung, PO
                     Lamlong, PS Lamlai and District Imphal East, Manipur -
                     795010.

                     4.      Ashangbam Amusana Chanu, aged about 43 years,
                     S/o (L) A. Tombi Meetei, resident of Khurai Chingangbam
                     Leikai, PO & PS Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur
                     - 795005.




                                                                                P a g e 1 | 12
 5.     Kshetrimayum Premchandra Meitei, aged about 39
years, S/o Ksh. Ito Singh, resident of Khurai Sajor Leikai, PO
Lamlong, PS Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.

6.    Thaodem Kiranbala Devi, aged about 39 years, S/o
Thaodem Shyama Singh, resident of Khurai Sajor Leikai, PO
Lamlong, PS Porompat and District Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.

7.    Lourembam Rashananda Singh, aged about 41 years,
S/o Lourembam Komei Singh, resident of Phaknung, PO
Lamlong, PS Lamlai and District Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
                                                            ... Respondents

With

B E F O R E HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the appellant : Ms. Ch. Sundari, Government Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocate Date of hearing : 24.02.2026 Date of judgment & order : 24.02.2026

JUDGMENT & ORDER (O R A L) (M. Sundar, CJ)

[1] This order will govern captioned main writ appeal (WA) and

captioned miscellaneous case (MC) thereat.

[2] Captioned main writ appeal is an intra Court appeal and the

same has been filed by State assailing an 'order dated 08.06.2022 made by

a Hon'ble Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 178 of 2021' ('impugned order' for

the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity).

P a g e 2 | 12 [3] Short facts of the case (shorn of details not imperative for

appreciating instant order) are that subject matter of case at hand is

appointment of staff in a residential school in Khurai, Manipur that has been

set up as part of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) programme; on 30.06.2012

State Project Director of SSA/SMA (to be noted, SMA denotes State Mission

Authority) sent a communication to 'Deputy Commissioner' ('DC' for the

sake of convenience) of various Districts about opening of residential school

under SSA and requested formation of a adhoc committee with the

concerned 'District Project Manager' ('DPM' for the sake of convenience) as

chairman to run the residential school in buildings on rental basis until

construction is completed; that this Court is informed that said Project

Director is Director of Schools, Government of Manipur; that thereafter, as

regards the residential school in Khurai under SSA (said school), a 14

(fourteen) member adhoc committee was constituted in a meeting

convened by the then local legislator (MLA) on 24.09.2012; that this 14

(fourteen) member adhoc committee was duly approved by the

DC/Chairman of the District Board of Education, SSA Imphal East on

17.10.2012; that in the interregnum the adhoc committee appointed

12(twelve) individuals {7(seven) teaching staff and 5 (five) non-teaching

staff}; that 3 (three) teaching staff resigned and the remaining 9 (nine)

continued to work in the school for over 10 (ten) years rendering

blemishless service; that at such point of time, the same DC/Chairman

issued show cause notices to appointees (staff) stating that appointment is

irregular as it was on the basis of recommendation of adhoc committee

P a g e 3 | 12 chaired by local legislator and not by DPM; that these show cause notices

called upon the noticees to appear and submit their replies on 30.01.2021;

that the noticees responded to the show cause notices and went before

'DC/Chairman, District Board of Education' ('said DC' for the sake of

convenience) and submitted that they are not at fault, they have rendered

blemishless service for over a decade and that they would continue to

render blemishless service; that on the same day i.e. 30.01.2021 said DC

made an order stating that the original appointment is irregular as the

adhoc committee was not chaired by the DC and on that ground, all 9 (nine)

individuals were disengaged; that out of 9 (nine) disengaged individuals

7(seven) approached this Court assailing the 30.01.2021 order of said DC

by way of W.P.(C) No. 178 of 2021; that a Hon'ble Single Bench of this

Court, after full contest allowed the writ petition in favour of 7 (seven)

individuals; that State on 15.10.2022 filed the captioned main WA along

with MC(WA) thereat; that on 09.11.2022 an interim order staying

operation of the impugned order of Hon'ble Single Bench was made; that

on 09.11.2022, 7 (seven) individuals were stopped from reporting to

service; that this means that 4 (four) non-teaching staff and 3 (three)

teaching staff who have rendered blemishless service for over a decade i.e.,

the period from 28.09.2012 to 09.11.2022 to be precise were disengaged;

that the pleadings have been completed and main WA was heard out.

[4] In the hearing today, Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned State counsel

for appellant and Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for all

respondents [7(seven) writ petitioners before the Hon'ble Single Bench] are

P a g e 4 | 12 before this Court, captioned WA was heard out in full and this Court comes

to the conclusion that captioned WA deserves to be dismissed. The reasons

are as follows:

(i) The sheet anchor contention of State in the captioned WA is that

the initial appointment is irregular as adhoc committee was

chaired by legislator (MLA) and not by DPM. In response to this

primary contention of State, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that said DC approved the constitution of the adhoc

committee on 17.10.2012. There is no dispute that on 17.10.2012

the adhoc committee was approved by the same DC i.e., said DC

and this proceedings bearing reference No. 2/2012-RES(DPO-

I/E)SSA is placed before us. To be noted, the disengagement

order was made by said DC, though the approval of DC on

17.10.2012 is post appointment of 7 (seven) individuals on

28.09.2012. As there is clear approval with full knowledge of said

DC, the argument that the adhoc committee is irregular and

therefore the appointment is bad and flawed is flattened and it

does not find favour with us. In other words, the ex-post facto

approval of said DC on 17.10.2012 takes the wind out of the sails

of the sheet anchor argument of State i.e., adhoc committee is

irregular as it has not been chaired by DPM.

(ii) This Court notices that out of 7 (seven) individuals before this

Court, 4 (four) are non-teaching staff i.e., Full Time Accountant,

Assistant / Staff Support, Assistant Cook and Peon cum

P a g e 5 | 12 Chowkidar. These 4 (four) non-teaching staff along with 3 (three)

teaching staff, of which one is part time teacher had rendered

blemishless service for over a decade and therefore, it cannot

now be gainsaid that they have to apply again and they will be

given a 'fair opportunity' to be recruited afresh.

(iii) Next point which can be described as indefeasible and significant

is, this Court finds that there are as many as 20 (twenty) such

schools in the State of Manipur and with regard to the other 19

(nineteen) schools also, the same kind of appointment had been

made but those appointees have been construed to have been

duly appointed and are continuing. This has been articulated by

the writ petitioners in Paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition which

reads as follows:

'8. That, the process of appointment of teachers of all the 20 schools under SSA/SMA was undertaken in the exact same manner and therefore, the act of the respondents in calling upon only the petitioners and not teachers of the other said schools, amounts to undue victimization fueled by malafide.' This paragraph No. 8 has been made by the State in the affidavit-

in-opposition in Paragraph No. 10 which reads as follows:

'10. That, with reference to Para No. 8 of the Writ Petition, the deponent denies that the respondents have victimized the petitioner alone in view of the submissions made I the foregoing paras of this affidavit-in-opposition.'

As regards the nine paragraphs preceding Paragraph No. 10 of

the affidavit-in-opposition, there is no averment whatsoever

P a g e 6 | 12 either to the effect that appointment had been made by a proper

committee headed by DPM in the remaining 19 (nineteen)

schools or is there an averment that action has been taken with

regard to the other 19 (nineteen) schools also. Though this Court

is clear that there cannot be any equality and illegality, the point

is, when similar appointments have been made in 19 (nineteen)

other schools when the same have not been construed as

irregular appointments, State singing a different tune with regard

to said school alone is clearly discriminatory and this can neither

be countenanced nor sustained.

(iv) This Court finds, as already alluded to supra that 4 (four) out of

the 7 (seven) writ petitioners are non-teaching staff namely, Full

Time Accountant, Assistant / Staff Support, Assistant Cook and

Peon cum Chowkidar and they have rendered blemishless service

for over a decade i.e., over 10 (ten) years now.

(v) As regards the adhoc committee, even according to the afore-

referred 30.06.2012 communication from the State Project

Director of SSA / SMA, it is only for the purpose of running

residential schools on rental basis until construction is completed.

Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that this adhoc committee

contemplated in the 30.06.2012 communication from the State

Project Director of SSA/SMA to the DCs is adhoc committee which

pertains to recruitment. In this view of the matter also, the

P a g e 7 | 12 burden of the song qua the proposition on which the campaign

of State is predicated is a non-starter.

(vi) As regards 17.10.2012 ex-post facto approval by said DC, the

same committee with the same legislator had been approved by

the very DC (said DC) who made the disengagement order.

(vii) There is no disputation or contestation before this Court that the

17.10.2012 ex-post facto approval of the said DC is operating

even today. There is nothing to demonstrate that this ex-post

facto approval by said DC has been nullified or cancelled. This

means that the adhoc committee which was originally constituted

in 24.09.2012 meeting as approved (ex-post facto) by said DC

stands approved by said DC even as on today.

(viii) Learned counsel for respondents pressed into service an order

made by a co-ordinate co-equal Division Bench of this Court being

order dated 18.04.2024 in W.A. 34 of 2021 (State of Manipur

-vs- Yaikhom Joykumar Singh & Anr.). In this Joykumar

case, a question as to whether the DC who made a appointment

was not the authorized appointing authority came up for

consideration and this Court came to the conclusion that in the

absence of any Rule demonstrating that the authority lacks

authorization, the appointment cannot be interfered with. In the

case on hand also, there is no material to demonstrate that the

adhoc committee constituted in the meeting on 24.09.2012 is

illegal or hit by vice of any Rule much less is there any condified

P a g e 8 | 12 provision vide which adhoc committee lacks authority to make

appointments. To be noted, as regards this 18.04.2024 order in

Joykumar case made by a co-ordinate co-equal Bench, the

same has been carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court by State vide

SLP(Civil) No. 16703 of 2022 and Hon'ble Supreme Court has

refused to interfere with the order and the SLP has been

dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2022. Therefore, this Court is

of the considered view that Joykumar principle buttresses the

submission of learned counsel for respondents that it has not

been demonstrated that the adhoc committee originally

constituted is hit by any Rule or any codified provision and on the

contrary adhoc committee has ex-post facto been approved by

the very said DC who has now made the order of disengagement

of the individuals/respondents.

(ix) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bhartiya Seva Samaj

Trust through President & Anr. -vs- Yogeeshbhai Ambalal

Patel & Anr.' reported in (2012) 9 SCC 310 was pressed into

service by learned counsel for respondents for the proposition

that a person alleging infamy cannot be heard at any forum.

Bharatiya Seva Samaj Trust case on facts is one where an

assistant teacher who did not possess prescribed qualification of

primary training certificate was appointed and subsequently

terminated. In the case on hand, said DC who has made the order

impugned in the writ petition has approved the adhoc committee

P a g e 9 | 12 and therefore, Bharatiya Seva Samaj Trust principle does

come to the aid of respondents.

(x) As regards the impugned order, Hon'ble Single Bench has noticed

that it is nobody's case that respondents (writ petitioners before

the Single Bench) are not eligible candidates or they are not

eligible at the relevant point of time. This finding returned by the

Hon'ble Single Bench in the impugned order has not been

assailed. This means that the respondents before us were eligible

to be appointed to their respective posts as of 28.09.2012.

Hon'ble Single Bench has also noticed that the DPM participated

in the committee meeting held on 28.09.2012 but in his capacity

as Vice Chairman and therefore, this buttresses the case of the

writ petitioners before the Hon'ble Single Bench and this finding

returned by the Hon'ble Single Bench also cannot be found fault

with and the same deserves to be sustained.

(xi) Hon'ble Single Bench has also noticed that said DC has approved

the adhoc committee (as this Division Bench has also done) and

as the conclusion that this Court has arrived at is in tandem with

the dispositive reasoning of Hon'ble Single Bench, we find that

there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

(xii) The argument that there is no formal advertisement, in the

instant case, considering the facts and circumstances and

trajectory the matter has taken pales into insignificance for three

reasons and they are (a) admittedly it is nobody's case that the

P a g e 10 | 12 respondents did not possess requisite qualification on the date of

appointment i.e., on 28.09.2012 and (b) the adhoc committee

which appointed 7 (seven) respondents has subsequently been

approved (ex-post facto approval) by the said DC and (c) this

Court finds that there is no iota of blemish qua respondents i.e.,

they have all rendered blemishless service for well over a decade

now. Therefore, the respondents cannot be disengaged and

cannot be penalized for what according to the State is an

appointment that is not regular which was done way back in 2012

particularly when a similar course of appointment has been made

in 19 (nineteen) other schools and all those appointees are

continuing.

[5] This Court wanted to know whether any appointments have

been made to the posts of 7 (seven) individuals i.e., 3 (three) teaching staff

and 4 (four) non-teaching staff post 09.11.2022. In response this Court has

been informed by learned State counsel that no appointments have been

made and the posts are lying vacant. In this scenario, this Court is of the

considered view that State will do well to ensure that the 7 (seven)

respondents resume their work forthwith. This is more so as it is a case of

a school under SSA programme and it is not desirable to understaffed

schools as that would ultimately impair the education of children.

[6] Though obvious we make it clear that originally on

28.09.2012, 12 (twelve) individuals were appointed, 3 (three) had resigned

and out of remaining 9 (nine) individuals, only 7 (seven) are before us.

P a g e 11 | 12 Therefore, other than 7 (seven) respondents, it is open to the State to resort

to recruitment as per prevailing/operating recruitment procedures.

[7] Apropos, in the light of narrative, discussion and dispositive

reasoning supra, captioned writ appeal (WA) fails and the same is

dismissed. Consequently, captioned miscellaneous case (MC) thereat also

perishes with the WA and the same is also dismissed, though obvious for

the purpose of specificity it is made clear that the interim order dated

09.11.2022 made in the captioned MC now stands effaced. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                            JUDGE                CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

Bipin


P.S. I :      Upload forthwith.

P.S. II :     All concerned will stand bound by web copy
              uploaded in High Court website.




                                                             P a g e 12 | 12