Manipur High Court
Chander Mohan vs High Court Of Manipur & 3 Ors on 25 February, 2026
Author: A. Bimol Singh
Bench: A. Bimol Singh
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
SINGH
Item No. 18
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.02.25
20:01:04 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No. 281 of 2024
Chander Mohan
... Petitioners
- Versus -
High Court of Manipur & 3 Ors.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ] 25.02.2026 [1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the listing on 13.10.2025, which reads as follows:
'[1] Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for petitioner is before this Court on VC platform.
[2] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1; Mr. H. Debendra, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 2; Mr. M. Nicky, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 are before this Court. [3] Captioned matter pertains to selection and appointment qua Manipur Judicial Service, Grade - I. [4] Writ petitioner was unsuccessful in the process in the year, 2019.
Page 1|4 [5] Writ petitioner has assailed the final result dated 18.10.2019, No. HCM/R-5/2019-Estt(II)/22207 - 17 published by the High Court of Manipur (Annexure-A/4) (impugned proceedings).
[6] To be noted, in and vide the impugned order, third and fourth respondents have been selected and we are informed that they have now been appointed.
[7] Adverting to Paragraph Nos. 10 & 11 of the affidavit-in- opposition of the first respondent, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel on instructions submits that the writ petitioner does not have knowledge of State official language (Manipuri). This is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. [8] The writ petitioner predicated his arguments on a reply to a RTI querry being reply dated 29.08.2022 (Annexure-A/8) under the column, Essential Qualification (knowledge of Manipuri or other local languages). It has been marked 'NIL' for the writ petitioner. While disputing this, writ petitioner submits that third and fourth respondents have secured less vide the column, Grand Total (350 Marks).
[9] We requisition following from respondent No. 1:
(i) The application form with a column which talks about knowledge of Manipuri or other language i.e. knowledge of State official language;
(ii) Whether the application form calls upon the aspirants to produce any document in support of the above;
(iii) The file which demonstrates the basis for Paragraph Nos. 10 & 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the first respondent which asserts that writ petitioner does not have knowledge of official language of State (Manipuri).
[10] List a fortnight hence.
[11] List on 04.11.2025.'
Page 2|4
[2] Today, Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for petitioners is
before this Court on the VC platform.
[3] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior advocate instructed by
Mr. Rustam, learned counsel on record for R-1; Mr. M. Devananda, learned Additional Advocate General and learned senior counsel instructed by Ms. Jyotsana, learned counsel on record for R-2; Mr. M. Nicky, learned counsel for R-3 and Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for R-4 are before this Court.
[4] Adverting to afore-referred 13.10.2025 proceedings, more particularly Paragraph No. 9 thereat, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior advocate for R-1, on instructions placed before us a copy of the Application Form and following points emerged:
(a) Application Form does not contain a column which talks about knowledge of Manipuri (State Official Language). However, in the advertisement dated 12.04.2019 (A/1), Serial No. 3 is eligibility and clause (iii) thereat says that knowledge of Manipur State Official Language (Manipuri) is one of the eligibility criteria;
(b) Neither the advertisement nor the Application Form calls upon aspirants to produce any document in support of knowledge of Manipur State Official Language (Manipuri);
Page 3|4
(c) Learned senior counsel for R-1 submitted that his instructing counsel Mr. Rustam has the entire file but Mr. Rustam seeks time for flagging the relevant portions of the file and keeping it ready.
[5] Let the flagged file be kept ready by learned counsel on record for R-1 by next listing.
[6] List on 08.04.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bipin
Page 4|4