Manipur High Court
Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 5 October, 2021
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh, aged about 71 years, S/O
(L) Laiphrakpam Sura Singh, resident of Kha-Naorem
Leikai, P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei and District
Imphal West, Manipur-795003.
......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 Polytechnic Campus,
Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District-Imphal
West, Manipur-795004.
...... Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioner :: Mr. BP Sahu, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondents :: Mr. Th. Sukumar, GA for R1
Mr. N. Zequeson, Adv. for R2
Date of reserving Judgment
& Order :: 23.09.2021
Date of Judgment &Order :: 05.10.2021
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned UO note bearing No.12/1/Min/Edn/Fy/CAD/2021-MTU, dated 23.08.2021 issued by the Minister, Education, Manipur and the letter dated 03.09.2021 of the Deputy Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Manipur and also to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to function and impart his duties as Vice- Chancellor of Manipur Technical University as per law without any hindrance or interference till the appointment of the new Vice- Chancellor.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as regular Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service in the month of October, 2020. After his retirement, no regular Vice- Chancellor was appointed and the said post was illegally held by the Commissioner, Higher Education. According to the petitioner, by the order dated 17.08.2021, the Deputy Secretary in the Higher and Technical Education Department appointed the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University on a stop-gap arrangement for a period till a regular Vice-Chancellor is WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 Page |3 appointed. Pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2021, the petitioner took charge and functioning as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. While so, the Minister for Education, in his UO note dated 23.08.2021 restricted the powers of the Vice- Chancellor and the said UO note was directed to be communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University by the Deputy Secretary. Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary of Higher and Technical Education vide letter dated 03.09.2021 communicated the same to the Registrar. According to the petitioner, the Minister for Education has no authority to restrict the power and functions of the Vice-Chancellor. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Opposing the writ petition, the first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant provision of any Act/Rule of the University, which prohibits the Administrative Secretary in assuming the charge of the Vice-Chancellor on in-charge basis as a stop-gap arrangement. As such, the allegation of the petitioner that the post of Vice-Chancellor was malafidely and illegally held by the Commissioner, Higher Education is without any legal basis. It is stated that the petitioner has been designated as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University only as stop-gap arrangement till WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 Page |4 a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed as per the order dated 17.8.2021. It is further stated that Section 14(2) of the Manipur Technical University Act provides that the term of the office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 70 years whichever is earlier. The petitioner who was the first Vice- Chancellor had completed his term of three years on 24.10.2020 and as per the official records, his recorded date of birth is 01.12.1950 and he has completed the age of 70 years on 01.12.2020. It is also stated that before the designation of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor as stop-gap arrangement, appointment to the post of the Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University on a regular basis was already issued under advertisement No.03/2021, dated 12.8.2021. Therefore, the impugned UO note of the Minister dated 23.8.2021 cannot be treated as curtailment on the power of the petitioner as Vice- Chancellor and there is no malafide intension in the UO note, which was communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University. The regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor being in a very advanced stage and applications had already been received and also the Selection Committee was constituted. WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |5 Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
4. Challenging the impugned UO note of the Minister for Education dated 23.8.2021, which was communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University by the Deputy Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education dated 03.09.2021, Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the impugned UO note, the petitioner was directed to execute only day-to-day administration of the University, which is patently illegal and arbitrary in the eye of law. He would submit that contrary to the provisions of Manipur Technical University Act, the Minister has curtailed powers of the petitioner. In fact, the Education Minister cannot interfere in the matter and also he cannot dictate the terms of the University. Further, the Education Minister has done so arbitrarily which is not tenable in the eye of law.
5. Per contra, Mr. Sukumar, learned GA for the State submitted that the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 forwarded to the Registrar through letter dated 03.09.2021 cannot be treated as restrictions imposed upon the petitioner, as in the impugned communication dated 23.8.2021, it has been mentioned that the WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 Page |6 process for formation of Select Committee for appointment of new Vice-Chancellor may be expedited at the earliest. Further, the said UO note cannot in any way be treated as restriction on the powers of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor and that the petitioner is trying to mislead the Court by submitting wrong facts.
6. Mr. Sukumar, learned GA for the State further submitted that the Minister for Education is the administrative head of the department and that there is no malafide intention in the impugned UO note which was communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University. He would also submit that the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor is only a stop-gap arrangement and that notification calling for applications for appointment to a regular Vice-Chancellor has already been issued. He further submitted that the petitioner being over-aged and also since applications already received and the Selection Committee has also been constituted, the petitioner cannot question the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 of the Education Minister and thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 Manipur Technical University has represented WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 Page |7 that though he appeared for the respondent No. 2 the Manipur University is nothing to do this matter.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Government counsel for the State first respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any authority, the Minister for Education, vide impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021, has directed the petitioner to only execute the day-to-day administration of the University by restricting the other functions namely process for formation of the Selection Committee for appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor, process for recruitment for Assistant Professors, all financial matters and the casual appointment under contractual basis. According to the petitioner, the restrictions imposed by the Minister is arbitrary and he cannot impose such restrictions.
10. It appears that by the order dated 17.8.2021, the petitioner was designated as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University as stop-gap arrangement till a regular Vice- Chancellor is appointed. The appointment letter of the Deputy Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, reads thus: WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |8 "In supersession of al previous Orders issued in this regard and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14(4) & (5) of Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to designate DrLaiphrakpamTombi Singh as the Vice Chancellor of Manipur Technical University only as a stop-gap arrangement till a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed."
11. On a careful reading of the order dated 17.08.2021, it is clear that the order did not specify any restriction on the functioning of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University as he then held in regular. However, vide impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 of the Education Minister, the following restrictions were imposed on the petitioner. For proper appreciation, the impugned UO note is extracted herein under:
"In view of order No.22/3/MSTU/THE.16(Pt-III) dated 17th August 2021 wherein DrLaiphrakpamTombi Singh has been designated as the Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University as stop-gap arrangement till a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed. Pending appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor, the following may be communicated to Dr Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh.WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
Page |9
1. Process for formation of Select Committee for appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor notified vide order No.15/1/2016-MTU dated 12th August 2021 may be expedited at the earliest.
2. No process for recruitment of Assistant Professors will be taken up until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed for Manipur Technical University.
3. All financial matters will be referred to Secretariat: Higher Education Department for approval until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed.
4. No casual appointment under contractual basis/work charge basis shall be affected without approval of the administrative department.
5. The Vice-Chancellor appointed on stop-gap arrangement may also be directed that only day to day administration of the University shall be executed."
12. By referring to the provisions of Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, particularly, Section 14(4) and (5), Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 P a g e | 10 when the petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor after his retirement, the Minister for Education cannot restrict the power and functions of the petitioner wholly or partly and the Manipur Technical University Act does not stipulate such restrictions.
13. As stated supra, the petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor after his retirement under the provisions of Section 14(4) and (5) of the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016. Sections 14(4) provides as under:
"Section 14(4) - When a permanent vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor occurs by reason of his death, resignation, removal or the expiry of his term of office, it shall be filled by the Chancellor in accordance with sub-section (1), and for so long as it is not so filled, stop-gap arrangement shall be made by him under and in accordance with sub-section (5)."
Section 14(5) provides as under:
"Section 14(5) - When a temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor occurs by reason of leave, suspension or otherwise or when a stop-gap arrangement is necessary under sub-section (4), the Registrar shall forthwith report the matter to the Chancellor, who shall make, on advise of the State Government, WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 P a g e | 11 arrangement for carrying on the functions of the office of the Vice-Chancellor."
14. At this stage, Mr. Sukumar, learned GA for the State submits that Section 14(2) of the Act provides that the term of the office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 70 years whichever is earlier. In the case on hand, the petitioner, who was the first Vice-Chancellor has completed his term of three years on 24.10.2020 and the office records reveal that the date birth of the petitioner is 01.12.1950 and had completed 70 years on 01.12.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to continue the post. The said submission of learned counsel for the State cannot be countenanced, as the designation and/or appointment of the petitioner as stop-gap arrangement is till a regular Vice- Chancellor is appointed.
15. It is true that the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 70 years whichever is earlier. The respondent authorities failed to produce any record to show that the petitioner had completed 70 years at the time of his appointment on 17.08.2021 or any material to show that the WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 P a g e | 12 petitioner is not entitled to hold the post. If really, the petitioner is over-aged as alleged by the respondent authorities, the petitioner would not have been given opportunity to serve as Vice- Chancellor till a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed. More over, the plea of over-age cannot be taken by the respondent authorities, as the material produced would show that the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor after his retirement is as per the provisions of the Act and in fact, nobody questioned his appointment and/or his designation as Vice- Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. The Act also does not provide any restrictions to be imposed on the stop-gap appointed Vice-Chancellor.
16. It is apposite to mention that Manipur Technical University Act provides full power even to the stop-gap appointed Vice-Chancellor. While things stood thus, the Minister for Education on his own cannot impose restrictions on the petitioner that no process for any recruitment and no casual appointment be made by the petitioner. Similarly, the Minister for Education cannot impose and dictate terms against the provisions that all financial matters have to be handled by the Secretariat, Higher Education Department and not by the petitioner herein. Further, the direction of the Minister for Education to execute the day-to- WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 13 day administration of the University by the petitioner is against the provisions of Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 and the Minister for Education, on his own, cannot impose such restrictions on the petitioner, who was appointed and/or designated as Vice-Chancellor as per law till a regular Vice- Chancellor is appointed.
17. The arguments of learned counsel for the State is that the contents of the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 of the Minister for Education cannot be treated as restrictions imposed on the petitioner for the reason that the process for formation of the Selection Committee for appointment of a new Vice- Chancellor was directed to be expedited at the earliest and such communication cannot in any way be treated as restriction on the power of the petitioner.
18. It is not in dispute that applications for filling up the post of Vice-Chancellor were called for and the Selection Committee was also constituted in that regard. The petitioner has also not disputed the process for formation of the Selection Committee for appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor and in fact, the petitioner submits that he is not interfering in the selection process of the regular Vice-Chancellor. However, the petitioner is WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 P a g e | 14 concerned with the other restrictions imposed on him by the Education Minister that the petitioner cannot process for recruitment of Assistant Professors and cannot made any casual appointment under contractual basis and also the petitioner is aggrieved by direction of the Education Minister that all financial matters are to be referred to the Secretariat.
19. As stated supra, since the said restrictions imposed by the Minister for Education are against the provisions of the Act and the Minister for Education cannot impose such restrictions even on a stop-gap appointed Vice-Chancellor, this Court is of the view that the impugned UO note of the Minister is unsustainable in the eye of law. That apart, before issuing the impugned UO note, no deliberations were taken place and it also violates the principles of natural justice.
20. The Vice-Chancellor is the most important functionary in a University not only on the administrative side, but also for securing right atmosphere for the teachers and students to do work effectively and in the right spirit. As admitted by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is the first Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University and on his retirement in the month of October, 2020, the Commissioner of Higher Education was WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 P a g e | 15 looking after the said post of Vice-Chancellor till the petitioner was appointed and/or designated as Vice-Chancellor on 17.8.2021 as stop-gap arrangement. Nearly nine-and-half months the Commissioner held the post of Vice-Chancellor and thereafter, the petitioner is holding the post. As state supra, before appointing and/or designating the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor, a notification was issued on 12.08.2021 calling for applications for filling up the post and the said process is on. At best, the respondent authorities can only speed-up the process for appointing the regular Vice-Chancellor.
21. It is pertinent to note that no material has been produced by the respondent authorities to show that the petitioner has misappropriated funds of the University and has recruited the Assistant Professors illegally and also illegally appointed the casual staff.
22. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor after attaining superannuation is pleasure appointment.
23. The pleasure appointments are made under the pleasure of the President, like Governors etc, whereas statutory appointments are made under the statute and the service WP(C) No. 602 of 2021 P a g e | 16 conditions of the incumbents are governed by the statute. Therefore their appointments are not pleasure appointments. Since the petitioner was appointed as per Sections 14(4) and (5) of Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, contrary to the provisions of the said Act, by the impugned UO note, the Minister for Education cannot impose restrictions on the petitioner and the impugned UO note dated 23.08.2021 is illegal, vindictive and malafide in the eye of law and also not allowing the petitioner to function as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University is arbitrary in nature and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
24. For the foregoing discussions, a) the writ petition is allowed; (b) the impugned UO note dated 23.8.2021 issued by the Minister, Education, Manipur and the communication of the Deputy Secretary to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University dated 03.9.2021 are set aside except Clause No.1; (c) As a consequence, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to function as Vice-Chancellor as per Manipur Technical University Act and the Rules framed thereunder till the regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed; (d) There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021
P a g e | 17 It is made clear that this order will not prevent the respondent authorities from filling up the regular Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University in accordance with law.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
SHAMURAIL Digitally signed by
ATPAM SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL Date: 2021.10.06
SHARMA 13:01:04 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 602 of 2021