Manipur High Court
Shri Mutum Shyamkesho Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented By on 27 January, 2023
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2023.01.27 16:09:50 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021
Shri Mutum Shyamkesho Singh, aged about 64 years
S/o Mutum Yaima Singh, a resident of Kwakeithel
Akham Leikai P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001.
---Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by
Commissioner/Secretary, Hr. and Tech.
Education, Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat
Building, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. District Imphal
West, Manimpur-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,
Technical Manipur Technical University,
Government of Manipur, Polytechnic Campus,
Takyelpat, P).O. P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal
West, Manipur-795004.
---Respondents
WP(C) No. 791 of 2021
Dr. Khaidem Joychandra Singh, aged about 65
years, S/O Kh. Chingthoi Singh, resident of Thongju
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |2
Part - II, P.O. Canchipur P.S. Singjamei, District
Imphal East, 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. Imphal, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
.... Respondents.
WP(C) No. 825 of 2021
Dr. Ningthoujam Ram Singh, aged about 69 years,
S/O (Late) Ningthoujam Babu Singh, resident of
Chinga Makha, Liwa Road, P.O. Canchipur, P.S.
Singjamei, 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.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |3
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.
.... Respondents.
WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Dr. Khaidem Joychandra Singh, aged about 65
years, S/O Kh. Chingthoi Singh, resident of Thongju
Part - II, P.O. Canchipur P.S. Singjamei, District
Imphal East, 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,
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |4
Polytechnic Campus, Takyelpat, P.O. & P.S.
Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
.... Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Adv. in
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021;
Mr. BP Sahu, Sr. Adv. in
WP(C) No. 791 of 2021,
WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 &
WP(C) No. 825 of 2021;
For the Respondents :: Mr. Y. Ashang, GA
Mr. T. Momo, Advocate
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 22.12.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 27.01.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P.(C) No.805 and 807 of 2021 have been filed
by the petitioners Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh and Mutum
Shaymkesho Singh to quash the order dated 8.11.2021 issued
by the Chancellor, Manipur Technical University along with the
entire recruitment process initiated for appointment to the post
of Vice-Chancellor and to direct the respondents to initiate fresh
recruitment process by issuing re-advertisement for filling up
the said post as per the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021
Page |5
and/or its statutes etc. and the UGC norms and to complete the
same as per law.
2. W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh for issuance of writ of
quo-warranto to declare the appointment of the third respondent
Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur
Technical University and his continuance in the said post.
3. W.P.(C) No.791 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioner to quash the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and/or
the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to the said
advertisement and to direct the respondents to re-advertise the
post of Vice-Chancellor as per the Manipur Technical University
Act, 2016 and/or its statutes etc. and UGC norms.
4. Since the challenge made in these writ petitions is
one and the same, all the writ petitions were heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
BRIEF FACTS:
W.P.(C) No.791 of 2021:
5. The petitioner is a retired teacher/academician and former Head of Department in the Manipur College, Imphal having more than 10 years of experience in academic WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 Page |6 administration organization. The petitioner came across an advertisement dated 12.8.2021 issued by the Registrar, Manipur Technical University inviting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. However, in the advertisement, an additional eligibility criteria, namely, experience in technical education and/or academic administration organization has been added against the prescribed criteria as indicated in the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The aforesaid act of the official respondents, clearly shows that the same has been done to favour and appoint some blue-eyed persons so as to exclude the other eligible candidates. Such an action of the official respondents is in gross violation of law. Hence, the writ petition.
6. Resisting the writ petition, second respondent Manipur Technical University filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that for better administration and for bringing qualitative improvement in the overall functioning of the newly established Technical University, "experience in technical education and/or academic administration organization" was inserted in the advertisement after the approval accorded by the Hon'ble Governor of Manipur. It is stated that in the appointment of Vice-Chancellor of Technical Universities across the country, WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 Page |7 experience in technical education etc. has been specified apart from other qualifications contained in the UGC Regulations, 2018 at the time of notification. Therefore, the said added additional criteria is not illegal or unlawful and also is not in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
W.P.No.805 of 2021:
7. The petitioner is a Professor/Academician and former Head of Department Life Science in the Manipur University. The Registrar, Manipur Technical University, invited applications for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor specifying the eligibility criteria. The petitioner applied for the said post and was called for interview vide letter dated 21.10.2021 and he was requested to appear before the Selection Committee along with original copies of academic and other related documents and the interview was accordingly held as per schedule. Thereafter, the Chancellor, Manipur Technical University issued an order dated 8.11.2021 appointing the private respondent No.3 to the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University, though he is not at all qualified/eligible for appointment to the said post. According to the petitioner, the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 Page |8 private respondent is only a Selection Grade Lecturer which is equivalent to the post of Associate Professor in Government Polytechnic, Takyelpat and at present, he is working as Deputy Director, Technical Education, Government of Manipur. Challenging the order of appointment dated 8.11.2021, the writ petition has been filed.
8. Resisting the writ petition, the first respondent State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that for better administration and also for bringing qualitative improvement, an additional criterion was inserted in the advertisement calling for applications for filling up the post of Vice-Chancellor. It is stated that for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical Education, a Selection Committee under Section 14(1) of Manipur Technical University Act was constituted on 18.10.2021 and the Selection Committee has recommended the private respondent No.3 as he possesses all the required eligibility criteria and has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. The second respondent Manipur Technical University filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Selection Committee consisting of (i) State Government nominee and WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 Page |9 Chairman; (ii) Nominee of the Chancellor; (iii) Nominee of the Board of Manipur Technical University; and, (iv) Nominee of the UGC having found the respondent No.3 eligible for the post of Vice-Chancellor had called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and after interviewing the short-listed candidates and after due consideration of the suitability, the Selection Committee had made its recommendation for appointment to the post of Vice- Chancellor, Manipur Technical University. Thereafter, the third respondent was appointed by the Chancellor on 8.11.2021 and he had joined the office of the Vice-Chancellor on 10.11.2021. It is stated that the third respondent fulfilled all the eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 7.3 and also he possess all the required eligibility criteria and has been appointed as Vice- Chancellor. Therefore, there is no infirmity in appointing the third respondent as Vice-Chancellor. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. The third respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor as per the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and he had submitted his application on 9.9.2021. Thereafter, Selection Committee having found the respondent No.3 eligible for the post of Vice- Chancellor had called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and he WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 10 appeared for the interview along with the other short-listed candidates. The Selection Committee after interviewing the short-listed candidates and after due consideration of the suitability of the candidate had made its recommendation for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and, thereafter, he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor on 8.11.2021. Since the third respondent fulfilled the eligibility criteria set out in the UGC Regulations, the official respondents have selected and appointed the third respondent to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. That apart, the third respondent possesses all the required eligibility criteria as mentioned in the second limb of Regulation 7.3(i), i.e., ten years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of W.P.No.805 of 2021.
11. The fourth respondent UGC filed affidavit-in-
opposition stating that it is for the institution/organization/employer to prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference and it is for the employer/institution/organization who is best suited to decide the requirements of a candidate according to the needs WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 11 of the employer and the nature of work to be employed thereon subject to the fulfillment of other criteria as per the rules and regulations of the UGC or which do not go in conflict with such rules and regulations of the UGC. It is stated that as per Regulation 7.3, the Vice-Chancellor is to be selected by a Search-cum-Selection Committee. The members of the Search-cum-Selection Committee as per UGC guidelines is an expert body, wherein a nominee of the UGC was also included, after considering all the issues like qualifications, experience etc. and has recommended the name of the respondent No.3 who claims to be eligible for appointment as Vice-Chancellor as per the experience of 10 years working in the Department of Technical Education, Manipur since 2011 and also on the ground that the Department of Technical Education is an academic administrative organization. As such the collective wisdom of the Selection-cum-Search Committee could not be questioned in any manner as it is the prerogative of the Committee based on the collective judgment after examining the candidates educational background and performance in the interview and also without any deviation from the UGC regulations prevailing at the relevant point of time. Since the petitioner subjected himself to the selection process without actually challenging the stipulations made in the advertisement WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 12 dated 12.8.2021 and appeared before the interview committee without any demur, cannot question the selection process. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
W.P.No.807 of 2021:
12. The petitioner is a retired Associate Professor/Academician and former Head of Department in the Manipur College having more than 10 years of experience in academic administration organization. It is stated that he came to know the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 issued by the Registrar of Manipur Technical University thereby inviting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Since in the said advertisement an additional eligibility criteria has been added against the prescribed criteria and being aggrieved by the said advertisement, he has filed W.P.No.791 of 2021 before this Court with a prayer to quash the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to the said advertisement. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Chancellor of Manipur Technical University issued an order dated 8.11.2021 thereby appointing private respondent No.3 to the post of Vice-Chancellor inspite of the fact that he is not at all eligible/qualified for appointment to the said post, as he is only a Lecturer (Selection Grade), which is equivalent to an WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 13 Associate Professor in Government Polytechnic. Hence, the writ petition.
13. Resisting the writ petition, the second respondent Manipur Technical University filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that for better administration and also for bringing qualitative improvement, the additional criteria was inserted in the advertisement calling for applications for filling up the post of Vice-Chancellor. It is stated that for appointment of Vice- Chancellor, Manipur Technical Education, a Selection Committee under Section 14(1) of Manipur Technical University Act was constituted on 18.10.2021 and the Selection Committee has recommended the private respondent No.3, as he possesses all the required eligibility criteria and has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor of Manipur Technical University.
14. It is stated that the Selection Committee consist of
(i) State Government nominee and Chairman; (ii) Nominee of the Chancellor; (iii) Nominee of the Board of Manipur Technical University and (iv) Nominee of the UGC having found the respondent No.3 eligible for the post of Vice-Chancellor had called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and after interviewing the short-listed candidates and after due consideration of the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 14 suitability of the candidates to Manipur Technical University's requirement had made its recommendation for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University. Thereafter, the third respondent was appointed by the Chancellor on 8.11.2021 and he had joined the office of the Vice-Chancellor on 10.11.2021. It is stated that the third respondent fulfilled all the eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 7.3 and also he possesses all the required eligibility criteria and has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
15. The third respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition, as he had not applied for the post of Vice- Chancellor as per the advertisement. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.8.2021, the third respondent applied on 9.9.2021 for the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University. Thereafter, the Selection Committee having found the respondent No.3 eligible for the post of Vice-Chancellor had called him for interview on 28.10.2021 and he appeared for the interview along with the other short-listed candidates. The Selection Committee after interviewing and finding suitability WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 15 made its recommendation for appointment to the post of Vice- Chancellor and, thereafter, he was appointed as Vice- Chancellor on 8.11.2021. Since the third respondent fulfils the eligibility criteria set out in the UGC Regulations, the official respondents have selected and appointed the third respondent to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. That apart, the third respondent possesses all the required eligibility criteria as mentioned in the second limb of Regulation 7.3(i). i.e. ten years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.
W.P.No.825 of 2021:
16. The petitioner is a retired Professor and Head of Department, Acting Dean of the College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University and a bare perusal of the advertisement dated 12.8.2021, it is seen that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement is "as prescribed under Section 7.3 of the UGC Regulation dated 18.7.2018 on minimum qualification for appointment of teacher and other Academic Staffs in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2018 is provided. Apart from WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 16 the aforesaid UGC eligibility criteria, an additional requirement has also been added in the advertisement as "experience in technical education and/or academic administration organization" so as to appoint a person of their choice by misinterpreting the eligibility criteria which has been done in this case.
17. According to the petitioner, as per Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor has been provided and the advertisement itself indicates about the requirement of the UGC regulation and it has been stated that the person having 10 years of experience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in reputed research and/or academic administration organization is qualified for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor in any Universities. Such inclusion of technical qualification clearly shows the mala fide intention of the respondent authorities to pick up and give appointment only to a person having experience of technical education, thereby narrowing the area for appointment to the post of Vice- Chancellor in Manipur Technical University which has happened in the instant case whereby an ineligible person namely respondent No.3 has been appointed as Vice- WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 17 Chancellor vide order dated 8.11.2021, which is in gross violation of the eligibility criteria provided in the UGC Regulations and the Manipur Technical University Act. Thus, the third respondent has usurped the said post of Vice- Chancellor. The third respondent who has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is not at all qualified/eligible as per the advertisement itself and therefore, the same is in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and, as such, his appointment is liable to be set aside.
18. Further case of the petitioner is that as per the list of AICTE approved Institutes in Engineering and Technology (Diploma) for the academic year 2021-2022, the name of the Polytechnic in which the third respondent was working is given and his name is found place in the list of faculty of Government Polytechnic in the capacity as Lecturer. The notification of the AICTE dated 1.3.2019 stipulates the designation in respect Diploma Level Institute/Polytechnic is only three which are Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal. There is no post of Professor in the Diploma level. As per the relevant notification, the experience at degree level and diploma level are to be considered to be equivalent provided scale of pay etc. are same for the post.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 18
19. According to the petitioners, the experience of the third respondent cannot be equated with that of degree which is apparent from the pay matrix given in the notification and there is huge difference of pay scale between diploma and degree. The Government Polytechnic is below the grade of even a College and even a College does not have a post of Professor and the third respondent is a Selection Grade Lecturer which is equivalent to Associate Professor and as per the UGC regulations, the person appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician with minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor in a University or 10 years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization with proof of having demonstration academic leadership. Since the act of the respondent authorities in appointing the third respondent to the post of Vice- Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is in violation of the UGC guidelines and the third respondent cannot hold the post of Vice-Chancellor in the larger public interest, the writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of quo-warranto.
20. The second respondent Manipur Technical University filed affidavit-in-opposition, inter lia, stating that a writ of quo-warranto does not lie against the appointment of the third WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 19 respondent, as he has been appointed by following all statutory provisions including Regulation 7.3.(i) of the UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018 for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, in the absence of violation of any statutory rules in the appointment of the third respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable. The third respondent is very much qualified to hold the post as per the UGC Regulations, 2018.
21. It is stated that the petitioner has misconstrued the meaning of academic administrative organization in the advertisement and the said interpretation is false. The Department of Technical Education, Manipur is an organization which has overall control of all the institutes imparting technical education in the State. The Department is involved in the Planning and Implementation of Expansion and Development of all the technical, pharmaceutical and management institutes and any other work of the Government relating to technical education as may be assigned from time to time. Therefore, it is an academic administrative organization and the respondent No.3 has worked in different positions in the Department of Technical Education since 2011. Therefore, the respondent No.3 possesses the required eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and thus, the third WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 20 respondent has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University.
22. It is stated that the third respondent was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per Regulation 7.3 after he was found suitable for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, the duly constituted Committee being an expert body, the opinion of the expert body would normally be accepted by the Court and the Court would not substitute its view in this regard. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. ARGUMENTS:
23. Assailing the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and the appointment order dated 8.11.2021, Mr. BP Sahu, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.791 and 807 of 2021 submitted that without authority of law in the impugned advertisement, an additional qualification -
"Experience in Technical and/or Academic Administration Organisation" - was inserted, which is nowhere found neither in the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, nor in the UGC Regulations which is binding as per Section 9 of the Manipur University Act. He would submit that the said qualification was inserted after more than 4 months after the appointment of the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 21 Vice-Chancellor, who was appointed on 8.11.2021 and the decision to insert the said qualification was taken on 17.3.2022.
24. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Board of Governors was presided by the Vice-Chancellor himself whose appointment was under challenge, hence, the advertisement and all the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned advertisement, including the appointment of the respondent Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University is liable to be quashed.
25. The learned senior counsel then submitted that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official respondents would reveal that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents was illegal, as the Selection Committee was constituted in gross violation of the provisions of the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016. Furthermore, as per Section 14 of the Act, the Chairman of the Selection Committee is to be appointed by the Chancellor from amongst the members. However, in the instant case, the Chairman was appointed by the Government along with the formation of the Committee, as indicated in the Resolution. Thus, highlighting the above grounds, the learned senior counsel prays for setting aside the impugned WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 22 advertisement and also the order of appointment issued in favour of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram thereby appointing him as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University.
26. Challenging the impugned order of appointment dated 8.11.2021, Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.805 and 825 of 2021 submitted that the Registrar of Manipur Technical University, Imphal, issued an advertisement calling upon applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor by prescribing eligibility criteria and, apart from the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, an additional requirement is added to the effect that "Experience in Technical Education and/or Academic Administration Organisation", which according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of law. In fact, Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018 provides eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Vice- Chancellor.
27. The learned senior counsel further submitted that Regulation 7.3 clearly provides that person having 10 years of experience in reputed research and/or academic administration organisation is qualified for appointment to the post of Vice- WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 23 Chancellor in any Universities. However, as per the impugned advertisement, the candidates need to possess "Experience in Technical Education", which has been made more specific in the advertisement.
28. The learned senior counsel next submitted that though the petitioner Mutum Shyamkesho Singh applied for the said post and was called upon to appear before the Selection Committee along with the original copies of academic and other related documents, he was not selected. According to the learned senior counsel, the said petitioner is not only eligible as per the UGC Regulations, but also he is highly qualified person.
29. The learned senior counsel urged that though the advertisement prescribes an additional eligibility criteria, the third respondent who was appointed as Vice-Chancellor is not at all qualified/eligible as per the advertisement and his selection/appointment is in violation of the UGC Regulations and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel added that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was found not eligible even for appointment to the post of Principal of his own Institution. Therefore, the act of the official respondents in appointing the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is illegal and arbitrary to the extent that they have WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 24 deprived the petitioner and other similar incumbents, who are otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University.
30. Adding further, the learned senior counsel submitted that as per the list of AICTE approved Institutes in Engineering and Technology (Diploma), Government of Manipur for the academic year 2021-2022, the name of Polytechnic, in which the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram worked, was noted and his name was also found in the list of faculty of Government Polytechnic in which he joined as Lecturer on 18.1.1991. As per Section 9 of the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016, the University shall strictly adhere to the rules and regulations, norms and standards, procedures and guidelines, which are binding to the University. As per the notification of AICTE dated 1.3.2019, the designation in respect of Diploma Level Institute/Polytechnic is only Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal and that there is no post of Professor in the Diploma Level. Therefore, the experience of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram cannot be equated with that of the Degree which is apparent from the pay matrix given in the notification in respect of Diploma as well as Degree.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 25
31. The learned senior counsel argued that the Government Polytechnic is below the grade of even a College and even a College does not have the post of Professor. The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is a Selection Grade Lecturer, which is equivalent to Associate Professor and he was working as Deputy Director, Technical Education, Government of Manipur. According to the learned senior counsel, as per the UGC guidelines, the person appointed as Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician with a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor in a University or 10 years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. Since the Polytechnic is an Institute for teaching only Diploma courses and of any Degree level, it is not an academic administrative organisation.
32. The learned senior counsel then contended that the petitioner Dr.Ninghoujam Ram Singh, who is a retired Professor and Head of Department and served over 19 years has every right to challenge the validity of the appointment of the private respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to a public office, as the law is well settled that writ of quo-warranto can be filed by any citizens when the fundamental or other legal right WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 26 of such person has been infringed and in the larger interest of the general public. The petitioner Dr.Ninghoujam Ram Singh has filed the writ petition to save the image of the Manipur Technical University and in the interest of students. If the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is allowed to continue as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University, the people will certainly lose their faith and confidence in the democratic system of this nation where the official respondents failed to exercise their administrative power in a fair and transparent manner and, hence, the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is required to be declared as illegal and unconstitutional.
33. Per contra, Mr. T. Momo Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Manipur Technical University has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions and submitted that the petitioner Khaidem Joychandra Singh has not applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, he has no locus to file the writ petition. As far as the petitioner Mutum Shyamkesho Singh is concerned, his writ petition is not maintainable, as he had applied and participated in the selection process for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, he cannot turn around and WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 27 challenge the additional criteria prescribed in the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and also the selection process and the appointment order.
34. As far as W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent Manipur Technical University submitted that the said writ petition is also not maintainable, as the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh has not approached this Court with bona fide and in public interest. In fact, the said writ petition was filed to over-come the plea of non-maintainability of the other three writ petitions. He would submit that the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner is busybody having absolute no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either for himself or as a proxy of others for extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity.
35. As far as challenge to the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and the impugned order of appointment dated 8.11.2021 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent Manipur Technical University submitted that the essential eligibility criteria has been stipulated in Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned advertisement. In fact, the said additional criteria is not illegal for the following reasons: WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 28
(a) The UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribes the minimum essential qualifications for the post of Vice-Chancellor and there is no bar in prescribing an additional desirable qualifications.
(b) It is the Institution/Organisation/Employer
which may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference and it is for the Institution/Organisation/Employer who is best suited to decide the requirements that a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work.
(c) The petitioner Mutum Shyamkesho Singh, who applied and appeared for interview is a Professor of Botany (Life Sciences) and the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is not limited to person with only technical background.
36. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram possesses (i) Bachelor of WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 29 Civil Engineering, (ii) Master of Civil Engineering and (iii) Ph.D.
- Traditional Housing and Architecture of Manipur. Further, he submitted that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram fulfilled the eligibility criteria set out in the second limb of Regulation 7.3(i) of 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, as he has worked in different positions in the Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur since 2011.
37. Coming to the constitution of the Selection Committee which has been questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent Manipur Technical University submitted that the Selection Committee for appointment in the Manipur Technical University consists of one member, who was a nominee of the UGC amongst the Chairman and other members. The Selection Committee under Section 14(1) of the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 was constituted on 18.10.2021 by the Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Manipur, for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor and the Selection Committee consists of the following authorities (i) WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 30 State Government nominee and Chairman; (ii) nominee of the Chancellor; (iii) nominee of the Board of Manipur Technical University and (iv) nominee of the UGC.
38. Arguing so, the learned counsel urged that the duly constituted Selection Committee being an expert body, the opinion of an expert body would normally be accepted by the Court and that the Court would normally not substitute its view in this regard. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is not a promotional post for Professor of University. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss all the writ petitions.
39. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions and contended that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.805 of 2021 appeared before the Interview Board without any protest and also without challenging the legality of the advertisement dated 12.8.2021.Only when he was not selected for the post of Vice-Chancellor, he has filed the writ petition raising so many grounds for challenging the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to the post of Vice- Chancellor. Such an action of the petitioner is barred by the principles of estoppel. Since the petitioner Mutum Shaymkesho WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 31 Singh participated in the recruitment process without any protest and since the result is not found favourable to him, he cannot turn around and challenge the impugned recruitment process.
40. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh [W.P.(C) No.807 of 2021] does not have locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram, as he is not a candidate for the impugned recruitment.
41. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is that W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 is also not maintainable, as the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh has not approached this Court with bona fide and in clear public interest. In fact, he has filed the said writ petition as proxy of petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.805 and 807 of 2021. After knowing fully well that the said two writ petitions are not maintainable, W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 came to be filed by the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh by impersonating as a public spirited holy man. He is a proxy petitioner of the above writ petition and is an imposter. Hence, W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 32
42. Qua merits of the matter, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Registrar of Manipur Technical University issued an advertisement dated 12.8.2021 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor from the intending candidates who have fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed under Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018 on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2018. Since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram possessed the minimum qualification, he applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor and had also appeared before the Selection Board as one of the eligible candidates. Based on his performance, he was selected and appointed as Vice- Chancellor on 8.11.2021 and since then he has been discharging his duties as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University.
43. The learned counsel added that after his deputation as Deputy Director in the Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur in year 2011, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has participated in various administrative programmes with achievements and he WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 33 has enough academic experience and exposures at the National and International level. He has also have a lot of contribution to various research projects and won awards. That apart, he possessed the minimum requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, there is no illegality in the appointment of respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions.
44. This Court also heard the submission of Mr. Kh. Samarjit, the learned Deputy Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent UGC, who submitted that as far as the additional criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement is concerned, it is for the Institution/ Organisation/Employer to prescribe the additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference and also it is for the Institution/Organisation/Employer to decide the requirements of a candidate according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work to be employed thereon.
45. The learned Deputy Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the members of Search-cum-Selection Committee after considering the qualification and experience WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 34 etc. has recommended the name of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram for appointment as Vice-Chancellor on the ground that he has got experience of 10 years in the Department of Technical Education since 2011 and also the Department of Technical Education is an academic administrative organisation. As such, the collective wisdom of the Selection Committee could not be questioned in any manner as it is the prerogative of the Selection Committee based on the collective decision after examining the candidates' educational background and performance in the interview and also without any deviation from the UGC Regulations prevailing at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the advertisement as well as the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University.
46. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
DISCUSSION:
MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITIONS:
47. Before adverting to the merits of the challenge made to the impugned advertisement and the impugned WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 35 appointment order thereby appointing the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University, let us first consider the maintainability issue raised by the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram and also the respondent Manipur Technical University.
48. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram, the petitioner Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh had not applied for the post and, therefore, he has no locus to question the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and others, (2006) 11 SCC 731, wherein, in paragraph (78), Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:
"78. The High Court, in the instant case, was not exercising certiorari jurisdiction. Certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only at the instance of a person who is qualified to the post and who is a candidate for the post. This Court in Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, (1973) 1 SCC 485 held that the appointment cannot be challenged by one who himself is WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 36 not qualified to be appointed. In KumariChitra Ghosh v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228 a Constitution Bench of this Court held as under:
(SCC p. 234, para 12) '12. The other question which was canvassed before the High Court and which has been pressed before us relates to the merits of the nominations made to the reserved seats. It seems to us that the appellants do not have any right to challenge the nominations made by the Central Government. They do not compete for the reserved seats and have no locus standi in the matter of nomination to such seats. The assumption that if nominations to reserved seats are not in accordance with the rules all such seats as have not been properly filled up would be thrown open to the general pool is wholly unfounded.'"
49. The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram also questioned the maintainability of W.P.(C) No.805 of 2021 by contending that the petitioner Mutum Shaymkesho Singh has failed to disclose true facts qua the filing of the Review Petition No.23 of 2016 after the dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.56 of 2016 and the Division Bench of this Court allowed the Review WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 37 Petition on 3.3.2017. Moreover, he appeared before the Interview Board without any protest and also without challenging the legality of the advertisement. To fortify his submission, the learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and another, (2008) 12 SCC 481 and Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Bihar and others, (2017) 4 SCC 357.
50. In K.D.Sharma, supra, the Apex Court held as under:
"34. 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. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, 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."
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 38
51. In Ashok Kumar, supra, the Apex Court held as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that: (SCC p. 107, para 18) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
(See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 39 Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724.)"
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah, (2009) 3 SCC 227 wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 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 WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 40 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. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515."
52. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.Srinivasa Reddy, supra, the learned counsel questioned the maintainability of W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 by contending that the said writ petition is also not maintainable, as the petitioner Dr.Ningtjoujam Ram Singh has not approached this Court bona fide and in clear public interest and in fact he is proxy petitioner.
53. In reply, Mr. BP Sahu, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 submitted that the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 41 petitioner could not apply due to the illegal insertion of additional qualification that was imposed in the advertisement, though he is otherwise very much eligible. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner has every right for challenging the validity of the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to a public office, as the law is well settled that writ petition can be filed by any citizen if any fundamental or other legal right of such person has been infringed. Similarly, the submission of the other petitioners is that their writ petitions are also maintainable as their legal right has been infringed.
54. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the impugned advertisement, selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University and one of the writ petitions is for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto.
55. Since the petitioners have narrated in detail in their writ petitions qua the cause for filing the writ petitions and also taking into consideration the given facts and circumstances of the case put forth by the parties, this Court is satisfied with the cause for filing all the writ petitions. Merely because the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.805 of 2021 has participated in the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 42 selection process and the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.807 and 825 of 2021 did not apply, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the writ petitions are not maintainable.
56. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that the law is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising the extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the petitioner makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case.
57. It is also settled that a party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all the material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress or not to disclose other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 43 the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible.
58. Nothing has been produced by the official respondents and the private respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to establish that the petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands and have also suppressed the material facts. The non-mentioning of the review application arising out of the order passed in Writ Appeal No.56 of 2016 cannot be a ground to dismiss the writ petition, as material facts have been suppressed. Taking into consideration the cause stated and also explained by the petitioners in their writ petitions, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are very well maintainable. CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT DATED 12.8.2021:
59. Coming to the challenge made to the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021, it is the say of the petitioner Dr.Khaidem Joychandra Singh (W.P.No.791 of 2021) that the impugned advertisement was issued by adding the additional requirement as "Experience in Technical Education and/or Academic Administration Organization". According to the petitioner, the said additional requirement has been added in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 44 the impugned advertisement to appoint a person of their choice by misinterpreting the eligibility criteria.
60. For proper appreciation, the impugned advertisement is quoted hereunder:
"No.15/I/20`6-MTU: Applications in prescribed format are invited for the Post of Vice-Chancellor in Manipur Technical University from intending candidates having "Experience in Technical Education and/or Academic Administration Organization"
2. Eligibility Criteria:
As prescribed under section 7.3. of the UGC Regulation dated 18th July 2018 on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2018.
3. Age and Tenure of office:
As prescribed under section 14(2) of the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 which is reproduced as under
"The term of the office of the Vice-
Chancellor shall be 5 (five) years from the date on which he enters upon his office or WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 45 until he attains the age of 70 (seventy) years, whichever is earlier."
4. The Advertisement, format of application, salary, service conditions and other details are available on the University website.
5. Pay and Allowances will be determined by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Manipur as per existing FD(PIC) Norms.
6. The application in the prescribed format should reach in the office of the undersigned on or before 4.30 PM of 12th September 2021.
REGISTRAR MANIPUR TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC CAMPUS IMPHAL:795004
7. Application for the Post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University should be clearly super-scribed on the sealed envelope. This office shall not be responsible for any postal delay."
61. As could be seen from the pleadings, on 18.7.2018, the UGC issued Regulations on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the Universities and Colleges and measures for the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 46 maintenance of standards in High Education, 2018. Regulation 1 (3) provides:
"3. If any University contravenes the provisions of these Regulations, the Commission after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University for such failure or contravention, may withhold from the University, the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission."
62. Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018 speaks about the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor. The said Regulation also provides that person having 10 years of experience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in reputed research and/or academic administration organization is qualified for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in any Universities.
63. For proper appreciation, Regulation 7.3 is extracted hereunder:
"7.3. 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-
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 47 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-Selection Committee, though 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 WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 48 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."
64. Thus, as per Regulation 7.3, person having 10 years of experience as Professor in a University or 10 years of experience in reputed Research and/or Academic Administration Organisation is qualified for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in any Universities. However, in the impugned advertisement, it has been stated that candidates need to possess "Experience in Technical Education, which has been made specific in terms of Manipur Technical University". WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 49
65. At this juncture, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent University Grant Commission submitted that for better administration and for bringing qualitative improvement in the overall functioning of the newly established Technical University, clause - Experience in Technical Education and/or Academic Administration Organisation - was inserted in the impugned advertisement after obtaining approval from the Hon'ble Governor of Manipur. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further submitted that in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors of Technical Universities across the country, experience of technical education etc. is also specified apart from other qualifications contained in the UGC Regulations, 2018.
66. It is also the submission of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that it is for the institution/organisation/employer to prescribe additional qualifications, including any grant of preference, and also it is for the institutions to decide the requirements of a candidate according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work to be employed thereon, subject to fulfilment of other criteria as per the existing rules and regulations of the UGC or which do WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 50 not go in conflict with such rules and regulations of the UGC. In support, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep ShriramWarade and others, (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 prescribed 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 WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 51 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."
67. By placing reliance upon the very same decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Shriram Warade, supra, the learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram submitted that the employer has every right to prescribe additional and desirable qualification, including any grant of preference, for appointment to the post of Vice- Chancellor and no one, including the petitioners, have any right to question the same.
68. It is true that the institution/organisation/employer is the best authority to decide the requirements of a candidate according to the needs of the institution/organisation/employer and the nature of work for which a person is required to be employed. However, the prescription of additional criteria and/or desirable qualifications should not be in violation of the UGC Regulations. In the case on hand, it is apparent that the additional criteria made in the impugned advertisement is not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 which were WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 52 prevalent at the relevant point of time and also not in accordance with the Manipur Technical University Act, which is in vogue and binding at the relevant point of time.
69. The appointment of Vice-Chancellor is governed by Section 14 of the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 and Section 14(1) would be relevant and the same is quoted hereunder:
"14(1) The vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time paid officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government upon recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of -
(a) One person nominated by the
Board not connected with the
University or any College thereof;
(b) One person nominated by the
Chairman, University Grants
Commission;
(c) One person nominated by the
Chancellor
(d) One person nominated by the State
Government;
and the Chancellor shall appoint one of
these persons to be the Chairman of the
Committee:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 53 Provided that the first Vice-Chancellor, who shall hold office for a term of three years, shall be appointed by the State Government.
Provided further that till the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor, the administrative Secretary in-charge of the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Manipur shall be the ex- officio Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University."
70. Neither the Manipur Technical University Act nor the UGC Regulations specify the condition that the Vice- Chancellor should have experience in technical education and/or academic administration organisation. As per Section 2(xxiii) of the Manipur Technical University Act, technical education means programmes of education, research and training in Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Management, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Computer Applications and Applied Arts and Crafts and such other programmes as the AICTE may by notification in the Official Gazette declare. Section 2(xxiv) of the Manipur Technical University Act provides that technical institutions means institutions conducting programmes in the field of technical WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 54 education. Thus, it is clear that technical education means programmes but not any official work of the Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, there is conflict between the impugned advertisement and the Manipur Technical University Act or UGC Regulations since, in the impugned advertisement, an additional criterion has been inserted without any authority of law.
71. At this juncture, it is to be highlighted that the law is well settled that the Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Further, the Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interest: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 55 the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono public, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
72. As held supra, in the instant case, there is clear conflict between the impugned advertisement and the Manipur Technical University Act or UGC Regulations. When there is a conflict between the executive order/advertisement and statutory rules and regulations, the statutory rules and regulations shall prevail above all.
73. As stated supra, the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor has been specifically stated in Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018. More particularly, three options are provided in Regulation 7.3. dated 18.7.2018 -
(i) Sense of equivalent status as that of a Professor in a University whose Grade Pay is Rs.10,000 as per the 6th Pay Commission; (ii) The first Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University was Prof.Dr.Laiphrakpam Tombi Singh, retired Professor (Economics) and Dean (School of Social WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 56 Science), Manipur University who was appointed to that position by an order passed by the Commissioner (Higher and Technical Education), Government of Manipur during October, 2017 and, (iii) The appointment of Dr.L.Tombi Singh as 1st Vice- Chancellor of Manipur Technical University was made in compliance with the provisions contained in Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated 30.6.2010 on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010, which was in force at that relevant point of time. On a perusal of the pleadings, the first Vice-Chancellor was selected and appointed only as per the stipulations made in Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and as per the Manipur Technical University Act. Therefore, the selection of Vice-Chancellor of the Technical University should be as per the Regulations of the UGC existed and as per the provisions of the Manipur University Act. In the instant case, it is apparent that the additional criteria made in the impugned advertisement, more particularly, "experience in technical education" is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 in vogue at the relevant point of time. WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 57
74. Qua the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Manipur Technical University that the insertion of additional criteria in the impugned advertisement is only after the approval of the Governor of Manipur, the law is well settled that nobody can act beyond the provisions of the Manipur Technical University Act. As rightly argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the Chancellor also cannot act beyond the law. Therefore, the approval, if any, accorded by the Governor of Manipur, for insertion of additional criteria in the impugned advertisement cannot be appreciated, as the same is not in accordance with the UGC Regulations.
75. Thus, as rightly argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, particularly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.791 of 2021, the materials produced by the parties prima facie establish that the official respondents have added the additional criteria only with an alternate motive to narrow down the area of eligible candidates with an intention to give benefit to a particular individual having experience in technical education thereby excluding the other eligible candidates. The said act of the official respondents is highly arbitrary in nature to the extent that they have deprived not only the petitioners but also the other similarly situated WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 58 incumbents, who are otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor thereby violating the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. As stated supra, inserting an additional eligibility criteria which is found neither in the Manipur Technical University Act nor Statutes nor Ordinances nor in the UGC Regulations, 2018 is unlawful. More particularly, the said additional criteria inserted in the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 is in violation of the Regulation 7.3, supra.
76. Further, learned senior counsel for the petitioners collectively argued that since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has experience in technical education, such an addition in the advertisement has been made. To controvert the said submission, the official respondents have failed to produce any material.
77. It is well settled that when once the eligibility criteria fixed by the UGC under its Regulations would, to the mind of this Court, apply to all the Universities which are aided and guided by the UGC, even in the absence of the same being incorporated under the respective Universities Act of the respective States, all the Universities are bound to adhere to the same.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 59
78. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the insertion of additional criteria - Experience in Technical Education and/or Academic Administration Organisation - in the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 is clearly in violation of the Manipur Technical University Act and also UGC Regulations. Therefore, the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 is liable to be set aside.
CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
08.11.2021:
79. As far as the challenge made to the selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram vide order dated 8.11.2021 impugned in W.P.(C) Nos.805 and 807 of 2021 is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the selection of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is vitiated on the ground of ineligibility and also violation of the procedure adopted by the official respondents in selecting the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram.
80. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Manipur Technical University, inter alia, submitted that respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram possess (i) Bachelor of Civil Engineering; (ii) Master of Civil Engineering and (iii) P.D. WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 60 "Traditional Housing & Architecture of Manipur". He has also fulfilled the eligibility criteria set out in the second limb of Regulation 7.3(i) i.e. 10 years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership, as he worked in different positions in the Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur since 2011.
81. The learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram also argued that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram applied for the post of Vice- Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University under the option
- "academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership" and that after his deputation as Deputy Director in the Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur in the year 2011, he has participated in various administrative programs with achievements. In fact, he has enough academic experience and exposures at the National and International level and he also have a lot of contribution to various research projects and won awards.
82. The learned counsel urged that even if a person is not a Professor of the University but if he possessed the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 61 criteria/option i.e. 10 years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstration academic leadership mentioned in Regulation 7.3, he/she can be appointed to the post of Vice- Chancellor. Thus, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram fulfilled the criteria and he is eligible for the post of Vice- Chancellor.
83. In the earlier paragraph, this Court held that the insertion of additional criteria - experience in technical education and/or academic administration organisation - in the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor is in violation of the Manipur Technical University Act and also UGC Regulations, 2018. The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram himself admitted that he had applied for the aforesaid post under the option "academic administrative organisation". Once the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 is set aside by this Court on the ground that the additional criteria inserted in the advertisement is not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Manipur Technical University Act, automatically the selection and appointment pursuant to the said advertisement will non- est in the eye of law. However, for proper adjudication of the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 62 matter, this Court is inclined to further elaborate upon this issue qua the selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University.
84. As could be seen from the records, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was a Lecturer of Government Polytechnic, Takyelpat, who was on deputation/utilization to the Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur. He was appointed as Lecturer of the Government Polytechnic on 18.1.1991 and Government Polytechnic, Tayelpat is a Diploma Institute recognized by AICTE and affiliated to Manipur University.
85. There is no dispute that the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University has been as per the prescription in Section 7.3 of the UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018 on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2018. At the cost of repetition, Regulation 7.3(i) is reproduced hereunder:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 63 i. A person possession 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.
86. Regulation 7.3(i) clearly worded that the person having 10 years of experience as Professor in a University or 10 years of experience in reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation is qualified for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in any Universities.
87. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent Manipur Technical University as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram submitted that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has got WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 64 administrative experience of 10 years in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation in Government Organisation/Autonomous Body such as Directorate of Technical Education, All India council of Technical Education, University Grant Commission, Ministry of Education, Department of Science and Technology etc. They urged that the word "or" is used to segregate the two options of qualifications as the Vice-Chancellor of University. Therefore, Section 7.3 of the Regulation clearly gives two options which operates independently. The arguments aforesaid cannot be countenanced, in view of the findings arrived at by this Court that the additional criteria inserted in the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 is in violation of the Manipur Technical University Act and the UGC Regulations. Moreover, it is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioners have also got academic administrative organisation.
88. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor of the Technical University should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor in a University.
89. The learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram contended that the petitioner is WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 65 deliberately misinterpreting the phrase "ten years of experience as Professor" in Regulation 7.3(i) of UGC Regulations, 2018 for the post of Vice-Chancellor to be an essential criteria for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University to favour his contentions that only Professor with ten years of experience is qualified to be a Vice-Chancellor of a University. Further, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram worked in different positions in the Department of Technical Education since 2011 and the said Department comes under the ambit of academic administrative organisation. Therefore, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram possesses all the required eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement dated 12.8.2021.
90. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners pleaded the ineligibility of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram in the following lines:
(a) The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is not a distinguished academician which is evident from the fact that he has not produced proofs for publication of research paper/book published, production of Ph.D WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 66 produced, presentation of research papers in seminars/conferences etc.
(b) The substantive post that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram holds in the parent organisation i.e. in the Government Polytechnic is Lecturer (Selection Grade). Moreover, the Government Polytechnic is a Diploma Institute whose status is lower than a degree Engineering College.
This post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) is far inferior to the grade of Professor or its equivalent as required under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 dated 18.7.2018.
91. On a reading of the pleadings of the parties, the Ph.D degree the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram holds is in the subject of History on the topic "Traditional Housing & Architecture of Manipur" from the Department of History, Manipur University and it is not an Engineering subject. Whatever the job assignments that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram got on deputation/utilisation in the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 67 Department of Education can never be treated as being equivalent to the status of Professor of University on the ground that his regular position is Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Government Polytechnic, Takyelpat, which is even inferior to an Assistant Professor of a degree Engineering College. Further, whatever experiences that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram attained by working at different positions in the Department of Technical Education are not at the level of Professor, rather they are merely at the level of Lecturer (Selection Grade) and, such experiences of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram cannot be taken into consideration for the post of Vice-Chancellor, contrary to the stipulations made in Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
92. That apart, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram does not possess qualifications as required under AICTE Regulations, 2019 for direct recruitment either as Professor or as Principal of an Engineering College on the grounds that (i) He has not obtained Ph.D degree in Engineering subject; (ii) He has not guided any Ph.D under his supervision; (iii) He has not met minimum 8 research publication in SCI journals/UGC/AICTE approved list of journal; (iv) He has not fulfilled the minimum 15 years of experience in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 68 teaching/research/industry, out of which at least 3 shall be at the post equivalent to that of Professor. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has not possessed the required qualification for selection of the post of Vice-Chancellor at the relevant point of time.
93. Coming to the constitution of Search-cum- Selection Committee, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that while making selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram, the UGC Regulations have not been followed strictly. Moreover, Shri M.Harekrishna Singh was one of the members of the Search-cum-Selection Committee Member, as the said Shri M.Harekrishna Singh being the Chairman of the Committee cannot be included as Chairman as per Section 14 of the Manipur Technical University Act and also Regulation 7.3 for appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram. As such, the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is liable to be quashed.
94. On the other hand, it is the say of the respondent Manipur Technical University that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was selected by the duly constituted Search-cum-Selection Committee and in the present case, the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 69 Selection Committee for the appointment in the Manipur Technical University consists of one member, who was the nominee of the UGC amongst the Chairman and other members. The Selection Committee under Section 14(1) of the Manipur Technical University Act was constituted on 18.10.2021 by the Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Manipur for the appointment of Vice- Chancellor.
95. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent UGC submitted that according to Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Vice-Chancellor is to be selected by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, according to the composition and the procedure of the said Committee set out therein.
96. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further submitted that the nominee of the UGC is also to be a part of the Selection Committee as contemplated by Section 14(1) of the Act and, as such, on both counts UGC remains only a part of either of the Search-cum-Selection Committee under Regulation 7.3 or under Section 14(1) of the Manipur Technical University Act. As such, it should not painted as somebody who solely decides upon everything and that the collective wisdom WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 70 of the Search-cum-Selection Committee could not be questioned in any manner as it is the prerogative of the Selection Committee to decide as to the eligibility criteria of various candidatures of the post to be filled up.
97. Regulation 7.3(ii) provides as under:
"The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-
Selection Committee, though 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 WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 71 Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities."
98. It is pertinent to note that any Committee is to be appointed/formed as per Section 26(h) of the Manipur Technical University Act. Section 26(h), provides:
"(h) to appoint such committees, either standing or temporary, as it deems necessary for its proper functioning"
99. As per Section 14(1) of the Act, the Selection Committee must consist of the following members:
(e) One person nominated by the
Board not connected with the
University or any College thereof;
(f) One person nominated by the
Chairman, University Grants
Commission;
(g) One person nominated by the
Chancellor
(h) One person nominated by the State
Government
and the Chancellor shall appoint one of these persons to be the Chairman of the Selection Committee.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 72
100. On a further perusal of the proceedings of the 14th Board of Management Meeting of Manipur Technical University held on 17.3.2022, the State Government constituted the Selection Committee comprising the following members:
Sl. Name & Designation Position in the
No. Committee
1. Shri M.Harekhrishna State Government Commissioner (Higher nominee and & Technical Edn.) Chairman Government of Manipur
2. Shri Bobby Waikhom Nominee of the Secretary to Governor Chancellor of of Manipur Manipur Technical University
3. Shri Dr.S.Venugopal Nominee of the Director, National Board of Manipur Institute of Technical Technology, University Chumukedima, Dimapur
4. Shri Dinesh Kumar Nominee of the Vice-Chancellor, JC University Bose University of Se Grant Commission & Tech, YMCA, (UGC) Faridabad
101. The Selection Committee has been constituted to recommend the candidates for appointment of a Vice- Chancellor was confirmed by the 14th Board of Management on 17.03.2022, whereas the appointment was made on 8.11.2021, WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 73 which is after four months. A perusal of Resolution No.6 of the 13th Board of Management, it is seen that it only made a proposal to the State Government to nominate its members so as to constitute the Selection Committee for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, the question of approval of any Selection Committee by the 14th Board of Management does not even arise, as something which was not in existence cannot be approved. Thus, it is clear that the Selection Committee is in contravention/violation of norms/guidelines for the reasons that the Chairman is to be appointed by the Chancellor, whereas in the instant case the Chairman has already been appointed by the Board of Management. From the above, it is clear that without the recommendation of the any valid Selection Committee, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has been appointed. Furthermore, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram himself was the Chairman of the 14th Board of Management whereas the Chairman of the 13th Board of Management was one of the members of the 14th Board of Management.
102. It is also seen that the Selection Committee was constituted in gross violation of the provisions of the Manipur Technical University Act. Furthermore, as per Section 14 of the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 74 Act, the Chairman of the Committee is to be appointed by the Chancellor from amongst the members. However, in the present case, the Chairman was appointed by the Government along with the formation of the Committee. That apart, the Selection Committee members one and two are not proper persons and they are not educationists and are IAS officers. Therefore, this Court is of the view that violating the statutory guidelines and the prescription prescribed in the UGC Regulations, with a mala fide intention, the Selection Committee found the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram eligible for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and called him for interview, though he is not qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in question.
103. Qua the role of the Selection Committee in the selection of Vice-Chancellor of the University, time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Search-cum-Selection Committee plays a vital and significant role in the selection of the Vice-Chancellor; yet the Vice-Chancellor's performance in the Universities vary from University to University. Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting names for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor are directly or indirectly WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 75 responsible for the achievement of the University. Commitment to the quality and the objectives of the Universities in particular and higher education system in general are of course the deciding factors in selecting the right person.
104. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is a Selection Grade Lecturer at Government Polytechnic, Imphal West (Diploma Level), which is equivalent to Associate Professor and at the time of selection, he was working as Deputy Director, Technical Education, Government of Manipur. The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram claimed that he has fulfilled the eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 7.3 - 10 years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. But the fact remains that at the time of his selection and appointment as Vice-Chancellor, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram did not fulfil the eligibility criteria required as per the UGC guidelines as well as even the eligibility criteria fixed by the Selection Committee. That apart, at the time of selection and appointment, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was not having 10 years of WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 76 experience as Professor or even its equivalent which was the mandatory requirement as per the UGC guidelines.
105. It is to be noted that UGC Regulations, 2010 has been superseded by UGC Regulations, 2018. However, there is no dispute that the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice- Chancellor and the constitution of the Selection Committee for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor remains almost the same. On a reading of Section 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, it emerges that "a person possessing the highest level of competency, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, minimum of ten years' of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years' experience in an equivalent position a reputed research and/or Academic Administrative Organisation. As stated supra, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has not obtained Ph.D degree in Engineering subject; not guided any Ph.D under his supervision; not met minimum 8 research publication in SCI Journals/UGC/AICTE approved list of journal; and (iv) not fulfilled the minimum 15 years of experience in teaching/research/industry, out of which at least 3 shall be at the post equivalent to that of Professor. WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 77
106. It is also clear from the pay scale of the candidate, who claims to be eligible as per the second limb of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 will have to be equivalent to that of a Professor in a University. However, in the instant case, the pay scale of respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Deputy Director in the Technical Education under the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Manipur is stated to be Rs.9300-34800 plus GP 4400, which is much lower than that of a Professor of a University i.e. Rs.37400-67000 plus AGP Rs.10000. This Court is of the view that since the UGC has prescribed certain qualifications for the appointment for the post of Vice-Chancellor, such an appointment must be in accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Manipur Technical University Act.
107. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.805 of 2021 is estopped from challenging the appointment order as he had participated in the selection process is concerned, the law in this connection is settled that where glaring irregularities are committed in the procedure, the principle of estoppel or acquiescence has no application. WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 78
108. The eligibility criteria and selection process when once fixed by UGC under its Regulations at the relevant point of time would apply to all the Universities, including the Manipur Technical University, which are aided by the UGC. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the official respondents in selecting and appointing the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018 is not only illegal, but also arbitrary, mala fide and capricious to the extent that the official respondents have deprived the petitioners and other similarly situated incumbents, who are otherwise eligible for appointment to the post of Vice- Chancellor, thereby violating the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioners have made out a case for quashing of the impugned appointment order dated 8.11.2021 issued in favour of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram. Accordingly, the impugned appointment order dated 8.11.2021 along with the entire recruitment process in regard to the selection of Vice- Chancellor, Manipur Technical University, is liable to be quashed.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 79
109. W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh, who is a retired Professor and Head of Department and acting Dean of the College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University having served as Professor for over 19 years, alleging that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is not at all qualified/eligible as per the advertisement dated 12.8.2021 itself and the same is also in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
110. In support of the prayer, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 submitted that as per the list of AICTE approved Institutes in Engineering and Technology (Diploma) for the State of Manipur for the academic year 2021-2022, the name of Polytechnic in which the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram worked has been mentioned, wherefrom it is seen that the name of the respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbram was shown in the list of faculty of Government Polytechnic in which he joined as Lecturer on 18.1.1991. He would submit that as per Section 9 of the Manipur Technical University Act, the University shall strictly adhere to the rules and regulation, norms and standards, WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 80 procedures and guidelines etc. of the AICTE as well as the UGC which are binding on the University.
111. The learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the notification dated 1.3.2019 of the AICTE, the designation in respect of Diploma Level Institute/Polytechnic is only three which are Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal. Hence, there is no post of Professor in the Diploma Level. The experience at Degree Level and Diploma Level are to be considered to be equivalent provided the scale of pay, etc. are the same for the post. In the instant case, the experience of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram cannot be equated with that of Degree which is apparent from the pay matrix given in respect of Diploma as well as Degree. In fact, there is huge difference of pay scale between the two. He added that as per Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2019, the pay scale of Deputy Director, Technical Education is equal to that of Foreman of Government Polytechnic.
112. Going ahead one step further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Government Polytechnic is below the grade of even a College. The respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is a Selection Grade Lecturer, which is equivalent to Associate Professor. Since the Polytechnic is an Institute for WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 81 teaching only Diploma courses and of any Degree Level, it is not an academic administrative organisation. Academic administrative means even if a person work in any other establishment, that establishment must be predominated by academic activities. Therefore, the Department of Technical Education, Government of Manipur is not an academic administrative organisation. Since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is holding the public office, the petitioner has every right to challenge the validity of his appointment by filing a Writ of Quo-Warranto in the larger public interest.
113. On the other hand, it is the plea of the respondent Manipur Technical University that the petitioner Dr.Ningthoujam Ram Singh has not approached this Court with bona fide and in public interest and it was filed only to over-come the plea of non-maintainability of the other three writ petitions, namely W.P.(C) Nos.791, 805 and 807 of 2021 and that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was selected and appointed as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 and as per the Manipur Technical University Act after he was found suitable for the post of Vice- Chancellor Therefore, there is no flaw in holding the office of the Vice-Chancellor by Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram. WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 82
114. The learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram submitted that the petitioner Dr.Ningtjoujam Ram Singh is proxy of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.791, 805 and 807 of 2021. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no violation of statutory provision and therefore, Writ of Quo-Warranto does not lie and on the other hand, since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has been selected and appointed after following the procedures laid down for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, his appointment has to be upheld.
115. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram that since the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram was sent on deputation as Deputy Director in the Department of Technical Education, he has been discharging his duty in various Sectors and he has already have 10 years of experience in the academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. Besides this, he has also achieved various academic experience and the exposures at the National and International Level, including research projects. Therefore, there is no question of non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria/minimum qualification by the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 83 Tongbram. Indeed, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has possessed requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and as per the provisions of law then existed, he was selected and appointed and now holding the public office. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.
116. It is trite law that the power to issue quo-warranto is to be exercised in cases where it is established that the person whose appointment is under challenge does not possess the requisite qualification. Writ of quo-warranto can be issued when a person whose appointment is under challenge does not fulfil the essential qualification and when due process has not been followed even if such a petition is filed by a stranger.
117. A writ of quo-warranto is a writ which lies against the person, who according to the relator is not entitled to hold an office of public nature and is only a usurper of the office. It is the person, against whom the writ of quo-warranto is directed, who is required to show, by what authority that person is entitled to hold the office. The challenge can be made on various grounds, including on the grounds that the possessor of the office does not fulfil the required qualifications or suffers from WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 84 any disqualification, which debars the person to hold such office.
118. In the preceding paragraphs, this Court held that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is not a qualified and eligible person for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. In such view of the matter, as observed by the Apex Court in number of decisions, the respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbram is debarred from holding the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University.
119. A Writ of quo-warranto is not the same as a Writ of Certiorari, or Prohibition or Mandamus and in a such a proceeding for quo-warranto, it is not necessary for the applicant to establish that he has been prejudicially affected by any wrongful act of public nature or that his fundamental right is infringed or that he is denied any legal right or that any legal duty is owed to him. The scope of a proceeding for quo- warranto is very limited and it is only for the determination, whether the appointment of the respondent is by a proper authority and in accordance with law, if there is some express statutory provision.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 85
120. The High Court's power of interference in a proceeding for quo- warranto is also limited and it cannot act as an appellate authority. Quo-warranto is a remedy given in law at the discretion of the Court and is not a proceeding or a writ of course. The High Court can in a proceeding for quo-warranto, issue an order not only prohibiting an officer from acting in an office to which he is not entitled, but can also declare the Office to be vacant.
121. It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to an extent in a quo-warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposter coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a Constitutional Court supressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly.
122. In the case on hand, admittedly, no suppression of material facts. The alleged suppression pleaded by the respondents, particularly the third respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbram, is about the failure on the part of the petitioners in disclosing the revision petition filed against the judgment passed in W.A.No.56 of 2019 and orders passed thereon, thereby setting aside the judgment passed in the writ appeal. The said non-disclosure of the filing of the review petition and WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 86 its disposal does not have any adverse impact on the instant case.
123. The petitioners have challenged the selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbra as Vice- Chancellor of Manipur Technical University by stating as under:
(i) He does not possess/demonstrated academic leadership as he was neither Head of Department, nor held any administrative post in any academic administrative organisation.
(ii) His scale of pay is much lower than that of a Professor which is mandatory and should be equivalent to that of a Professor as per law.
(iii) The Ph.D obtained by the respondent Dr.BhabeswarTongbra is in History which is not equivalent to Ph.D in Engineering and Technology as per the report of Equivalent Committee of the Manipur University dated 16.6.2017.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 87
124. Therefore, the contention of the respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbram that the petitioner in W.P.No.825 of 2021 has not stated specifically which provision of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 has been violated while appointing the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbra to the post of Vice-Chancellor is incorrect. Further, all information has been narrated in the pleadings by the petitioner and the same is not vague and indefinite. That apart, the petitioner has established the provision of law which attracts the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhaneswar Tongbra as illegal.
125. Since the selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is questioned and it has been proved by the petitioners that the selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is not as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, this Court is of the view that there is substance in the argument raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021.
126. The Apex Court, in a recent decision in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and others, (2022) 5 SCC 179, held that "in case of any conflict between State legislation and Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 88 enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject "education" is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution". In the said decision, the Apex Court further observed that "any appointment as a Vice Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be I violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto".
127. In the case on hand, as discussed and for the reasons stated supra, the appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of the Manipur Technical University is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and also the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016.
128. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards New Educational Management by Professor A.Gnanam (also called as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990) accentuated the role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating that the Vice-Chancellor should be a person with vision and qualities of academic leadership and with a flair for administration because what the Universities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair and bold administrator. The Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished educationist from the higher education system having highest level of competence, integrity, morals and self-respect [Vide - WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 89 Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and others, (2022) 5 SCC 179]
129. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram has not fulfilled the qualification, experience as stipulated by the UGC Regulations for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor and also to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University. Further, nothing has been produced either by the respondent Manipur Technical University or the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram to show that the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is having the highest level of competence, as the role of Vice-Chancellor of Indian Universities has a paramount importance in the recent times.
130. As held by the Apex Court in number of cases that as Chief Executives and Academic Heads of Universities, the Vice Chancellors are expected to be efficient and effective in terms of:
a. Implementation of National Higher Education Policy and programmes.
b. Institutional change in tune with the national reforms package.
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 90 c. Quality and innovation enhancement and their sustainability.
d. Productive engagement with 'communities of scholars' from within their Universities and from national and international domains.
e. Nurturing of 'Research and Innovation Ecosystem' and translation of deliverables to society and economy.
f. Adoption of international best practices of 'Good Governance.
131. Further, the Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as leader of a symphony of orchestra with the attributes of:
a. Developing teams and teamwork, building partnerships and collaborations delicately interwoven by collegiality, friendship and intellectual engagement;
b. Devising a strategy and action plan with defined milestones and deliverables;
c. Ensuring primary accountabilities of self and the abovementioned University governing bodies; and WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 91 d. Steering an institutional monitoring and evaluation mechanism on University performance built on principles of transparency.
132. Thus, it is clear that holding the public office, namely Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University by the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram is not in the larger interest of public, as he is not a qualified and suitable person for holding such post. That apart, Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of University's system and a keeper of the University's conscience. It is repeated that his selection and appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University is in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Manipur Technical University Act. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.825 of 2021 succeeds.
133. For all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have established their case for interference in the impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021, selection and appointment of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University vide order dated 8.11.2021.
RESULT:
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 92
134. In fine,
(i) W.P.(C) Nos.791, 805, 807 and 825 of 2021 are allowed.
(ii) The impugned advertisement dated 12.8.2021 and the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the said advertisement are set aside.
(iii) The impugned order of appointment issued in favour of the respondent Dr.Bhabeswar Tongbram dated 8.11.2021 is also set aside.
(iv) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to initiate fresh recruitment process after issuing a fresh advertisement for filling up the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University as per the Manipur Technical University Act and/or its statutes etc. and as per the UGC Regulations and its norms.
(v) The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021 P a g e | 93 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) The official respondents are directed to strictly comply fresh process within the time limit as fixed by this Court and report this Court on 28.04.2023.
(vii) Till such fresh appointment, the official respondents are directed to make a stop-gap arrangement in accordance with law.
(viii) There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, WP(C) No. 791 of 2021, WP(C) No. 825 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 807 of 2021