Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Sarungbam Nimai Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 1143 of 2018, Cont.Cas(C) No. 50 of 2021, WP(C) No. 567 of 2019, WP(C) No. 576 of 2021, WP(C) No. 898 of 2019, WP(C) No. 920 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 12 of 2020, MC(WP(C)) No. 16 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 28 of 2019, MC(WP(C)) No. 314 of 2019 and MC(WP(C)) No. 98 of 2020
Decided On : 10-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. A. Mohendro, Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocates., for the Petitioners; Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. Bipinchandra, Advocate, Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv., Ms. Babita Th., Advocate, Mr. Ch. Ngongo, Advocate, Mr. L. Shyam, Advocate, Mr. Th. Sukumar, GA., for the Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the relevant rules and regulations, particularly the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989, in matters related to appointments, dismissals, and governance of educational institutions.

Headnote:
Appointment - Principal of Imphal Art College - Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2014, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The court set aside the appointment of the Principal and the dismissal order, reinstated the petitioner, and directed compliance with the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer at Imphal Art College, challenged the appointment of another person as Principal, his suspension, and dismissal from service. The court found the appointment and dismissal to be illegal and unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the Principal and the dismissal of the petitioner were in violation of the relevant rules and regulations. It set aside the appointment and dismissal, reinstated the petitioner, and directed compliance with the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the appointment of the Principal, the suspension and dismissal of the petitioner, and compliance with the relevant rules and regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the Principal and the dismissal of the petitioner were illegal and unconstitutional. It emphasized the need for compliance with the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appointment of the Principal, reinstated the petitioner, and directed compliance with the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989.

JUDGMENT

1. W.P.(C) No.1143 of 2018 has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2018 as illegal and to direct the official respondents to conduct a review Departmental Promotion Committee by abiding the office memorandum dated 15.5.2014.

2. The petitioner is a gold medalist in Degree of Fine Arts from the Banaras Hindu University. He pursued Master Degree in Fine Arts in the year 1993 and was awarded Fellowship by the State Kala Academy in the year 1999 and Junior Fellowship Fine Art 2008-2010 Human Resource Development, New Delhi. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Lecturer in the Imphal Art College vide order dated 15.2.1996. Considering the achievements and works of the petitioner and being the senior-most among the teaching staff of the Imphal Art College, the Deputy Secretary (Art and Culture), Government of Manipur, vide letter dated 14.12.2017 conveyed approval of the Government to allow the petitioner to hold charge of Principal, Imphal Art College, Manipur, as an interim arrangement till a regular Principal is appointed through a competent DPC. The petitioner was working as Principal in-charge of the Imphal Art College for over eleven months. The petitioner was required to furnish certain documents by the Joint Director (Art and Culture), Manipur, which the petitioner duly furnished. When the petitioner was awaiting appointment to the regular post of Principal, the Vice Chairman, Governing Body, Imphal Art College, issued an order dated 30.11.2018 appointing the fourth respondent, Arambam Hemanta Singh, Senior Lecturer, on promotion, to the post of Principal, Imphal Art College.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the post of Principal is a selection post as per the Recruitment Rules and the petitioner being the senior-most lecturer and having discharged the duty of Principal in-charge, he ought to have been considered for the said post. It is added that even as per the Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2014, more especially Rule 5.7(b), the officers who are included in the panel for promotion will have to be arranged in the order of their inter se seniority in the lower category without reference to the overall grading obtained by each of them, but ignoring the same, the respondent authorities have adopted a different method than stipulated in the Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2014 and appointed the fourth respondent.

4. This court, vide order dated 6.12.2018, suspending the impugned order dated 30.11.2018. The interim order was extended periodically and is in force as on date. The Vice-Chairman of the said college filed a Misc.Case No.16 of 2019 for vacating the interim order, which is still pending. The person who has been appointed in the place of the petitioner filed Misc.Case No.28 of 2019 seeking to vacate the exparte interim order dated 6.12.2018.

5. When things stood thus, the Vice Chairman issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.1.2019 alleged that he took away some important files and paintings, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 19.1.2019. Thereafter, the Vice Chairman issued another show cause notice dated 16.5.2019 levelling certain allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner, in his reply, submitted that the Vice Chairman has no authority to issue the show cause notice as the term of the Governing Body already expired on 2.5.2019. However, the Vice-Chairman vide order dated 31.5.2019, which is under challenge in W.P. (C) No.567 of 2019, placed the petitioner under suspension and self-assumed himself as the Principal to look after the Imphal Arts College.

6. Calling into question the appointment of the Vice- Chairman as the Principal to look after the Imphal Arts College, Imphal, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.898 of 2019 styled as a quo-warranto alleging that no rule except Fundamental Rule 56(d) permits for re-engagement of a retired person, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as laid down in the said rule. The fifth respondent in the said writ petition ret