Manipur High Court
Dr. R.K. Joteen Singh vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 12 August, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by [1]
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.08.12 15:17:55
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025
Dr. R.K. Joteen Singh, aged about 53 years, S/o (Late) R.K.
Prameshwar Singh of Sagolband Thangjam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Education, Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Manipur University represented by the Registrar,
Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O. Canchipur, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795003.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate
asstd. by Mr. Th. Ningtamba, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. W. Darakishwor, Sr. Panel Counsel &
Mr. B.P. Sahu, Senior Advocate
asstd. by Mr. Abhishek Sahu, Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 07-08-2025
Date of Order :: 12-08-2025
O R D E R
[1] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Th. Ningtamba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner;
Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned senior panel counsel appearing for the
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd…/-
[2]
respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Abhishek Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the entire
proceedings of the Selection Committee Meeting held on
07/07/2025 for appointment of Registrar of the Manipur University
for violation of para No. 19 of the Statutes of the University.
(ii) The issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to hold the interview fresh for appointment of
Registrar of the Manipur University after complying with the para
No. 19 of the Statutes of the University; and
(iii) In the interim, an order be passed directing the respondents not
to declare the result of the Interview held on 07/07/2025 for the
post of Registrar, Manipur University till the disposal of this writ
petition.
[3] The matter has been taken up for hearing with regard to the
prayer for passing an interim order for restraining the respondents from
declaring the result of the Interview held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to
the post of Registrar in Manipur University till the disposal of the writ
petition.
[4] The case of the petitioner is that the Registrar, Manipur
University issued an Advertisement dated 20-02-2025 inviting online
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd…/-
[3]
applications from eligible candidates for appointment to 3 (three) Group-A
posts, including 1 (one) post of Registrar in the Manipur University. The
petitioner being eligible for the post of Registrar applied for the said post
and he was invited to attend the Interview along with 16 (sixteen) other
candidates. It is also the case of the petitioner that he appeared before the
Selection Committee for the Interview on 07-07-2025 and he found that the
Selection Committee consists of Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the Visitor,
one person not in the service of the University nominated by the Executive
Council and two other members and that the petitioner came to know after
the Interview that the two other members namely, Fr. (Dr.) Jose Palely and
Professor Dambarudhar Nath, who were members of the Selection
Committee, were not members of the Executive Council.
[5] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that in para 19(2) of the Statutes of the University, the
composition of the members of the Selection Committee for the post of
Registrar are provided as under:-
(i) Vice Chancellor,
(ii) A nominee of the Visitor,
(iii) Two members of the Executive Council nominated by it, and
(iv) One person not in the service of the University nominated by the
Executive Council.
It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that as two
members of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar, namely Fr.
(Dr.) Jose Palely and Professor Dambarudhar Nath were not the members
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd…/-
[4]
of the Executive Council of the Manipur University, the composition of the
said Selection Committee is violative of the provisions under para. 19(2) of
the Statutes of the Manipur University and as such, the entire proceedings
of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to
the post of Registrar has no locus to stand and is liable to be quashed and
set aside. The learned senior counsel, accordingly, prays for passing an
interim order restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the
said Interview till the disposal of the present writ petition.
[6] Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the Manipur
University submitted that para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University had
been amended by the Executive Council of the Manipur University as
provided under Section 30 of the Manipur University Act, 2005. As per the
new amended para. 19 of the Statutes of the University, the composition of
the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar are as under:-
“1. Vice-Chancellor to be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee;
2. An academic who is the nomine of the Visitor/ Chancellor;
3. Three experts in the concerned subject/ filed, out of the list
recommended by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the
Executive Council/ Syndicate;
4. Dean of the Faculty and
5. Head/ Chairperson of the Department.
At least four members, including two outside experts, must
constitute the quorum.”
[7] It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the said
amended statute has been published under a Notification dated 18-03-2025
and that the statutes have also been published in the Gazette of India dated
21-07-2025. The learned senior counsel submitted that the composition
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd…/-
[5]
of the members of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar was
constituted as per the amended para. 19(2) of the statutes of the University
and as such, the allegation raised by the petitioner in his writ petition is
misconceived and not tenable and that the petitioner is not entitled to any
interim relief. The learned senior counsel, accordingly, prays for rejecting
the prayer for passing an interim order.
[8] In response to the submission made on behalf of the Manipur
University, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that under
Section 46(1) of the Manipur University Act, 2005, it is provided that every
statute, ordinance or regulation made under the act shall be published
in the Official Gazette. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that the amended para. 19(2) of the statutes of the
University was published in the Gazette only on 21-07-2005 and as such,
the said amended statute of the Manipur University will come into force only
w.e.f. the date of publication of the same in the Official Gazette. It has also
been submitted by the learned senior counsel that as the composition of
the members of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar was
constituted prior to the publication of the amended statute in the official
Gazette, the same is invalid and violative of the un-amended para. 19(2) of
the statute and as such, the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee
Meeting held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to the post of Registrar is
illegal and liable to be interfered with. In support of his contentions, the
learned senior counsel cited the following case laws:-
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd…/-
[6]
(1) (1987) 1 SCC 658 “B.K. Srinivasan & ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka & ors.” wherein it has been held as under:-
“15. There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law,
whether Parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance, those
that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law
and all changes and additions made to it by various processes.
Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the ‘conscientious
good man’ seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of
Justice Holmes’s ‘Unconscientious bad man’ seeking to avoid the
law, law must be known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can
be known. We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all-
pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where
governance by delegated or subordinate legislation powers is not as
important if not more important, than governance by Parliamentary
legislation. But unlike Parliamentary legislation which is publicly
made, delegated or subordinate legislation is often mde
unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the
Government or othe official dignitary. It is, therefore, necessary that
subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or
promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or
promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then
take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where
the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or
promulgation that made must be followed. Where prescribes the
manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient,
if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the
mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a
plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only
when it is published through the customarily recognized official
channel, namely, the official gazette or some other reasonable mode
of publication. There may be subordinate legislation which is
concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas.
In such cases publication or promulgation by other means maybe
sufficient.”
(2) (1994) 5 SCC 198 “M/S Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of
India & ors.” wherein it has been held as under:-
“17. In the present case indisputably the mode of publication prescribed
by Section 25(1) was complied with. The notification was published
in the Official Gazette on the 13-2-1986. As to the effect of the
publication in the Official Gazette, this Court held [Srinivasan Case
AIR at p. 1067: SCC pp. 672-73. para 15]:
“Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation
itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of
publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinateWP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd…/-
[7]
legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the
subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode
of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through
the customarily recognized official channel, namely, the Official
Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication.”
(3) (2010) 1 SCC 730 “Rajendra Agricultural University Vs.
Ashok Kumar Prasad & ors.” wherein it has been held as
under:-
“26. In view of the above, it is not possible to accept the contention that
the Statute contained in the Notification dated 4-9-1991 came into
effect or became enforceable even in the absence of publication in
the Official Gazette. The High Court committed an error in holding
that the teachers became entitled to the benefit of the Statute relating
to time-bound promotion scheme, when the said Statute made by the
Board of Management was assented to by the Chancellor even
though it was not published in the gazette. The High Court also
committed an error in observing that the non-publication was
unreasonable and arbitrary, as it ignored the valid reasons assigned
by the Chancellor for withdrawing his assent to the incomplete
Statute, in his Order dated 19-3-1996.”
[9] Per contra, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Manipur University submitted that para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the
University was amended by the Executive Council of the Manipur University
as provided under Section 30 of the Manipur University Act, 2005 and that
the President in his capacity as the Visitor of the Manipur University have
given his assent to the amended statute as far back as on 18-12-2014. The
learned senior counsel further submitted that the said amended statute
was also notified by the authorities of the Manipur University by issuing a
notification dated 18-03-2025 and that subsequently, the said amended
statute was published in the Gazette of India on 21-07-2025. The learned
senior counsel strenuously submitted that as para. 19(2) of the Statutes of
the University was amended and notified after following due process of law
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd…/-
[8]
as provided under the act and as there is nothing either under the act, rules
or under any subordinate legislation mandating that the amended statute
will come into force only from the date of publication in the official Gazette,
the amended statute shall have effect from that date it was notified on
18-03-2025 and not necessarily from the date of publication in the official
Gazette. The learned senior counsel also prays for allowing the
respondents to file counter affidavits to decide the issue on merit and not to
pass any interim order which will affect the academic administration of the
University.
[10] I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully examined the materials
available on record. The case pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ
petition is that under para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University, the
Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Registrar should
consists of (i) Vice Chancellor (ii) a nominee of the Visitor (iii) two members
of the Executive Council nominated by it and (iv) one person not in the
service of the University nominated by the Executive Council. It is also the
pleaded case of the petitioner that after participating in the Interview for the
post of Registrar on 07-07-2025, the petitioner later on came to the know
that two members of the Selection Committee were not members of the
Executive Council and as such, they cannot be the members of the
Selection Committee and as such, the entire proceedings of the Selection
Committee Meeting held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to the post of
Registrar is liable to be quashed and set aside as being ultravires the
provisions of the said para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University.
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd.../-
[9]
[11] Only after it has been pointed out on behalf of the Manipur
University that para. 19(2) of the statute of the Manipur University had been
amended and that the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar was
constituted in terms of the amended statute, it has been argued on behalf
of the petitioner that the amended statute cannot come into force prior to
the publication of the same in the official Gazette. On the other hand, the
stand taken on behalf of the Manipur University is that the amended statute
had already come into force on its publication on 18-03-2025 and that
as there is nothing under the act, rule or subordinate statute mandating
that the amended statute will come into force only w.e.f. the date of its
publication in the official Gazette, there is no merit or substance in the
argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and that the Selection
Committee had been constituted as provided under the amended statute.
[12] Taking into consideration the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and lack of any material or sufficient materials on
record, this court is of the considered view that it will be prejudicial to the
case of either of the parties to decide the highly debatable issue raised by
the parties in the present writ petition in the absence of adequate pleadings
and materials on record. In my considered view, such highly debatable and
contentious issue should be decided finally only after giving the parties
adequate opportunities to put on record sufficient pleadings and materials
and as such, this court refrains itself from deciding the issue at this stage
to avoid any injustice to any of the parties.
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd.../-
[10]
[13] So far as the prayer for passing an interim order made by the
petitioner is concerned, this court is of the considered view that if an interim
order is passed restraining the authorities from declaring the result of the
Interview in which the petitioner also participated voluntarily, it will not be
in the interest of the academic policy of the Manipur University, rather it may
affect the interest of the students of the University. Accordingly, this court
refrains itself from passing such an interim order. However, in order to
protect the interest of the petitioner also, it will be suffice to make it clear
that if any appointment is made to the post of Registrar pursuant to the
recommendation made by the Selection Committee, such appointment
shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.
List this case again on 02-09-2025.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 529 of 2025 Contd.../-