Manipur High Court
Indira Sarangthem vs Athokpam Herojit Singh & 2 Ors on 16 June, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.06.18
12:12:37 +05'30'
Clubbed with
MC(WP(C))No.66 of 2025
With Review. Pet.No.25 of 2025
With WP(C)No.76 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review Pet.No.24 of 2025
Indira Sarangthem.
Petitioner
Vs.
Athokpam Herojit Singh & 2 ors..
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J.)
16.06.2025.
[1] In the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged
the order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, at Guwahati
bench (in short CAT), vide annexure A/17 dated 24.01.2025.
[2] The proceeding in O.A. No. O42/00213/2024 has been
initiated challenging the order dated 31.07.2024 re-employment of
respondent No.4 therein to the post of Professor, Soil Science at College
of Central Agriculture University (CAU in Short) for a period of 6(six)
months or until further orders. In the said order, it is further allowed the
private respondent No.4 to hold the existing responsibilities till further
2
orders (Giving the charge of Dean and Director of Instruction). The
respondent No. 4 in the aforesaid OA proceeding has been arrayed as
respondent No.3 in this writ proceeding. The aforesaid O.A. proceeding
has been initiated by the applicant therein being the rank of the petitioner
in this writ proceeding and the instant writ petition has been initiated
keeping in view section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, (CAT)
Act, 1985 by questioning the order dated 31.07.2024. The respondent
No.4 therein being the rank of the respondent No.3 in this writ petition
namely, Smt. Indira Sarangthem was re-employed in Central Agricultural
University(CAU in short) as a Professor and further allowed to hold the
existing responsibilities till further orders, the applicant seeking various
reliefs which is taken and also taken various contentions in the
proceeding initiated as Original Application under section 19 of the CAT
Act, 1985.
[3] Heard Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner for some time in these matters and equally the argument
advanced by Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel for respondent 3
and inclusive of Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.
1 & 2.
[4] However, keeping in view the issue and also the issue which
was addressed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application and
in para 14, it is made clear that as per the provisions under the CAU
Ordinance has brought before the Tribunal that it is clear that the Vice
Chancellor, Central Agricultural University, Imphal is vested with powers
3
to assign the administrative and financial responsibilities to any eligible
Professor; and as per exigency and for smooth running of the Institution
i.e. CAU statute 4(2), vesting of such responsibilities with re-employed
Professor, Soil Science, which is private respondent No.4 therein, is as
per the norms and rules. Thus, M.A. No.042/00107/2024 was allowed and
stay so granted earlier by the Tribunal on 13.09.2024 is hereby vacated.
In view of above, we are in considered opinion to directed the respondent
authorities i.e. Central Agricultural University(CAU), to expedite the
process of recruitment for the various posts including of Dean, College of
Agriculture, Pasighat as per Advertisement No. 01/2019 dated 07.06.2019
& 02.2020 dated 30.12.2020 respectively expeditiously within a
prescribed time frame and complete the process not later than six months
from the date of pronouncement of this order, the same has been
observed in para No.14.
[5] Whereas in para 15 of the order rendered by the Tribunal in
the aforesaid Original Application proceeding which has been initiated and
also therein issued some directions by directing the respondent
authorities to take immediate action to expedite the process of recruitment
of various posts, including appointment of Dean, College of University,
CAU, Imphal in pursuance to the Advertisement No.04/2024 dated
05.08.2024, within six months.
[6] However, keeping in view the issues in between the
petitioner and the respondent No.3 being appointed as a Professor, Soil
Science cum Dean but keeping in view the arguments advanced by the
4
learned senior counsel for the petitioner equally with the argument
advanced by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 and inclusive
of the learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, it is deemed
appropriate to state that the impugned order rendered by the CAT dated
24.01.2025 and keeping in view the directions issued by the Tribunal that
it should be expedited within the prescribed time which is not later than
six months from the date of pronouncement of this order. Therefore, the
domain vested with the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and that the authorities
shall complete the process in pursuance to the direction issued by the
CAT in the aforesaid application proceeding within a period of six months.
[7] Whereas in this matter, it is deemed appropriate to refer the
preceding order dated 28.04.2025 and wherein it is made clear that the
respondent University shall undertake the process for recruitment of the
Dean of the University as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, keeping in
view the preceding order sheet which is stated supra and also keeping in
view the order rendered by the CAT and more importantly in para 14 and
15 are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to state that the respondent
No.3 herein being in the rank of the respondent No.4 in the Tribunal
wherein the Original Application which has been initiated relating to the
orders passed by CAU, Imphal dated 31.07.2024 and therefore, it is
deemed appropriate that the order relating to the appointment of
Professor of Soil Science, it shall be intact and keeping in view the para 9
of the preceding order dated 28.04.2025 and more importantly, the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall expedite the appointment of Dean in
5
accordance with direction issued by the CAT and also the process shall
be completed within six months and despite of it in this matter, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and inclusive of the learned senior
counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have addressed regarding the
maintainability of this writ petition mere because initiating the writ petition
as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and more importantly so
keeping in view the para 14 & 15 are concerned, it is deemed appropriate
that the CAU in the rank of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be completed the
process within a period of six months and if not the matter shall be viewed
seriously. Accordingly made an observation. This direction issued by the
CAT and detail order has been rendered in para 14 & 15 and therefore,
the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall expedite the process for appointment in
accordance to the direction issued by the CAT and in para 14 & 15, it is
specifically stated and also made an observation. However, the
respondent No.3 herein was appointed as a Professor of Soil Science
shall be intact till the completion of the process in further as per direction
issued by the CAT as in detail stated in para 14 & 15.
Accordingly made an observations.
[8] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Biswajit
Meitei forcefully submitted that this writ petition is maintainable but the
maintainability concept is concerned, even though, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner referring the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union
of India, it was decided in the year 1997 relating to the scope of Article
323 (A) & (B) regarding the establishment of the Tribunal but at this stage,
6
it cannot be arrived for consideration of the issue between the petitioner
and the respondents.
[9] In the meanwhile, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent No.3, Mr. M. Devananda submitting and also referring to the
preceding order dated 28.04.2025 and wherein in this matter passing
some order and it is in para 9, it is made clear that the respondent
University shall undertake the process for recruitment of the Dean of the
University as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the para 14 & 15
of the order rendered by the CAT and the said order has been challenged
in this writ petition by the writ petitioner but the learned senior counsel for
the respondent No.3 has questioned the maintainability and also referred
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2001) 4
SCC 734 in the case of Vinoy Kumar v. State of UP and the learned senior
counsel specifically in the aforesaid citation in referred in para 2 & 3 in
respect of the maintainability of the writ petition.
[10] However, the learned senior counsel, Mr. BP Sahu who is
representing respondent Nos. 1 & 2 but the respondent/University is not
even concluding the process despite the direction issued by the CAT
which is specifically stated in para 14 & 15. However, it is clarified that the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall expedite the process in accordance with the
direction issued by CAT in para 14 & 15, and till the completion of the
process, the order rendered by the CAT dated 24.01.2025 shall remain
intact in respect of Professor of Soil Science.
7
[11] However, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall proceed in
accordance with para 14 & 15 of the order rendered by the CAT and if not,
this matter will be dealt seriously.
[12] The learned senior counsel, Mr. M. Devananda for
respondent No.3 further submitting that this writ petition has been initiated
by the petitioner for challenging the order rendered by the CAT, and
wherein it appears to be a premature in nature and therefore, it requires
for hearing on maintainability of this writ petition, whereas the senior
counsel, Mr. S. Biswajit for the petitioner submitting by referring the
judgement which is stated supra even though for hearing on
maintainability, that para 14 & 15 specifically stated therein. Accordingly,
made an observations.
[13] Despite the direction issued by the CAT as in para 14 & 15
that the petitioner herein being the applicant before the Original
Application proceeding has initiated before the CAT keeping in view the
provision of section 19 of the CAT Act, 1985 and it is made clear that the
writ petition has been initiated by the petitioner herein soon after rendering
the order despite of para 14 and 15.
Accordingly, made an observations.
List the matters on 09.07.2025.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom