Manipur High Court
Ingudam Chitrasen Meitei & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 March, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
IN. 6
Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.03.03 16:04:15
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 174 of 2025
Ingudam Chitrasen Meitei & ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
03-03-2025
Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted
by Ms. Julekha Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Issue notice, returnable within four weeks.
Mr. Y. Paikhomba, learned counsel assisting Mr. Kh. Samarjit,
learned DSGI entered appearance and accepts notice on behalf of all
the respondents, hence no formal notice is called for.
With regard to the prayer for passing interim order,
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel submitted that in the
Advertisement dated 13-12-2024 issued by the respondents, the
following posts had been notified:-
(i) Un-reserved - 5 posts
(ii) OBC - 4 posts
(iii) SC - 2 posts
(iv) EWS - 1 post
(v) ST - 1 post.
The learned senior counsel submitted that in total violation of
the notified posts, the authorities have issued the impugned Select List
of candidates dated 27-02-2025 wherein the following candidates have
been selected:-
WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 Contd…/-
-2-
(i) Un-reserved – 7 candidates as against 5 advertised posts
(ii) SC – 2 candidates
(iii) OBC – 4 candidates
The learned senior counsel strenuously submitted that as
against 5 (five) advertised posts earmarked for Un-reserved candidates,
the authorities have selected 7 (seven) candidates which is in excess of
two. It has also been submitted that no candidates has been selected for
the posts reserved for ST and for the post earmarked for the candidates
belonging to Economically Weaker Sections. The learned senior counsel
submitted that the said selection is in total contravention of the
Advertisement notified earlier by the authorities and as such, the
impugned list of selected candidates deserves to be suspended during
the pendency of this writ petition. In support of his submission, the
learned senior counsel cited the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of “Kulwinder Pal Singh & anr. Vs. State of Punjab
& ors.” reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532 wherein it has been held as
under:-
“15. By perusal of Section 7, it appears that as a general rule there is
a bar on dereservation of the post reserved for Scheduled Caste
candidates. However, sub-section (2) provides an exception to
this general rule by laying down that in the public interest the
authorities may be passing an order in writing dereserve the seats
reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes category.
After insertion of clause (4-B) in Article 16 of the Constitution vide
the Eighty-first (Amendment) Act, 2000, dereservation could not
have been done. Under Article 16(4-B) of the Constitution of India,
unfilled vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes candidates are to be carried forward
independent of ceiling of reservation of fifty per cent. The seats
reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories
are to be filled only by specified category. Therefore, the High
Court was right in finding fault with the dereservation of the seven
posts which were filled by the candidates belonging to general
category and we do not find any reason warranting interference.”
When this court raised a query to the learned senior counsel as
to non-impleadment of those selected candidates in the present writ
petition, the learned senior counsel cited the judgment rendered by the
WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 Contd…/-
-3-
Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10-02-2025 in Civil Appeal No(s) 13950-13951
of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 6120-6121 of 2023) “Amrit Yadav
Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors.” wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
when the advertisement itself is void and has been declared illegal and
unconstitutional, there is no need to comply with the principle of natural
justice and non-impleadment of the selected candidates will not be fatal.
Relying on the said judgment, the learned senior counsel submitted that the
present writ petition can be heard without impleading those selected
candidates who are likely to be affected.
Per contra, the learned DSGI submitted that the authorities
have not violated the provisions of the relevant laws providing quota for
reservations. In this regard, the learned DSGI draw the attention of this
court to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’
Cadre) Act, 2019 wherein under Section 3 of the said Act, it is, inter alia,
provided as under:-
“3(1) Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in
force, there shall be reservation of posts in direct recruitment out
of the sanctioned strength in teachers’ cadre in a Central
Educational Institution to the extent and in the manner as may be
specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official
Gazette.
(2) For the purpose of reservation of posts, a Central Educational
Institution shall be regarded as one unit.”
The learned DSGI further submitted that pursuant to the
provisions of Section 3 sub-section 1 of the said Act, the Ministry of
Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education)
issued a Notification dated 12-07-2019 wherein the following quota for
reservation are provided as under:-
” (a) fifteen per cent for Scheduled Castes;
(b) seven and one-half per cent for Scheduled Tribes;
(c) twenty-seven per cent for socially and educationally
backward classes; and
(d) ten per cent for economically weaker sections.”
WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 Contd…/-
-4-
Relying on the provisions of the said Act under Section 3 as
well as the Notification providing the quota for reservation, it has been
submitted by the learned DSGI that while calculating the quota to be
reserved for candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC, the percentage,
reserved for economically weaker section should not be included
inasmuch as, the said quota will be adjusted not vertically but
horizontally. The submission of the learned DSGI that the total quota to
be reserved comes to only 49.5 per cent which is less than 50 per cent
and under the act and rules, some fraction of deviation is permissible and
accordingly, the authorities has earmarked 11 posts for Un-reserved
candidates out of 20 posts in the cadre strength by adjusting 1 post from
the OBC quota. It has been submitted that after such calculation, the
authorities have issued the Advertisement dated 13-12-2025 earmarking
the number of posts reserved for each category of candidates.
The learned DSGI further submitted that out of 20 cadre
strength of Assistant Professor Grade – II (Level 10), 6 (six) posts were
originally held by Un-reserved candidates and out of the said 6
candidates, two have already been upgraded to the higher level of
Assistant Professor Grade – II (Level 11). Resultantly, two vacancy arose
against the quota earmarked for Un-reserved candidate during the
process of selection. In view of the availability of two more vacant posts
earmarked for Un-reserved candidates, the authorities have selected
and recommended 7 (seven) Un-reserved candidates as against 5 (five)
advertised posts, however, the authorities have not violated any quota
earmarked for each candidates. The learned DSGI further submitted that
so far as the posts earmarked for ST candidates and EWS are
concerned, as no suitable candidates were found, the authorities did not
recommend any candidate and that two posts are still lying vacant and
the authorities will issue separate notification for appointment against
the said two posts. The whole submission of the learned DSGI is that the
authorities have not violated any quota rules as alleged by the present
petitioners. The learned DSGI submitted that at this juncture, no interim
order is called for.
WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 Contd…/-
-5-
I have heard at length the submissions advanced by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of
the merit of the rival submissions of the learned senior counsel, this court
is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out a
prima facie case at this juncture for passing an interim order.
Accordingly, the prayer for passing interim order is hereby rejected.
However, the petitioners are given liberty to raise the prayer for passing
interim order after filing of the counter affidavit of the respondents, if so
advised.
As prayed for, list this case again on 12-04-2025.
JUDGE
Devananda
WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 Contd.../-
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by IN. 7
SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.03.03 16:04:53
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WP(C)) No. 168 of 2025
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 174 of 2025)
Ingudam Chitrasen Meitei & ors. ... Applicants
Vs.
Union of India & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
03-03-2025
In view of the order passed today in the main writ petition,
the present application stands rejected.
JUDGE
Devananda
WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 Contd.../-
