Manipur High Court
Moirangthem Mangi Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The … on 31 July, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
1. The Kumbi College, Kumbi, a registered Society bearing
Registration No. 5924 of 1985 represented by its Chairman, Shri
Moirangthem Mangi Singh, aged about 92 years, S/o (L) M.
Jadob Singh, resident of Kumbi Thong Leikai, Kumbi Ward No.
5, P.O. Moirang, P.S. Kumbi, District Bishnupur, Manipur-
795133.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Secretary (Hr. & Tech.
Education), Government of Manipur, Secretariat South Block,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-
795001.
2. The Director of Univ. & Higher Education, Government of
Manipur, Office at Nityaipat Chuthek, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District
Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. Shri Sanasam Premchandra Singh, aged about 48 years, S/o (L)
Sanasam Jaramajao Part-2, Near Public Community Hall, P.O.
Moirang, P.S. Kumbi, District Bishnupur, Manipur-795133.
4. Shri L. Gopal Singh, aged about 65 years, resident of Khudekpi
Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur,
Manipur-795133; former Head of Department, Political Science
Department, Kumbi College, Kumbi.
...... Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Appellant/s :: Mr. N. Kumarjit, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr.
Th. Monish Anand, Adv.
For the respondent/s :: Mr. Th. Sukumar, G.A. on behalf of Mr.
Ashang, G.A.; Mr. N. Mahendra, Adv.
along with Mr. S. Samungou, Adv. for R3.
Date of hearing :: 25.07.2025
Date of Judgment & Order :: 31.07.2025
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Th. Monish Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Th. Sukumar,
learned G.A. appearing on behalf of Mr. Y. Ashang, learned G.A. for
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel along with Mr.
S. Samungou, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. None appeared on
behalf of respondent No. 4 in spite of service.
[2] By the present writ petition, the petitioner which is Kumbi
College, Kumbi, a registered Society bearing Registration No. 5924 of 1985
represented by its Chairman Shri Moirangthem Mangi Singh, approached this
Court, inter-alia, praying for setting aside the order dated 03.02.2025 issued
by respondent No. 3 appointing respondent No. 4 as Principal of Kumbi
College, Kumbi and in supersession of his superannuation on 06.02.2025 for
a period of 6 (six) months and also directing the State respondent not to grant
approval of the appointment of Principal of respondent No. 4 in violation of
provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 and prays for interim relief of
staying the impugned order dated 03.02.2025.
[3] This Court issued notice. However, did not grant any stay of the
impugned order.
[4] The main ground for challenge is that the meeting of the
Governing Body held on 30.01.2025 was non-existence and the same was in
violation of the provisions of Manipur Education Code, 1982. On 25.07.2025
when the matter was taken up for hearing and since the tenure of the
impugned order was to expire on 03.08.2025 and without going into merit, this
Court proposed to dispose of the present writ petition by passing an innocuous
order directing the Governing Body of the Kumbi College to appoint the
Principal of the College as per Manipur education Code, 1982. Mr. N.
Mahendra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 insisted that the writ
petition be decided on merit and he raised the question of maintainability. In
the circumstances, this Court is constrained to hear this matter on merit and
makes an endeavour to dispose of the same before expiry of the tenure of the
impugned order.
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 2
[5] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the Governing Body of Kumbi College was constituted by order dated
16.12.2024 issued by the Director of University and Higher Education,
Government of Manipur comprising of the petitioner herein as Chairman and
respondent No. 3 as Secretary and 8 (eight) other office-bearers for a term of
3 (three) years.
[6] In pursuant to the representation dated 20.01.2025 submitted by
the faculty members of the college for appointment of new Principal of College
as the then Principal was due to retire on 30.01.2025, the Governing Body
held a meeting on 21.01.2025 and 4 (four) names of the HoD of various
subject were shortlisted for appointment of the next Principal and a Screening
Committee consisting of the Principal and 2 (two) other members was also
constituted. On 27.01.2025, the Governing Body of the College resolved that
application for the post of Principal would be accepted by 28.01.2025 at 1:00
pm and the Screening Committee would seat on 29.01.2025 and emergency
general body meeting would be held on 30.01.2025 to examine and nominate
new Principal from the report of the Screening Committee.
[7] A notice dated 28.01.2025 was issued by the Secretary of the
Governing Body for an emergency general body meeting to be fixed on
30.01.2025 at 1:00 pm with the agenda for appointment of the Principal. It is
stated that on 30.01.2025, the meeting of the Governing Body could not be
convened for lack of quorum and objection raised by certain members against
the continued membership of the respondent No. 3 as the Secretary.
[8] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has
pointed out that the petitioner learnt that the respondent No. 3 manufactured
a proceeding/resolution of the Governing Body of the Kumbi College
purported to be held on 30.01.2025 and prepared a resolution recommending
respondent No. 4 as Principal of the Kumbi College.
[9] Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
30.01.2025 to the Director, University and Higher Education, Government of
Manipur stating that he did not sign any proceeding of the meeting held on
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 3
30.01.2025 as Chairman and requested to nullify the proceeding of the alleged
meeting held on 30.01.2025.
[10] On the basis of resolution No. 3 of the purported meeting held on
30.01.2025, the respondent No. 3 appointed the respondent No. 4 as Principal
of the Kumbi College for a period of 6 (six) months after supersession of his
superannuation with effect from 06.02.2025.
[11] The impugned order is challenged amongst the following
grounds that:
(i) The Manipur Aided College Employees (Service) Rules,
1974 as provided in Chapter XI Section I of the Manipur
Education Code, 1982 stipulated in Rule 4(A)(v) that the
Governing Body shall make appointment of the Principal
after obtaining prior approval of the Director of Education
i.e. the Director of Univ. & Higher Education, Government
of Manipur. In the present case, the appointment of the
respondent No. 4 issued by the respondent No. 3 vide
impugned order dated 03.02.2025, has not been approved
by the Director, University and Higher Education,
Government of Manipur till date and as such, the
impugned order dated 03.02.2025 cannot be sustained,
as the same is in violation of the Manipur Education Code,
1982.
(ii) Chapter XI and Section IV Clause 18(b)(i) of the Manipur
Education Code, 1982 provides that the staff of an aided
college (including Principal) shall possess the minimum
qualifications laid down by the University and their
appointment shall be made in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by the Government in this behalf
and prior approval of the Director will be necessary in each
specific case.
(iii) The procedure prescribed in the Manipur Education Code,
1982 for appointment of Principal of Aided College wasWP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 4
not followed in the present case prior to issuance of
impugned order dated 03.02.2025.
(iv) As provided under Chapter XI Section IV Clause 18(c) of
the Manipur Education Code, 1982, no person who does
not possess the qualifications for similar post under the
Government shall be appointed in an Aided College and
in the present case, the Principal of Government College
is to retire at the age of 62 years, even though a teacher
can continue upto 65 years as a teaching faculty. In the
present case, the respondent No. 4 exceeds the age of 65
years and as such, he cannot, even if, consider for
appointment as teaching staff in the college, as no person
beyond the age of 62 years can be appointed as Principal
of Aided College.
[12] The respondent No.4’s date of birth is 07.02.1960 and he has to
superannuate on 06.02.2025 on attaining the age of 65 years. It is prayed that
the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 be set aside and State respondent be
directed not to issue any approval for appointment of Principal of Kumbi
College in violation of Manipur Education Code, 1982.
[13] State respondent did not file any counter affidavit. However, Mr.
Th. Sukumar, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of Mr. Y. Ashang, learned
G.A., fairly concedes that till date, no approval has been accorded by the
Director, University and Higher Education, Government of Manipur for
appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Principal of Kumbi College.
[14] Respondent No. 4 did not appear in spite of service. However,
the respondent No. 3 (Secretary) filed an affidavit-in-opposition raising the
question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that:
(i) The writ petition has been filed by concealing and
suppressing important facts and the Chairman of the
Governing Body of the College, who filed writ petition in
his representative capacity, does not have locus for filingWP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 5
the same and any of his legal right has not been violated
in any way by the order dated 03.02.2025.
(ii) The writ petition is not maintainable as actively concealing
and supressing certain facts by the petitioner, miscoding
the provision of Manipur Education Code, 1982.
(iii) The petitioner has no locus as he has no personal right in
the appointment. The petitioner in the representative
capacity as Chairman of the Governing Body of the Kumbi
College, filed the writ petition challenging the impugned
order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Secretary of the
Governing Body pursuant to resolution No. 3 of the
emergency general body meeting held on 30.01.2025 to
which the petitioner himself presided as Chairman but
refused from signing the proceeding. The respondent No.
4 was appointed as Principal of the Kumbi College vide
impugned order dated 03.02.2025 pursuant to the
resolution No. 3 of general body meeting held on
30.01.2025 which was presided by the petitioner himself
but refrained from signing the proceeding due to his
personal agenda.
[15] Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has
stated that the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 was issued by invoking
Chapter XI Section I Rule 5 of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 for
temporary filling up of the vacancy and appointment of substitute. The
respondent No. 4, being the seniormost having most experience, his service
was extended and was appointed as Principal only for a period of 6 (six)
months vide impugned order dated 03.02.2025, as an interim measure till a
regular Principal was appointed in terms of Chapter XI Section I Rule 4 of the
Manipur Education Code. The Writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
party, i.e. Governing Body of the Kumbi College. It is also submitted orally that
only Secretary of the Governing Body is competent person to sue or to be
sued on behalf of the Governing Body in terms of Article 26 of the
constitution/regulation of the Governing Body dated 21.08.1984.
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 6
[16] On merit, it is stated that the averment made in the writ petition
are false, misleading, fictitious and frivolous. It is prayed that the writ petition
be dismissed limine for suppression of the material facts.
[17] Along with counter affidavit, the respondent No. 3 filed a
proceeding of the Governing Body Meeting held on 30.01.2025 in which the
Chairman of the Governing Body, i.e. the petitioner herein, did not sign and it
was blank.
[18] Respondent No. 3 also filed additional affidavit along with CD for
the meeting held on 30.01.2025 and also raising the contention of the
maintainability that as per Article 26 of the regulation of the society i.e.
constitution of Kumbi College, emphasising that only the Secretary is the
competent person to file suit by or against the college.
[19] The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by
respondent No. 3 stating that the petitioner is the Founder Secretary of the
Society registered on 27.02.1985 vide No. 5924 under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Manipur Societies Registration Act,
1989 repealed the application of Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the State
of Manipur. Section 19 of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989
provides that a society may sue or may be sued in the name of the President,
Secretary or any other office bearers authorized by the Registrar in this behalf
and Section 32 of the Act repeals the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in its
application in the State of Manipur keeping in continuity act done earlier.
However, proviso (a) to Section 32(2) says that any repugnant provision of the
bye law of the society registered under the Act of 1860 with the Act of 1989
will have to be amended within 6 (six) months, failing which it shall be deemed
to be void to that effect.
[20] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has
submitted that on joint reading Sections 19 and 32 of the Manipur Societies
Registration Act, 1989, it is clear that these provisions have superseded the
Article 26 of the Constitution of Governing Body providing only Secretary as
competent person to file suit by or against the Society. It is pointed out that
Section 19 of the Act of 1989 provides that President, Secretary and any
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 7
office-bearer will be competent to file suit on behalf of the Society, thereby
meaning that Chairman of the Governing Body is also competent person in
view of the proviso (a) to Section 32(2) of the Act of 1989 and hence, the
present writ petition is maintainable in the present form.
[21] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision
reported as (2013) 4 SCC 465 that writ petition can be filed for any order
issued in breach of the statutory provision. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner refers to the decision reported as (2021) 4 SCC 57 to the effect that
Society is the competent to espouse the cause of its members. It is stated that
no specific instance of misrepresentation and concealment has been pointed
out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. It is also stated that
Chapter XI Section I Rule 11 of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 will not be
applicable, as the Governing Body is not aggrieved by any order passed by
the Director of Education. It is further submitted the appointment of the
respondent No.4 as Principal of Kumbi College was made in violation of the
mandatory provisions of the Code of 1982 as pointed out above.
[22] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned G.A., submits that the issue is between
the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and the State Government has
no role in the present petition. However, he clarifies that till date, the Director
of University and Higher Education, Government of Manipur has not issued
any approval order to the proposal for appointment of the respondent No. 4
as Principal of Kumbi College. In the circumstances, this Court may pass
appropriate order.
[23] Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3,
submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in the present form, as
Chairman cannot represent the Society in terms of Article 26 of the regulations
of Kumbi College, which provides that only the Secretary of the Governing
Body is competent to file the case on behalf or against the Society. It is stated
that the writ petition is also not maintainable in the present form, as the
petitioner has made false and misleading statement in its writ petition. It is
stated in the writ petition that the meeting held on 30.01.2025 could not be
held due to lack of quorum and opposition by other members. However, in
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 8
fact, the meeting was presided by the petitioner himself and he refused to sign
the resolution. As there was a duly held meeting on 30.01.2025, mere non-
appending of signature of the Chairman of the meeting due to his malafide
intention, would not affect the authenticity of the resolutions taken in the
meeting, especially resolution No. 3 proposing to appoint the respondent No.
4 as the Principal for a period of 6 (six) months in supersession of his
superannuation. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the
petitioner is not affected personally by the impugned order dated 03.02.2025.
[24] Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 draws the attention of
this Court that the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 is a general law
and the regulations of the Kumbi College Society will be a special act. Hence,
the provision of Article 26 of the regulations of the Kumbi College will overwrite
the general provision of Sections 19 & 32 of the Manipur Societies
Registration Act, 1989 and hence, the Secretary is the only competent person
to file the case on behalf of the Society. He refers to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported as (2014) 3 SCR 1 with regard to the special law
overrules the general provisions and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust : http://indiankanoon.
org.doc/9096227 to emphasise that only authorised person can sign and
verify the pleadings. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 refers to the
decision in the case of Auroville Foundation vs. Natasha Storey: 2025
INSC 348 holding that persons approaching court with unclean hands and
supressed facts can be shunted at the very threshold without hearing on merit.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 also refers to the decision reported
as (2013) 2 SCC 398 that suppression of material facts will lead to the
dismissal of the petition at the threshold without deciding on merit of the case.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 also refers to a decision of this Court
in the order dated 20.12.2024 in WP(C) No. 686 of 2022 where writ petition at
the instance of a person who is not affected by the impugned order, cannot
approach the Court under a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
[25] This Court has considered the materials on record, the
submissions made by the parties and case law cited at the bar.
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 9
[26] On careful consideration, the following points of determination
are involved in the present case:
(i) Whether the present writ petition is not maintainable as
the petitioner, who is the Chairman of the Governing Body
of Kumbi College Society, does not have any locus in view
of Article 26 of the Constitution of the Society as alleged
by the respondent No.3?
(ii) Whether the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as
Principal of Kumbi College is in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982?
[27] It will be fruitful if the relevant provisions of the law are discussed
before going into the merit of the case.
1. Sections 19 & 32 of the Manipur Societies Registration
Act, 1989 are reproduced as under:
“19. Suits and Proceedings by and against a society:-
(1) Every society may sue or may be sued in the
name of the President, the Secretary, or any
office-bearer authorised by the Registrar in this
behalf.
(2) No Suit or proceeding, shall abate by reason of
any vacancy or change in the holder of the office
of the President, the Secretary or any office-
bearer.
(3) Every decree or order against a society in any,
suit or proceeding shall be executable against
the property of the society and not against the
person or the property of the President, the
Secretary or any office-bearer.
(4) Nothing in sub-section (3) shall exempt the
President, the Secretary of office bearer of a
society from any criminal liability under this Act
or entitle him to claim any contribution from the
property of the society in respect of any fine paid
by him on conviction by a Criminal Court.
“32. Repeal and savings:-
(1) The Societies Registration Act, 1860 (XXI of 1860) in
its application to the State of Manipur, is hereby
repealed.
(2) Any Society registered in any place within the State of
Manipur, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860,
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 10
shall be deemed to have registered under this Act, and
its principal office shall be deemed to be the registered
office of the society.
Provided that –
(a) the memorandum of association and the
regulations of any such society shall, if they are
repugnant to any of the provisions of this Act and
the rules, be brought in conformity wherewith
within the six months from the commencement of
this Act or within such further period as the
Registrar may allow, and thereafter shall, to the
extent of such repugnancy, be deemed to be void
and of not effect;
(b) Any office-bearer elected or appointed to an
office before the commencement of this Act and
holding such office immediately before such
commencement shall continue to hold such office
until the expiry of his term of office is lawfully
terminated;
(c) Nothing in this section shall affect –
(i) any right privilege obligation or liability
acquired, accrued, or incurred under the
societies Registration Act, 1860 (XXI of
1860).
(ii) Any investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege; obligation, liability; as aforesaid;
(iii) Any proceedings, in dissolution
commenced before the coming into force
of this Act."
2. Chapter-XIII of Misc.: Article 26 of the Constitution of
Governing Body of Kumbi College are reproduced as:
“Article 26: All suits by or against the college should be in the
name of the Secretary and the Governing Body also will have
power to appoint a person for the purpose for any special
particular occasions.”
3. Rule 4 of the Manipur Aided College Employees (Service)
Rules, 1974 which provides the method of recruitment for the
post of Principal of an Aided College is reproduced as:
“4. Method of Recruitment:-
(A) Principals:-
(i) The appointment of the Principal of an Aided
College shall be made by direct recruitment. The
post should be advertised in time at least two news
papers and Sate Gazette for a reasonable period of
time. The particulars of the candidates in respect of
educational qualifications and other experiences
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 11
will be scrutinized carefully by the Selection
Committee before interview.
(ii) The Selection Committee for appointment of the
Principal shall consist of the following officials:-
(a) One member of the Manipur
Public Service Commission: Chairman
(b) Director of Education: Secretary
(c) Director of University
Centre, Imphal and
(d) Another Senior member of the teaching
Staff of that centre (to be nominated by
Him) to represent the faculties of Arts
and Science: Member
(e) One Principal nominated by the
Government: Member
(f) One Educationist nominated
By the Government: Member
(g) President/Chairman of the Governing
Body of the College concerned: Member
(iii) The headquarters of the Selection Committee shall
be at such place as may be decided by the
Chairman of the Selection Committee from time to
time.
(iv) The Selection Committee after scrutiny of the
particulars and after interview shall prepare a list of
candidates in order of preference and shall forward
the list so prepared to the Governing Body,
concerned with recommendation for appointment.
(v) The Governing Body shall make appointment after
necessary verification of character, antecedents
and fitness after obtaining the prior approval of the
Director of Education.
(vi) The list of candidates shall ordinarily remain valid
for one year from the date of selection.”
4. Chapter-XI Section I Rule 5 of the Manipur Education Code,
1982 is reproduced as:
“5. Filling up of temporary vacancies and appointment
of substitute.
Except where it is otherwise provided in these rules,
the Governing Body shall have power to fill up any temporary
vacancy and appoint substitutes on ad-hoc basis without
advertisement which may not extend beyond 3 (three)
months subject to the approval of the Director of Education,
Manipur. The Principal/Secretary will immediately thereafter
advertise the post for recruitment through normal procedure
prescribed in these rules before the expiry of the period of
three months.”
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 12
[28] From the record, it is seen that the Kumbi College was registered
in the year 1985 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the
Constitution of the Governing Body of the Kumbi College was published on
21.08.1884. Chapter XIII misc.: article 26 provides that all suits by or against
the College should be in the name of the Secretary and the Governing Body
also have power to appoint a person for the purpose of any special particular
occasion.
[29] It is the submission of Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 3 that Article 26 of the Constitution of the society empowers
only the Secretary to file a suit or proceeding on behalf or against the college
and the Governing Body has power to appoint any other person for the said
purpose also. It is his submissions that the petitioner herein, being a Chairman
of the Governing Body, has no locus in terms of Article 26 of the Constitution
of the Society to file a suit or petition on behalf of the College in so far as there
is no specific authorization by the Governing Body to him.
[30] However, with the enactment of the Manipur Societies
Registration Act, 1989, the application of Societies Registration Act, 1860 has
been repealed in its application to the State of Manipur and Section 32 of the
repealing and savings clause of 1989 Act provides that any society registered
under 1860 Act shall be deemed to be registered under this Act of 1989.
However, the proviso (a) to Sub-section 2 of Section 32 of 1989 Act stipulates
that the memorandum of association and regulations of any society shall, if
they are repugnant to any provisions of this Act and the rules, be brought in
conformity wherewith within the period of 6 (six) months from the
commencement of this Act of 1989, failing which such repugnant provisions
shall be deemed to be void and of not effect. Section 19 of the new Act of
1989 empowers President, Secretary and any office-bearer authorized by the
Registrar to file suit on behalf of the society or defend any proceeding on
behalf of the society.
[31] It is clear that Article 26 of the regulations of the society is
repugnant to the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of 1989 Act to the extent
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 13
that it excludes President and any office-bearer of the society enabling to file
a suit on behalf or against the society.
[32] This Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. N. Kumarjit,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner that Article 26 of the Kumbi College
Society will be deemed to be read as empowering President, Secretary and
office-bearer authorized by the State, as the person competent to file a suit on
behalf of the society. This Court does not find any force in the submission of
Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, that Article 26 of
the Society being a special law shall overwrite the provisions of Section 19 of
the Manipur Societies Registration Act which is to be treated as a general law.
[33] This Court is of the opinion that the submission, even though
seems to be attractive on the face of it, is without any basis. The overruling
effect of the special law over general law is that both the general law and
special law should have the same status, such as Indian Penal Code may be
considered as a general law whereas POCSO Act 2012 may be considered
as a special law. In case of any inconsistency between the general law of IPC
and the special law of POCSO Act, the provisions of special enactment of
POCSO Act will overrule the provisions of the general statute of IPC.
[34] However, Article 26 of the regulations of the society is a bye-law
and it is a settled proposition of law that rules, bye-laws and sub-rules cannot
overwrite the mandatory provisions of the main statute and they can be
employed to interpret the grey area of the main statute and the same cannot
be done in the derogation of any provisions of the statute.
[35] It may be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Additional Industrial Tribunal and Ors. reported as MANU/SC/0611/1969
wherein it was held that the bye-laws either contemplated by the Act can be
merely those which govern the internal management, business or
administration of a society. They can be binding between the persons affected
by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. The bye-laws framed by
a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a
Company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 14
Association have never been held to have the force of law. The relevant para
is reproduced as:
“………………10. We are unable to accept the submission that
the bye-laws of a co-operative society framed in pursuance of
the provisions of the Act can be held to be law or to have the
force of law. It has no doubt been held that, if a statute gives
power to a Government or other authority to make rules, the
rules so framed have the force of statute and are to be
deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute. That
principle, however, does not apply to bye-laws of the nature
that a co-operative society is empowered by the Act to
make. The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be
merely those which govern the internal management,
business or administration of a society. They may be
binding between the persons affected by them, but they do
not have the force of a statute. In respect of bye-laws laying
down conditions of service of the employees of a society, the
bye-laws would be binding between the society and the
employees just in the same manner as conditions of service laid
down by contract between the parties. In fact, after such bye-
laws laying down the conditions of service are made and any
person enters the employment of a society, those conditions of
service will have to be treated as conditions accepted by the
employee when entering the service and will thus bind him like
conditions of service specifically forming part of the contract of
service. The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under
the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of
a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and
such Articles of Association have never been held to have
the force of law. In a number of cases, conditions of service for
industries are laid down by Standing Orders certified under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and it has
been held that, though such Standing Orders are binding
between the employers and the employees of the industry
governed by those Standing Orders, they do not have such force
of law as to be binding on Industrial Tribunals adjudicating an
industrial dispute. The jurisdiction which is granted to Industrial
Tribunals by the Industrial Disputes Act is not the jurisdiction of
merely administering the existing laws and enforcing existing
contracts. Industrial Tribunals have the tight even to vary
contracts of service between the employer and the employees
which jurisdiction can never be exercised by a civil court or aWP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 15
Registrar acting under the Co-operative Societies Act, so that the
circumstance that, in granting relief on issue No. 1, the Tribunal
will have to vary the special bye-laws framed by the Co-operative
Bank does not lead to the inference that the Tribunal would be
incompetent to grant the reliefs sought in this reference. In fact,
the reliefs could only be granted by the Industrial Tribunal and
could not fall within the scope of the powers of the Registrar
dealing with a dispute under Section 61 of the Act.”
[36] Reference can be made to the decision of Shewaram and Sons
v. Indore Municipal Corporation: MANU/MP/0210/1962 where it was held
that bye-law and rule are consistent with the provisions of the Act. It is
elementary that a bye-law or a rule framed under an Act cannot override the
express provisions of the Act. It must be consistent with and subordinate to
those provisions of the main statute. The relevant para is reproduced as:
“……..6. It is clear from Section 133 that for the imposition of any tax
mentioned in Section 132 it is essential that a resolution contemplated
by Sub-section (1) should be passed by the Corporation and that it
must be published and notified in the manner prescribed in Section
133. The resolution for the imposition of a tax must settle “the class of
persons or description of property” to be taxed, the amount or rate of
the proposed tax,
and the system of assessment to be adopted. In the imposition of a tax
the goods or persons to be subjected to the tax, the principle of
assessment and the rate at which they are to be assessed are matters
of principle and not of detail which can be regulated by rules or
byelaws. The system of assessment of a tax is as much an integral
part in the imposition of the tax as the persons or goods subjected to
the tax or the rate of the tax. The taxing power of the Corporation is to
be found in Section 132 and the exercise of it is regulated by Section
133. Section 427 only gives to the corporation the power to make
byelaws and rules consistent with the provisions of the Act “for carrying
out the provisions and intentions” of the Act. It is elementary that a
byelaw or a rule framed under an Act cannot override the express
provisions of the Act. It must be consistent with and subordinate
to those provisions.”
[37] With regard to relationship between the special and the general
laws, reference may be made to the decisions reported as- (i) AIR 1961 SC
751, (ii) (2006) 12 SCC 583, (iii) (2007) 7 SCC 309 and (iv) AIR 1950 SC 134.
In view of the above settled proposition of law that rules and bye-law cannot
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 16
negate the express provisions of the Act and as such, Article 26 of the
Constitution of the Kumbi College Society which authorized only the Secretary
as the competent person to file suit and other proceeding cannot undo the
wider scope given by the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1989, which
empowers the President, Secretary or any office-bearer as authorized by the
Registrar as the person competent to file suit on behalf of the society. The
provisions of Article 26 of the regulations of the society cannot overwrite the
wider scope given by Section 19 of the main statute i.e. Manipur State
Societies Registration Act, 1989. Accordingly, the plea of the maintainability
as raised by respondent No. 3 is rejected and it is held that the Chairman
(which is equivalent to President of the Society) is a competent person to file
the present writ petition. Accordingly, the preliminary objection is dismissed
and decided in favour of the petitioner. It is also held that the Governing Body
has a right to protect the interest of the Society to rectify and challenge any
wrong act done by one of its members, even if the Governing Body is not
personally aggrieved by such order. The next question to be decided is
whether the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Principal of the Kumbi
College by the respondent No. 3 is in compliance of the mandatory provisions
of the Manipur Education Code.
[38] The Government of Manipur has notified 01.02.1982 as the date
on which Manipur Education Code, 1982 came into force. The code is a
compendium of various rules for the regulations of the education both in
school, higher secondary, college and university level. It contains XI chapters
and Chapter-XI Section I contains the Manipur Aided College Employee
(Service) Rules, 1974 and the same came into force on 04.10.1974. Rule 4
prescribes the method of recruitment and sub-rule A provides that the
appointment of Principal of Aided College shall be made by direct recruitment
by a screening committee comprising of the Chairman and Members of the
Manipur Public Service Commission, Director of Education, Director of
University, Centre, Imphal and other members as prescribed in Rule 4A(ii).
Rule 4(v) says the Governing Body shall make appointment after necessary
verification of character, antecedents and fitness after obtaining the prior
approval of the Director of Education and Rule 4(vii) provides that the
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 17
appointment of Principals already in service shall be regularised on the
recommendation of the Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 6.
[39] Rule 6 prescribed the academic and other qualifications for a
candidate eligible for Principal i.e. a second class Master’s Degree with 10
years experience as a teacher in a Degree College or University or as an
Education Administrator and in special cases of outstanding scholarship with
administrative ability, the length of experience may be relaxed up to five years
and the minimum age is 35 years. However, rule does not provide maximum
age for appointment of a Principal.
[40] It may be pertinent to note that the retirement age of a
Government College Principal is 62 years, even though, a Government
College Teacher may continue in service up to the age of 65 only as a teaching
faculty. In other words, a person who has crossed the age of 62 years is not
qualified for appointment as Principal of a Government College.
[41] From the above provisions, it is clear that the Principal of the
Government Aided College can be appointed by the Governing Body of the
College on the recommendation of a suitable candidate by a Selection
Committee constituted under Rule 4(A)(ii) and after obtaining prior approval
of the Director of University and Higher Education, Government of Manipur
under Rule 4(v). It may be also noted that Rule 5 provides for filling up of
temporary vacancy and appointment of substitute for not more than 3 (three)
months subject to the approval of the Director of Education without
advertisement for a period not exceeding 3 (three) months subject to the
approval of the Director of Education.
[42] In any case of appointment of a Principal of a Government Aided
College (either on regular or temporary basis) by the Governing Body, it
should be recommended by a Select Committee and duly approved by the
Director of University and Higher Education, Government of Manipur.
Additionally, a person who crossed the age of 62 years cannot be appointed
as Principal of a Government College including Aided College. Within this
legal prism, the Principal of a Government Aided College has to be appointed.
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 18
[43] In the present case, the Governing Body of the College vide its
meeting held on 21.01.2025 resolved to shortlist the following faculty of the
college as panel for selection of the next principal of the college: (1) S. Rajen
Singh HOD Physics, (2) Kh. Rameshwar Singh HOD Physics, (3) Kh. Chanu
Surbala HOD Education and (4) Y. Devananda Singh HOD Mathematics and
the Screening Committee with the following members: (1) Ch. Modhumangol
Singh (Principal), (2) Ch. Brojendro Singh HOD History and (3) N. Brajamuhon
T/R was also constituted.
[44] In its meeting held on 27.01.2025, the Governing Body resolved
that candidates qualifying the minimum criteria to apply by 28.01.2025 at 1:00
pm and on 29.01.2025, the meeting of the Screening Committee would be
fixed on 29.01.2025 for selection of the Principal and emergency general body
meeting of the college to be held on 31.01.2025 at 1:00 pm to nominate a new
Principal from the report of the Screening Committee.
[45] The respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 28.01.2025 for
emergency general body meeting fixed on 30.01.2025 at 1:00 pm for the
appointment of the Principal. From the proceedings of the emergency general
body meeting held on 30.01.2025, it is seen that even though the petitioner
chaired the proceeding as a Chairman, he did not sign the proceeding nor did
any other person sign on his behalf. In the meeting dated 30.01.2025,
resolution 3 resolved to appoint the respondent No. 4 i.e. Shri L. Gopal Singh
HOD Political Science to the post of Principal for a period of 6 (six) months by
suspending his superannuation with effect from 07.02.2025. Accordingly, the
respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 appointing
respondent No. 4 as Principal of Kumbi College for a period of 6 (six) months
by suspending his superannuation with effect from 06.02.2025 in pursuance
of the resolution No. 3 of the Governing Body meeting purportedly held on
30.01.2025.
[46] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, attacks
the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 appointing the respondent No. 4 as
Principal for a period of 6 (six) months on the ground that:
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 19
(i) The name of respondent No. 4 was not recommended by
the Selection Committee as stipulated in Rule 4A(ii) of the
Manipur Aided College Employee (Service) Rules, 1974
and also the recommendation of the unauthorized
Screening Selection Committee was also not approved till
date by the Director of University and Higher Education,
Government in terms of Rule 4(v) of the Rules of 1974. It
is pointed out the Selection Committee was not
constituted as per Rule 4A(ii) of Rule of 1974.
(ii) It is also stated assuming that the appointment of
respondent No. 4 is for temporary vacancy in terms of
Rule 5 as projected by respondent No. 3, the same cannot
be sustained as maximum period of 3 (three) months is
prescribed for filling up temporary vacancy and also the
same should be with the prior approval of the Director.
[47] It is an admitted fact in the present case that there is no approval
of the Director of Education for the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as
Principal of the Kumbi College, both as a regular or as a temporary incumbent.
On the other hand, the respondent No.4 whose date of birth is 07.02.1960, is
to retire on 06.02.2025 on attaining the age of 65 years and in any case, he
cannot be considered for appointment as a Principal of a Government College,
as no person is eligible for appointment as Principal beyond the age of 62
years.
[48] This Court is of the considered view that the appointment of the
respondent No. 4 as Principal of Kumbi College by the respondent No. 3 vide
order dated 03.02.2025 purportedly in terms of resolution No. 3 of the
emergency meeting of the Governing Body held on 30.01.2025 cannot be
sustained for the following reasons:
(i) The Selection Committee which recommended the
respondent No. 4 was not by the Committee as stipulated
by Section 4A(ii) of the Manipur Aided College Employees
(Service) Rules, 1974 and mandatory prior approval of the
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 20
Director of Education as contemplated under Sub-rule (v)
of Rule 4 has not been granted till date. Respondent No.4
was not in the list of shortlisted candidates.
(ii) Even for the appointment of temporary vacancy under
Rule 5 as projected by the respondent No. 3, the same is
also in violation of the provisions of Rule 5, as maximum
term is for 3 (three) years and that too, with the prior
approval of the Director of Education, Manipur.
[49] Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 issued by
respondent No. 3 appointing respondent No. 4 as Principal of Kumbi College
is set aside with a direction to the Governing Body to initiate appointment of
Principal on regular basis in terms of the mandatory provisions of the rules of
1974 as discussed above. Till then, eligible seniormost faculty member of the
college may be appointed as in-charge Principal after following the relevant
rules. In order to avoid any difficulty in the functioning of the college and
applying ‘the principles of prospective overruling’, the normal administrative
and academic decisions already taken by the respondent No.4 are deemed to
be done by a duly appointed Principal, except the notification dated
03.07.2025.
[50] It may be noted that vide order dated 08.07.2025 in MC(WP(C)
No. 478 of 2025, this Court stayed the notification dated 03.07.2025 issued by
the respondent No. 4 as Principal for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching
staff, as his very appointment is being challenged before this Court. It is
clarified that the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff may be
initiated by a duly appointed Principal either on in-charge or on regular basis.
[51] Writ petition is allowed. No cost. Misc. applications are disposed
of with the above observations. Interim order stands merged with the final
order.
Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA KH. JOSHUA MARING
MARING Date: 2025.07.31
17:12:28 +05'30' JUDGE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
WP(C) No. 112 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 111 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 174 of 2025 with MC(WP(C) No. 478 of 2025
Page 21