Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Through The … vs Shri Mayanglambam Chitaranjan Singh on 28 July, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No. 92 of 2023
1. The State of Manipur through the Commissioner (Higher &
Technical Education), Government of Manipur, Imphal,
Manipur-795001.
2. The Director (Higher & Technical Education), Manipur.
...... Appellant/s
- Versus -
1. Shri Mayanglambam Chitaranjan Singh, aged about 29 years,
S/o (L) M. Inaocha Singh, resident of Kakching Khunou
Tampakyum Lai Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, District
Kakching, Manipur-795103.
2. Khumukcham Anandi Devi, aged about years, W/o Thingnam
Shantikumar Singh, resident of Kakching Khunou Thingnam
Tarung Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, District
Kakching, Manipur-795103.
...... Respondent/s
3. The Kakching Khunou College, Kakching Khunou, P.O.
Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur-795103
through the Principal.
4. Shri Sarangthem Kishan, S/o S. Amu Singh, Kakching Khunou
Lamhaba Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, Kakching
District, Manipur-795103.
5. Khumukcham Sarda Devi, D/o Khumukcham Suben Singh of
Kakching Khunou Umathel Mathak Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S.
Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur-795103.
6. A. Somola Devi, W/o Kh. Meghachandra Singh of Kakching
Khunou Bokul Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, Kakching
District, Manipur-795103.
7. Khumukcham Beky Singh, S/o Khumukcham Babu Singh of
Kakching Khunou Bokul Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong,
Kakching District Manipur-795103.
8. Angom Somorjit Singh, S/o Angom Herachandra Singh of
Kakching Khunou Uchan Makhong Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S.
Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur-795103
9. Akoijam Bonish C/o Kakching Khunou College, P.O. Kakching &
P.S. Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur-795103.
……Proforma Respondents
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 1
With
WA No. 102 of 2023
Shri Sarangthem Kishan, S/o S. Amu Singh, Kakching Khunou
Lamhaba Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, Kakching
District, Manipur-795103.
…… Appellant/s
– Versus –
1. Shri Mayanglambam Chitaranjan Singh, aged about 29 years,
S/o (L) M. Inaocha Singh, resident of Kakching Khunou
Tampakyum Lai Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, District
Kakching, Manipur-795103.
2. Khumukcham Anandi Devi, aged about years, W/o Thingnam
Shantikumar Singh, resident of Kakching Khunou Thingnam
Tarung Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, District
Kakching, Manipur-795103.
3. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Univ &
Hr. Edn.), Government of Manipur, at Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Director (Univ. & Hr. Edn), Government of Manipur, at
Keishampat Wahengbam Leikai Rd., Keishamthong, Imphal,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
5. The Governing Body, Kakching Khunou College, Kakching
Khunou, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, Kakching District,
Manipur-795103 represented by its Chairman.
6. The Kakching Khunou College, Kakching Khunou, P.O. Kakching
& P.S. Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur-795103 through its
Principal.
…… Respondent/s
7. Khumukcham Sarda Devi, D/o Khumukcham Suben Singh of
Kakching Khunou Umathel Mathak Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S.
Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur-795103.
8. A. Somola Devi, W/o Kh. Meghachandra Singh of Kakching
Khunou Bokul Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong, Kakching
District, Manipur-795103.
9. Khumukcham Beky Singh, S/o Khumukcham Babu Singh of
Kakching Khunou Bokul Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong,
Kakching District Manipur-795103.
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 2
10.Angom Somorjit Singh, S/o Angom Herachandra Singh of
Kakching Khunou Uchan Makhong Leikai, P.O. Kakching & P.S.
Waikhong, Kakching District, Manipur-795103Akoijam Bonish
C/o Kakching Khunou College, P.O. Kakching & P.S. Waikhong,
Kakching District, Manipur-795103.
11. Akoijam Bonish Singh, C/o Kakching Khunou College,
PO. Kakching, PS Waikhong, District: Kakching,
Manipur-795103.
......Private Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K. SOMASHEKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Appellant/s :: Th. Sukumar, G.A.
For the respondent/s :: M. Devananda, Sr. Adv. assisted Ms.
Jyotsana, Adv.; Mr. L. Shashibhushan,
Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Fakharuddin,
Adv.
Date of hearing :: 15.07.2025
Date of Judgment & Order :: 28.07.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.]
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned G.A. for the State appellant, Mr.
M. Devananda, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Jyotsana, learned
counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. L. Shashibhushan,
learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Fakharuddin, learned counsel on
behalf of respondent No. 4 and who is also appellant in connected WA No.
102 of 2023. None appeared on behalf of other respondents.
[2] These writ appeals are heard and considered by this common
order, as they are arising out of the same impugned order. For easy reference,
the position of the parties are referred to as in WA No. 92 of 2023.
[3] WA No. 92 of 2023 is preferred by the State of Manipur against
the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this
Court in WP(C) No. 543 of 2018 filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein as
petitioners, wherein the State appellant was directed to absorb the services of
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 3
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein (writ petitioners) as Government Employees
upon conversion of Kakching Khunou College as a full-fledged Government
College as effected by the Government Order dated 28.06.2018.
[4] In the impugned order, Ld. Single Judge directed the State
Authority to absorb the service of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein (writ
petitioners) as done in the case of other private respondents herein (i.e.
respondent Nos. 4 to 9).
[5] The main grounds for the appeal are- (i) Ld. Single Judge has
committed manifest error without examining the authenticity of the
appointment order dated 21.11.2017 of Sarangthem Kishan (respondent No.
4 herein); (ii) the names of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not forwarded by the
College Authority to the State Government for absorption and (iii) it was
wrongly held that respondent No. 4 (Sarangthem Kishan) had already been
absorbed prior to the passing of the impugned order.
[6] WA No. 102 of 2023 is filed by respondent No. 4 [namely,
Sarangthem Kishan] in the connected writ appeal, i.e., WA No. 92 of 2023 on
the ground that the Ld. Single Judge has wrongly held his date of appointment
as 21.11.2017. It is stated that his actual date of appointment is 01.12.2016
being appointed along with the private respondent Nos 5-9.
[7] In order to understand the issue involved in both writ appeals, it
will be convenient to refer the contentions of the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.
543 of 2018 filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
[8] Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed the writ petition, being WP(C) No.
543 of 2018, inter-alia, stating that they were appointed along with respondent
No. 4 herein (i.e. Sarangthem Kishan) as LDC and Lab Assistant in Kakching
Khunou College (the then Government Aided College) vide order dated
21.11.2017 and they also submitted joining report on the same day.
[9] It is stated that the Government of Manipur converted 6 (six)
aided colleges into full-fledged Colleges including Kakching Khunou College.
Vide letter dated 13.12.2016, the Addl. Director, Directorate of Univ. & Hr.
Edn., Government of Manipur informed the Secretary/Principal, Kakching
Khunou College to submit particulars of employees both approved and
unapproved on or before 17.12.2016 without fail and vide letter dated
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 4
17.12.2016, the Principal, Kakching Khunou College submitted a list of
teaching and non-teaching staff both approved and unapproved to the
Director, University and Higher Education, Government of Manipur.
[10] It is the case of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein that they were not
included in the list of absorption. Through an RTI application, they came to
know that their names were not included in the list already submitted by the
Principal of Kakching Khunou College for absorption of staff both teaching and
non-teaching and approved and unapproved upon conversion of full-fledged
Government College where the names of the private respondents were found
at serial Nos. 21, 30, 32, 33, 34 & 35 of the non-teaching staff lists.
[11] Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by way
of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the
list submitted by the College Authority leaving out their names and, in the
alternate, for a direction to include their names in the list.
[12] The State authority filed counter affidavit to the writ petition, inter-
alia, stating that the State Government cannot give any direction to the
governing body of Government Aided College to include or delete/exclude any
teaching and non-teaching staff while submitting the list of employees for
absorption in the full-fledged Government College. It is also stated in para 3
of the counter affidavit that Governing Body of the Government Aided College
is the appointing authority as per Manipur Education Code 1982 and the State
Government is the only felicitator of grant-in-aid to the Government Aided
College and cannot interfere directly to the internal affair of the Government
Aided College.
[13] It is further stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the list of
teaching and non-teaching staff was submitted by the authorities of the Aided
College concerned for absorption of service consequent upon conversion of
Government Aided College as full-fledged Government College and it is the
duty of the Government only to consider the case of the employees both
teaching and non-teaching as per the condition provided under Government
Order dated 28.06.2018 read with rules and instruction issued from time to
time. It is again reiterated in para 8 of the counter affidavit of the State
respondent that it is for the Governing Body of the Government Aided College
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 5
to submit the list of teaching and non-teaching staffs of the respective College
and the State Government has nothing to do with such lists.
[14] The college authority as well as other private respondents did not
filed any response to the contention made in the writ petition.
[15] After hearing the parties, the Ld. Single Judge, by the impugned
order dated 17.10.2019, observed that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein as well
as respondent No. 4 herein were appointed by the common order dated
21.11.2017 and the respondent No. 4 and other private respondents i.e.
respondent Nos. 5 to 9 were absorbed by the Government.
[16] After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in detailed and
relying on earlier order of absorption in respect of Jiribam College in WP(C)
No. 282 of 2017, the Ld. Single Judge observed that respondent Nos. 1 & 2
herein are also entitled for absorption as the respondent No. 4 (i.e.
Sarangthem Kishan) was already absorbed and authenticity of the
appointment order dated 21.08.2017 cannot be questioned after his
absorption and Ld. Single Judge also observed that other private respondents
were also absorbed by the authority.
[17] Accordingly, writ petition was disposed of by directing the State
Authority to issue appropriate order absorbing respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as
Government Employees upon conversion of Kakching Khunou College as
Government College vide order dated 12.08.2016 issued by the State
Authority.
[18] The State Authority filed an appeal against the impugned order
dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP(C) No. 543 of 2018.
However, the same was dismissed on delay. The State preferred SLP No.
15798 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated
18.04.2013, the matter was remanded to the Division Bench to decide on merit
after condoning delay in filing the appeal, as absorption of non-teaching staff
in Government Aided College as government employee will intend substantial
financial involvement of the State. Accordingly, the writ appeal is listed before
this Court for adjudication on merit.
[19] Since WA No. 92 of 2023 filed by the State government and WA
No. 102 of 2023 filed by Sarangthem Kishan have arisen out the same
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 6
impugned order dated 17.10.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No. 534 of 2018, these matters are taken up hearing together for disposal by
a common judgment.
[20] In the writ appeal, the State has taken altogether different
grounds not raised in the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court.
[21] The main ground taken in the writ appeal is that:
(i) The Ld. Single Judge wrongly held that respondent Nos.
1 & 2 are entitled for absorption.
(ii) The Ld. Single Judge was wrong in upholding the
authenticity of the appointment order dated 21.11.2017 of
Sarangthem Kishan (respondent No. 4).
(iii) The appointment of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 were under
enquiry and final report is to be submitted.
(iv) Ld. Single Judge was wrong in concluding that other
employees appointed after respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were
also absorbed.
(v) The appointment and regularization of Sarangthem
Kishan (i.e. respondent No. 4) is kept in abeyance till final
report is submitted in the enquiry.
[22] It is the specific plea that the State Government cannot give any
direction to the Governing Body of the Government Aided College to include
or exclude any teaching or non-teaching staff and it is internal affair of the
college. The Secretary of the Governing Body is the appointment authority.
[23] In WA No. 102 of 2023, the appellant- S. Kishan [the respondent
No. 4 in WA No. 92 of 2023], has challenged the decision of the Ld. Single
Judge in the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 in WP(C) No. 543 of 2018 on
the grounds that:
(i) No notice was served on respondent No. 4 about the writ
petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
(ii) The authenticity of the appointment order dated
21.11.2017 of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 herein cannot be
a subject matter of writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 7
(iii) The lists of teaching and non-teaching staff of Kakching
Khunou College submitted vide letter dated 17.12.2016 by
the Principal is a fabricated and manufactured document
and the finding and impugned order cannot be sustained,
as respondent No. 4 was appointed vide order dated
01.12.2016.
[24] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned G.A., submits that the finding of the
Ld. Single Judge suffers from serious non-appreciation of material facts on
record. The respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were absorbed vide order dated
19.03.2020 issued by the State Authority and on the date of the impugned
judgment i.e. 17.10.2019, none of the private respondents was absorbed by
the State Authority. Hence, the observation and reasoning of the Ld. Single
Judge may not be correct to the extent that since similarly situated persons
have already been absorbed, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are entitled for
absorption as Government employees. None of the employees appointed
after the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was absorbed by the State government.
[25] The order of absorption of Mr. Saranthem Kishan (i.e.
respondent No. 4 herein) has been kept suspension as there are two
appointment orders for him i.e. 01.12.2016 and 21.11.2017 and enquiry is
pending in this regard. Hence, the direction of the Ld. Single Judge of directing
to absorb the service of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on the basis of absorption of
respondent No. 4 cannot be sustained. This ground was not especially taken
by the State appellant before the Writ Court and included for first time as a
ground in the memo of appeal.
[26] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned G.A., makes an oral submission that
since the names of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not forwarded by the
Governing Body of Kakching Khunou College, their names cannot be
considered for absorption.
[27] In view of the above submissions, Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned
G.A., prays that the writ appeal be allowed and the order dated 17.10.2017
passed by the Ld. Single Judge be side aside.
[28] On the other hand, Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel
for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, submits that in the writ appeal, the State
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 8
Government has made up a totally different case not pleaded before the Writ
Court. Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 draws the attention
of this Court to the contents of para 3, 6 & 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the
State respondent before the Ld. Single Judge wherein it is stated that the
Governing Body of the Government Aided College is the appointing authority
and the Government has no role to advise the Governing Body to include or
exclude any name of teaching and non-teaching employee, both approved
and unapproved, for forwarding to the State Government for absorption upon
conversion of the Government Aided College as a full-fledged Government
College. The role of the Government is only to examine whether the names
submitted by the Governing Body of the Aided College are eligible for
absorption as per the relevant rules.
[29] Learned senior counsel has further pointed out that during the
pendency of the writ appeal and in order to subvert the direction of the Ld.
Single Judge, the State Authority, later on, issued two office orders dated
22.01.2021 & 23.02.2021 keeping in abeyance the absorption of Mr.
Sarangthem Kishan (i.e. respondent No. 4 herein) till completion of the enquiry
and keeping in abeyance consideration of the respondent Nos. 1&2 till then.
The State Government has also issued a subsequent order dated 27.12.2021
fixing the cut-off date of absorption as on 17.12.2016.
[30] Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.
1 & 2 (writ petitioner), submits that with malafide intention and to undo the
direction of the Ld. Single Judge, the State Government issued these
subsequent orders. It is urged that the same amounts to contemptuous act
and is done in order to obstruct the process of law and the administration of
justice of this Court.
[31] Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners draws the
attention to the affidavit-in-opposition [Annexure A-17 in WA No. 102 of 2023]
filed by Ex-Secretary, Governing Body of the College, i.e., the respondent No.
5 in the pending writ petition being WP(C) No. 990 of 2021 filed by Mr.
Sarangthem Kishan (i.e. respondent No. 4 herein) wherein it has been clarified
that the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 is 01.12.2016 and another
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 9
date of appointment, i.e., 21.11.2017 with respect to respondent No. 4 was an
inadvertent mistake.
[32] It is stated that the plea of the existing of two appointment orders
for the respondent No. 4 cannot be accepted in view of the clarification
submitted by the Governing Body of the College in connected WP(C) No. 990
of 2021 filed by respondent No. 4 herein.
[33] Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has
also submitted that neither the Governing Body nor the State Authority
disputed the date of appointment of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein i.e.
21.11.2017. None of the authorities has even stated that the appointment
order of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is fabricated. However, Mr. M. Devananda,
learned senior counsel, fairly concedes that the date of absorption of
employees of the 6 (six) newly converted Aided College including Kakching
Khunou College is 19.03.2020. It is clarified that since this fact was not
properly submitted by any of the parties before the Writ Court, the Ld. Single
Judge might have committed mistake in recording the fact that the respondent
No. 4 herein and others were absorbed prior to the date of the impugned order
dated 17.10.2019. However, he has pointed out that this error does not affect
the merit of the case of direction to absorb similarly situated persons.
[34] Since the appointment of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is not disputed
and they had already been appointed on a date prior to 19.03.2020 i.e. the
date of absorption, their names ought to be included in the list of employees
sent by the Governing Body of the College to the State Authority.
[35] Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel for the writ
petitioners, submits that respondent No. 1 & 2 are also eligible as per rule for
being absorption against the respective post. It is further submitted that mere
failure of the employer to forward the names of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to the
Government for absorption, the employees shall not to be made to suffer. The
learned senior counsel seriously questions the fixing of 17.12.2016 as a cut-
off date for absorption after passing of the impugned order dated 17.10.2019.
It is vehemently submitted that the same is nothing but to outreach the
authority of this Court and the same should be seriously viewed by this Hon’ble
Court.
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 10
[36] Learned senior counsel refers to the judgment of (2015) 1 SCC
347 para 22 for equal treatment to identically situated persons and (2023) 8
SCC 116 para 16 & 17 to the principle of approbate and reprobate and
inapplicability of contradictory plea. Learned senior counsel also relies on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Calcutta State Transport
Corporation v. Ashist Chakraborty: http:/indiankanoon.org/doc/7125977
that the employees should not be made to suffer for the lapse on part of the
employer. Learned senior counsel also refers to another order of Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 in writ appeal being WA No.
90 of 2023 that the employees cannot be made to suffer for failure of the
employer to forward their names for absorption to the State Government. It is
prayed that the writ appeals be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
[37] On the other hand, Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior
counsel for respondent No. 4, who is the writ appellant in cross writ appeal
being WA. No. 102 of 2023, raises the issue concerned with the finding of the
Writ Court in the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 to the effect that the
respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were appointed on the same date vide order dated
21.11.2017.
[38] It is pointed out that respondent No. 4 was appointed on
01.12.2016 along with other private respondents. Due to erroneous
observation of the Ld. Single Judge that respondent No. 4 was appointed on
21.11.2017, the State Government initiated an enquiry on the ground that
respondent No. 4 has two orders of appointment on different dates and due
to this enquiry, his absorption order was kept in abeyance. It is submitted that
the observation of the Writ Court to this effect may be set aside. It is stated
that he has challenged the keeping abeyance order by way of a writ petition
being WP(C) No. 990 of 2021 and the same is still pending before the writ
court.
[39] After the hearing was concluded on 15.07.2025 and reserving
the writ appeals for judgment, Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned GA submitted his
written submissions dated 23.07.2025 taking a totally different stand which
has not been pleaded in the counter affidavit before the writ court nor in the
memo of appeal before the writ court. In the written submissions, the State
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 11
appellant raises for the first time (i) the plea of fraud by the respondent Nos. 1
& 2, (ii) the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 not coming with clean hands and hence not
entitled to any relief, and (iii) cut-off date for absorption as on 17.12.2016 on
the basis of subsequent notification issued after the date of order by the writ
court. Learned GA has mentioned the following case law in his written
submissions: (i) A. V. Papaya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.: (2007) 4 SCC 221-
judgment obtained by playing fraud on court is a nullity; (ii) Dalip Singh v.
State of U.P.: (2010) 2 SCC 114- petition coming with unclean hand can be
thrown at the very threshold without considering on merit; (iii) Ramjas
Foundation v. Union of India: (2010) 14 SCC 38- person coming with
unclean hands is not entitled to any relief under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of
the Constitution of India; (iv) M/s Bhikuse Yamasa Kshatriya (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India: (1964) 1 SCR 860- selective application of law as per
exigencies is permissible; (v) Union of India v. M/s Parameswaran Match
Works: (1975) 2 SCR 573- classification can be based on a particular date
and the same is not always arbitrary; (vi) Dr. Sushma Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan: (1985) Supp SCC 45- fixing of a date for the purpose of the
eligibility is per se not arbitrary; and (vii) Ramarao v. All India Backward
Class Bank Employees Welfare Association: (2004) 2 SCC 76- cut-off date
cannot be faulted only on the ground that some persons fall outside the wrong
side of such date.
[40] This Court has considered the materials on record, the
submissions made by the parties and decisions cited before this Court.
[41] Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, as writ petitioners, approached this
Court for a direction to the College Authority to forward their names for
absorption and also for a direction to the State Authority for absorption their
names, as done in the case of the private respondents who are similarly
situated employees.
[42] Before the Writ Court as well as before this Bench, the Governing
Body of the College has not filed any response especially as to why the names
of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not forwarded to the State Government for
absorption upon the conversion of six Government Aided Colleges including
Kakching Khunou College as full-fledged Government College. Due to lapse
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 12
of the Governing Body of the College, the names of respondent Nos. 1 & 2
could not be considered by the State Authority for absorption.
[43] The State Authority has rightly pointed out that the Governing
Body is the appointing authority of the College and the Government has no
role in forwarding the names of teaching and non-teaching staff, both
approved and unapproved, for absorption upon conversion of the College to
full-fledged Government College. It is the sole prerogative of the Governing
Body of the College upon verification of credentials of the employees.
[44] It is not the case of the Governing Body of the College nor the
State Authority that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not eligible for absorption as
per the existing rule. Their appointment order dated 21.11.2017 is not disputed
by and/or before any authority. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the
Governing Body of the Kakching Khunou College in connected case, i.e.,
WP(C) No. 990 of 2021 filed by respondent No. 4 herein, it has been clarified
that the name of Mr. Sarangthem Kishan was wrongly included in the
appointment order dated 21.11.2017. With this clarification what remains that
vide order dated 21.11.2017, only two persons were appointed i.e. the
respondent No. 1 as LDC and the respondent No. 2 as Lab Assistant in
Kakching Khunou College.
[45] The clarification by the Governing Body in the subsequent writ
petition does not annul the appointments of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 vide
order dated 21.11.2017. It is also an admitted fact that the absorption was vide
order dated 19.03.2020 i.e. much after the appointment of the respondents
herein.
[46] Perhaps, the parties before the Writ Court did not appraise the
true facts of the case properly. In the circumstances, there might be some
inconsistency in the observations made by the Ld. Single Judge. The
observation that the private respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were already absorbed,
may not be factually correct. However, this does not change the fact that
similarly situated employees were absorbed by the State Authority on the
recommendation of the Governing Body of the College. The respondent Nos.
1 & 2 were left out the process of absorption due to the lapse of the Governing
Body of the College.
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 13
[47] There is no justification nor explanation given by the Governing
Body of the College as to why the names of the respondent No. 1 & 2 were
not included in the list of the names forwarded to the State Government for
absorption. Due to this lapse on the part of the Governing Body, the case of
the respondents could not be considered. If their names were included by the
Governing Body, the names of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 could have been
considered and absorbed, as State Government had not raised any objection
to their eligibility as per the existing rules. The only ground taken by the State
appellant is that the names of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not forwarded
by the Governing Body of the aided college to the government for absorption.
[48] The State appellant has taken another new plea in the written
submissions filed after the appeals have been reserved for order. For the first
time, the plea of fraud has been introduced and justification of fixing cut-off
date as 17.12.2016 for absorption. In the present case, the State appellant is
taking different and inconsistent stands at each stage of the litigation. Before
the writ court, the simple stand is that the names of the respondent Nos. 1 &
2 were not forwarded by the Governing Body of the Aided College and hence
their names could not be considered. In the memo of appeal, the State has
taken new pleas not pleaded before the writ court of error in the order. In the
written submissions filed after reserving for order in the writ appeals, the plea
of fraud and justification of cut-off of date for absorption has been introduced
for the first time. It is not the case of the State appellant that the respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 are ineligible for absorption as per rules. It is the settled proposition
of law that a person cannot take inconsistent and totally divergent stands in
the same transaction. In the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana: (1985)
4SCC 43, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as “…… It is needless to say that
the State Government is expected to function as a model employer”.
[49] We are conscious of the finding of co-ordinate bench of this Court
in writ appeal being WA No. 90 of 2023 regarding the plea of the State that
the names of the employees were not forwarded by the management and
hence was not considered for absorption. The relevant portion is reproduced
as:
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 14
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the said order dated
18.04.2023 further clarified that the argument of the State that
original writ petitioner was not absorbed because his name was
not sent by the concerned managing committee, is untenable
and would not be available to them in view of the unimpeachable
findings arrived at by the Ld. Single Judge in this behalf, whilst
disposing of the writ petition.”
[50] In the circumstances, WA No. 92 of 2023 filed by the State
Government is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. The finding and
observation of the Ld. Single Judge in the impugned order dated 17.10.2019
in WP(C) No. 543 of 2018 is modified to the extent that the private respondent
Nos. 4 to 9 were regularized on 19.03.2020 and not prior to the date of
impugned order i.e. 17.10.2019. This fact alone cannot negate the case of the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The failure of the Governing Body of Kakching Khunou
College to forward the names of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for absorption to
the Government, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of absorption to them.
It is directed that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be absorbed as government
employees as done to other similarly situated employees. It is the settled
principle of law that the employees should not suffer for the lapses on the part
of their employer, especially when they are not at fault. Benefits given to
similarly situated employees cannot be denied to them.
[51] WA No. 102 of 2023 is disposed of taking judicial note of the
contents of the counter affidavit of the Governing Body of the College in the
pending writ petition being WP(C) No. 990 of 2021 filed by S. Kishan himself,
where the Governing Body has explained that the name of the appellant i.e.
Sarangthem Kishan was wrongly included in the order dated 21.11.2017 and
his appointment order is dated 01.12.2016. Since this issue is pending for
adjudication before the Writ Court, we do not intend to express any opinion
and the matter is left to be decided in that proceeding.
[52] With this observation, writ appeals are disposed of. No cost.
[53] State authority is directed to issue necessary order of absorption
of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 within a period of 2 (two) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 15
[54] Send a copy of this judgment to the Administrative Secretary
(Higher & Technical Education), Government of Manipur, for information and
necessary compliance.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.07.28
MARING 12:24:47 +05'30'
WA No. 92 of 2023 with
WA No. 102 of 2023
Page 16