Dr. R.K. Joteen Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J

[1] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Th. Ningtamba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

[2] The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 07/07/2025 for appointment of Registrar of the Manipur University for violation of para No. 19 of the Statutes of the University.

(ii) The issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to hold the interview fresh for appointment of Registrar of the Manipur University after complying with the para No. 19 of the Statutes of the University; and

(iii) In the interim, an order be passed directing the respondents not to declare the result of the Interview held on 07/07/2025 for the post of Registrar, Manipur University till the disposal of this writ petition.

[3] The matter has been taken up for hearing with regard to the prayer for passing an interim order for restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the Interview held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to the post of Registrar in Manipur University till the disposal of the writ petition.

[4] The case of the petitioner is that the Registrar, Manipur University issued an Advertisement dated 20-02-2025 inviting online applications from eligible candidates for appointment to 3 (three) Group-A posts, including 1 (one) post of Registrar in the Manipur University. The petitioner being eligible for the post of Registrar applied for the said post and he was invited to attend the Interview along with 16 (sixteen) other candidates. It is also the case of the petitioner that he appeared before the Selection Committee for the Interview on 07-07-2025 and he found that the Selection Committee consists of Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the Visitor, one person not in the service of the University nominated by the Executive Council and two other members and that the petitioner came to know after the Interview that the two other members namely, Fr. (Dr.) Jose Palely and Professor Dambarudhar Nath, who were members of the Selection Committee, were not members of the Executive Council.

[5] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in para 19(2) of the Statutes of the University, the composition of the members of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar are provided as under:-

(i) Vice Chancellor,

(ii) A nominee of the Visitor,

(iii) Two members of the Executive Council nominated by it, and

(iv) One person not in the service of the University nominated by the Executive Council.

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that as two members of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar, namely Fr. (Dr.) Jose Palely and Professor Dambarudhar Nath were not the members of the Executive Council of the Manipur University, the composition of the said Selection Committee is violative of the provisions under para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the Manipur University and as such, the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to the post of Registrar has no locus to stand and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned senior counsel, accordingly, prays for passing an interim order restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the said Interview till the disposal of the present writ petition.

[6] Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the Manipur University submitted that para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University had been amended by the Executive Council of the Manipur University as provided under Section 30 of the Manipur University Act, 2005. As per the new amended para. 19 of the Statutes of the University, the composition of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar are as under:-

“1. Vice-Chancellor to be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee;

An academic who is the nomine of the Visitor/ Chancellor;

Three experts in the concerned subject/ filed, out of the list recommended by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the Executive Council/ Syndicate;

Dean of the Faculty and

Head/ Chairperson of the Department.

At least four members, including two outside experts, must constitute the quorum.”

[7] It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the said amended statute has been published under a Notification dated 18-03-2025 and that the statutes have also been published in the Gazette of India dated 21-07-2025. The learned senior counsel submitted that the composition of the members of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar was constituted as per the amended para. 19(2) of the statutes of the University and as such, the allegation raised by the petitioner in his writ petition is misconceived and not tenable and that the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief. The learned senior counsel, accordingly, prays for rejecting the prayer for passing an interim order.

[8] In response to the submission made on behalf of the Manipur University, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 46(1) of the Manipur University Act, 2005, it is provided that every statute, ordinance or regulation made under the act shall be published in the Official Gazette. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the amended para. 19(2) of the statutes of the University was published in the Gazette only on 21-07-2005 and as such, the said amended statute of the Manipur University will come into force only w.e.f. the date of publication of the same in the Official Gazette. It has also been submitted by the learned senior counsel that as the composition of the members of the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar was constituted prior to the publication of the amended statute in the official Gazette, the same is invalid and violative of the un-amended para. 19(2) of the statute and as such, the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to the post of Registrar is illegal and liable to be interfered with. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel cited the following case laws:-

(1) (1987) 1 SCC 658 “B.K. Srinivasan & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors.” wherein it has been held as under:-

“15. There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law, whether Parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance, those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes. Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the ‘conscientious good man’ seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes’s ‘Unconscientious bad man’ seeking to avoid the law, law must be known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can be known. We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all-pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or subordinate legislation powers is not as important if not more important, than governance by Parliamentary legislation. But unlike Parliamentary legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subordinate legislation is often mde unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the Government or othe official dignitary. It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that made must be followed. Where prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel, namely, the official gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means maybe sufficient.”

(2) (1994) 5 SCC 198 “M/S Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India & ors.” wherein it has been held as under:-

“17. In the present case indisputably the mode of publication prescribed by Section 25(1) was complied with. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on the 13-2-1986. As to the effect of the publication in the Official Gazette, this Court held [Srinivasan Case AIR at p. 1067: SCC pp. 672-73. para 15]:

“Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication.”

(3) (2010) 1 SCC 730 “Rajendra Agricultural University Vs.Ashok Kumar Prasad & ors.” wherein it has been held as under:-

“26. In view of the above, it is not possible to accept the contention that the Statute contained in the Notification dated 4-9-1991 came into effect or became enforceable even in the absence of publication in the Official Gazette. The High Court committed an error in holding that the teachers became entitled to the benefit of the Statute relating to time-bound promotion scheme, when the said Statute made by the Board of Management was assented to by the Chancellor even though it was not published in the gazette. The High Court also committed an error in observing that the non-publication was unreasonable and arbitrary, as it ignored the valid reasons assigned by the Chancellor for withdrawing his assent to the incomplete Statute, in his Order dated 19-3-1996.”

[9] Per contra, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the Manipur University submitted that para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University was amended by the Executive Council of the Manipur University as provided under Section 30 of the Manipur University Act, 2005 and that the President in his capacity as the Visitor of the Manipur University have given his assent to the amended statute as far back as on 18-12-2014. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the said amended statute was also notified by the authorities of the Manipur University by issuing a notification dated 18-03-2025 and that subsequently, the said amended statute was published in the Gazette of India on 21-07-2025. The learned senior counsel strenuously submitted that as para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University was amended and notified after following due process of law as provided under the act and as there is nothing either under the act, rules or under any subordinate legislation mandating that the amended statute will come into force only from the date of publication in the official Gazette, the amended statute shall have effect from that date it was notified on 18-03-2025 and not necessarily from the date of publication in the official Gazette. The learned senior counsel also prays for allowing the respondents to file counter affidavits to decide the issue on merit and not to pass any interim order which will affect the academic administration of the University.

[10] I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully examined the materials available on record. The case pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that under para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University, the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Registrar should consists of (i) Vice Chancellor (ii) a nominee of the Visitor (iii) two members of the Executive Council nominated by it and (iv) one person not in the service of the University nominated by the Executive Council. It is also the pleaded case of the petitioner that after participating in the Interview for the post of Registrar on 07-07-2025, the petitioner later on came to the know that two members of the Selection Committee were not members of the Executive Council and as such, they cannot be the members of the Selection Committee and as such, the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 07-07-2025 for appointment to the post of Registrar is liable to be quashed and set aside as being ultravires the provisions of the said para. 19(2) of the Statutes of the University.

[11] Only after it has been pointed out on behalf of the Manipur University that para. 19(2) of the statute of the Manipur University had been amended and that the Selection Committee for the post of Registrar was constituted in terms of the amended statute, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the amended statute cannot come into force prior to the publication of the same in the official Gazette. On the other hand, the stand taken on behalf of the Manipur University is that the amended statute had already come into force on its publication on 18-03-2025 and that as there is nothing under the act, rule or subordinate statute mandating that the amended statute will come into force only w.e.f. the date of its publication in the official Gazette, there is no merit or substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and that the Selection Committee had been constituted as provided under the amended statute.

[12] Taking into consideration the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and lack of any material or sufficient materials on record, this court is of the considered view that it will be prejudicial to the case of either of the parties to decide the highly debatable issue raised by the parties in the present writ petition in the absence of adequate pleadings and materials on record. In my considered view, such highly debatable and contentious issue should be decided finally only after giving the parties adequate opportunities to put on record sufficient pleadings and materials and as such, this court refrains itself from deciding the issue at this stage to avoid any injustice to any of the parties.

[13] So far as the prayer for passing an interim order made by the petitioner is concerned, this court is of the considered view that if an interim order is passed restraining the authorities from declaring the result of the Interview in which the petitioner also participated voluntarily, it will not be in the interest of the academic policy of the Manipur University, rather it may affect the interest of the students of the University. Accordingly, this court refrains itself from passing such an interim order. However, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner also, it will be suffice to make it clear that if any appointment is made to the post of Registrar pursuant to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, such appointment shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.

List this case again on 02-09-2025.