Salam Kenedy Singh vs Manipur University

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, C.J.—Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-University and Mr. S.T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

This review is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2014 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 18 of 2014.

Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks for review of the said order on the ground that the list prepared by the Registrar of the University and intimated to the Secretary to the Governor of Manipur on 23.7.2014 is beyond the competence of the Registrar of the University. According to the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners it is only the academic council which is competent to take a decision with regard to the distribution of seats in different disciplines for different categories of students and the Registrar has no such authority. It was, further, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Registrar having no competency to prepare the list of distribution of seats in different disciplines to different categories of students, the order of the Court directing the University to fill up the seats for the academic year 2014-2015 on the basis of the said list prepared by the Registrar of the University needs to be reviewed.

3.1. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the University has raised three objections. The first objection is that the review petitioners were not parties in the writ petition and without obtaining the leave of the Court to file the review they could not have filed the review petition. The second objection is that in the review petition, the Manipur University has been arrayed as the first party; whereas the petitioners in the PIL should have been made first party. The third objection raised by Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the University is that preparation of the list distributing seats in different disciplines for different categories of students is a clerical job which has been done by the Registrar of the University and Academic Council has endorsed it. Therefore, there is no reason for the Court to interfere with the order passed and impugned in this review petition.

Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that no ground for review has been made out as the petitioners have failed to indicate any error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the review petition should be dismissed.

So far as technical objections raised by Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the University are concerned, we find that the first two objections have no legs to stand. In the review petition, the petitioners have sought for leave to file the review and though the University has been made as respondent no. 1, the petitioners in the PIL out of which the review arises have also been made parties in the review petition. Merely because the petitioners in the PIL have not been arrayed as respondents 1, 2 & 3 in the review petition does not make the review petition non-maintainable.

5.1. So far as the objections raised by Mr. Serto T. Kom is concerned, we find that there is substantial force in his contention. The PIL had been filed by the respondents 6, 7 & 8 on the ground that though the Central Education Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012 came into force with effect from 19th June, 2012, the same was not being implemented by the University and the decision of the University to implement the same from the Academic Year 2015-2016 was the subject matter of challenge. The question as to whether the Registrar of the University was competent to prepare the list indicating distribution of seats in different disciplines for different categories of students or not was never raised in the writ petition. Law is well settled that a question which was never raised in course of hearing of the writ petition cannot be raised in the review petition. Moreover in the order itself, this Court had directed that the University to admit the students in terms of the said Act as per distribution of seats prepared by the University for the Academic Year 2014-2015. If the list prepared by the Registrar of the University has been endorsed by the Academic Council, there is no difficulty in acting upon the said list. If anyone disputes the correctness of the same, it would be open to him to raise the issue before the appropriate forum. We are, therefore, of the view that this review petition has no merit and accordingly we dismiss the same.