LAIPHRAKPAM TOMBI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned UO note bearing No.12/1/Min/Edn/Fy/CAD/2021-MTU, dtd. 23/8/2021 issued by the Minister, Education, Manipur and the letter dtd. 3/9/2021 of the Deputy Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Manipur and also to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to function and impart his duties as Vice- Chancellor of Manipur Technical University as per law without any hindrance or interference till the appointment of the new Vice- Chancellor.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as regular Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service in the month of October, 2020. After his retirement, no regular Vice- Chancellor was appointed and the said post was illegally held by the Commissioner, Higher Education. According to the petitioner, by the order dtd. 17/8/2021, the Deputy Secretary in the Higher and Technical Education Department appointed the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University on a stop-gap arrangement for a period till a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed. Pursuant to the order dtd. 17/8/2021, the petitioner took charge and functioning as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University. While so, the Minister for Education, in his UO note dtd. 23/8/2021 restricted the powers of the Vice- Chancellor and the said UO note was directed to be communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University by the Deputy Secretary. Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary of Higher and Technical Education vide letter dtd. 3/9/2021 communicated the same to the Registrar. According to the petitioner, the Minister for Education has no authority to restrict the power and functions of the Vice-Chancellor. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Opposing the writ petition, the first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant provision of any Act/Rule of the University, which prohibits the Administrative Secretary in assuming the charge of the Vice-Chancellor on in-charge basis as a stop-gap arrangement. As such, the allegation of the petitioner that the post of Vice-Chancellor was malafidely and illegally held by the Commissioner, Higher Education is without any legal basis. It is stated that the petitioner has been designated as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University only as stop-gap arrangement till a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed as per the order dtd. 17/8/2021. It is further stated that Sec. 14(2) of the Manipur Technical University Act provides that the term of the office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of 70 years whichever is earlier. The petitioner who was the first Vice- Chancellor had completed his term of three years on 24/10/2020 and as per the official records, his recorded date of birth is 1/12/1950 and he has completed the age of 70 years on 1/12/2020. It is also stated that before the designation of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor as stop-gap arrangement, appointment to the post of the Vice-Chancellor of Manipur Technical University on a regular basis was already issued under advertisement No.03/2021, dtd. 12/8/2021. Therefore, the impugned UO note of the Minister dtd. 23/8/2021 cannot be treated as curtailment on the power of the petitioner as Vice- Chancellor and there is no malafide intension in the UO note, which was communicated to the Registrar of Manipur Technical University. The regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor being in a very advanced stage and applications had already been received and also the Selection Committee was constituted. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.