Manipur High Court
Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The on 5 August, 2026
2026:MNHC:156
REPORTABLE
Item nos. 9 & 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with
MC(WP(C)) No. 99 of 2026
Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram, aged about 61 years
S/o (Late) T. Krishna Singh of
Sagolband Kangabam Leikai,
PO & PS- Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner (Higher & Technical Education),
Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
Mantripukhri, PO-Mantripukhri, PS-Heingang,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.
2. The Chancellor, Manipur Technical University,
Lok Bhavan Manipur, PO & PS- Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
3. The Manipur Technical University, represented by its
Registrar, Government of Manipur, Polytechnic Campus,
Takyelpat, PO & PS- Lamphel,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
.... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Oral)
05.08.2026
[1] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel assisted by Ms. Y.
Jinita, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. M. Devananda, learned
Addl. AG assisted by Ms. N. Jyotsana, learned counsel for the State
respondent; Dr. RK Deepak, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. L. Rajesh,
learned counsel on behalf of Manipur Technical University (in short, MTU).
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 1 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
[2] The short question involved in the present writ petition is:
“Whether the decision in an administrative order shall be over-ridden by and
merged with the finding in subsequent judicial order on the same issue or
not?”.
[3] Before going to the controversy in the matter, the brief facts in
the present petition are enumerated as below:
[4] The petitioner, Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram was appointed as
Vice-Chancellor (in short, VC) of MTU by an order dated 08.11.2021 issued by
Chancellor, MTU in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 14(1) of
the Manipur Technical University Act, 2016 (in short, MTU Act) for a period of
5 years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains
the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. 3(three) applicants for the post of
VC in MTU and 1(one) individual challenged the appointment of the petitioner
herein by way of writ petitions being WP(C) Nos. 791, 805, 807 & 825 of 2021
and the same were allowed & disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this
Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.V. Muralidaran] by a common judgment
& order dated 27.01.2023 and the appointment order dated 08.11.2021 of the
petitioner herein as VC of MTU, was set aside along with the advertisement
dated 12.08.2021; and the authority was directed to initiate fresh recruitment
process after issuing fresh advertisement. It may be noted that WP(C) No. 825
of 2021 is a writ of quo-warranto filed by a non-applicant. The relevant
portions of the common judgment & order dated 27.01.2023 are reproduced
as below:
“134. In final,
i. W.P. (C) Nos. 791, 805, 807 and 825 are allowed.
ii. The impugned advertisement dated 12/08/2021 and the
recruitment process initiated pursuant to the said
advertisement are set aside.
iii. The impugned order of appointment issued in favour of the
respondent Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram dated 8/11/2021 is also
set aside.
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 2 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
iv. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to initiate fresh
recruitment process after issuing a fresh advertisement for
filling up the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical
University as per the Manipur Technical University Act and/or
its statutes etc. as per the UGC Regulations and its norms.
v. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
vi. The official respondents are directed to strictly comply fresh
process within the time limit as fixed by this Court and report
this Court on 28/04/2023.
vii. Till such fresh appointment, the official respondents are
directed to make a stop-gap arrangement in accordance with
law.
viii. There will be no order as to costs.”
[5] Being aggrieved by the common judgment & order dated
27.01.2023, the petitioner herein whose appointment had been set aside, filed
4(four) Writ Appeals being WA Nos. 14, 15, 16 & 61 of 2023 before Division
Bench of this Court.
[6] A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2025,
set aside the common judgment & order dated 27.01.2023 in the writ
petitions; and writ appeals were allowed and writ petitions were remitted back
to Ld. Single Judge for disposal on merit within a period of 8(eight) weeks.
Thereafter, the petitioner herein submitted a representation dated 20.02.2025
to the Chancellor of MTU to reinstate him to the post of VC, as Division Bench
by its order dated 19.02.2025 set aside the common order dated 27.01.2023
cancelling his appointment as VC of MTU. Since nothing was happening, the
petitioner approached the Division Bench by way of an application being
MC(WA) No. 33 of 2025 for permitting him to discharge his duties as VC of
MTU on the ground that the Division Bench had restored his appointment
dated 08.11.2021; and stop gap arrangement of charge of VC has stood
erased. Vide order dated 02.04.2025, the Division Bench disposed of MC(WA)
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 3 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
No. 33 of 2025 by giving direction to the Chancellor, MTU to consider the
pending representation dated 20.02.2025 for reinstating the petitioner as VC
of MTU. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated
16.05.2025 to the Chancellor, MTU with the same prayer. It may be noted
that out of four remanded writ petitions, 3(three) writ petitions, i.e., WP(C)
Nos. 791, 807 & 825 of 2021 were dismissed by this Court as withdrawn, vide
order dated 21.04.2025 and in the circumstances, only WP(C) No. 805 of 2021
remains on the board of Ld. Single Judge of this Court.
[7] During the pendency of the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, Chancellor
of MTU issued an order dated 22.08.2025 disposing the representation dated
20.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner herein, holding that the petition does
not have requisite qualifications for being appointed as VC of MTU. The order
dated 22.08.2025 is challenged before this Court in the present writ petition
i.e. WP(C) No. 91 of 2026
[8] It may be noted that after disposal of the pending
representation dated 20.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner for re-instating
him to the post of VC by an order 22.08.2025 passed by the Chancellor,
learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Bimol Singh]
disposed of the pending writ petition, being WP(C) No. 805 of 2021
(challenging the appointment of the petitioner herein, as VC of MTU vide order
dated 08.11.2021) by dismissing the writ petition challenging his appointment
on the ground that the opinion of the expert committee consisting of four
members holding the petitioner as eligible, cannot be looked into in a judicial
review in absence of any patent illegality in the process of selection. Vide order
dated 27.10.2025, it was held that the case of the petitioner has been
examined by a committee of expert and the committee having found him
eligible and recommended for appointment, the Court in a judicial view, does
not have any expertise to examine the same and held that the petitioner was/is
eligible for appointment as VC of MTU. In the order dated 27.10.2025, learned
Single Judge has recorded that State respondents, MTU as well as UGC have
taken a specific stand in the counter affidavits that the petitioner was eligible
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 4 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
for appointment as VC of MTU. Th relevant ‘para nos. 15, 16 & 17’ of the order
dated 27.10.2025 are reproduced as below:
“[15] According to the respondents, the respondent No. 3
possesses the educational qualifications of Bachelor of Civil
Engineering, Master of Civil Engineering and Ph.D. “Traditional
Housing and Architecture of Manipur”. The respondent No. 3
possesses the essential qualifications prescribed under Section
7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, i.e., 10 years of experience in
a reputed research and/ or academic administrative organisation
with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. Such
factum has not been disputed by the petitioner and in fact, it is
not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 did not
have 10 years of experience in a reputed research and/or
academic administrative organization. The sum and substance of
the ground raised by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3
did not have a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor
in a University.
[16] In the present case, a duly constituted Selection
Committee, consisting of experts in the field, after carefully
examining and scrutinizing the qualifications and experience of
the respondent No. 3, found him to be qualified and eligible for
the advertised post of Vice-Chancellor. It is also on record that
after holding an Interview and after examining and scrutinizing
the merits and demerits of all the candidates who participated in
the said Interview, the Selection Committee found the
respondent No. 3 to be the most qualified and suitable candidate
and recommended him for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of
MTU. On the basis of such recommendation made by the
Selection Committee, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as the
Vice-Chancellor of MTU by issuing an order dated 08-11-2021,
impugned herein. [emphasis supplied by this Court]WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 5 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
[17] In view of the above, this court, in exercise of its power
for judicial review, cannot act as an appellate court to examine
the validity of the recommendation made by such expert
committee especially when there is no material on record to
support the allegations made by the petitioner and particularly,
when no allegation of mala fide had been raised against the
experts constituting the Selection Committee. It is a well-settled
principle of law that in the academic matters, the courts have a
very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been
alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee
and that it would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for
the courts to leave the decision to the academicians and experts.
As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an
endeavour to sit in appeal over the decision of the experts and
the court must realize and appreciate its constraints and
limitations in academic matters. In this regard, this court can
gainfully rely on the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of the Basavaiah (Dr.) (supra).”
[It may be noted that respondent No.3 in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 is Dr.
Bhabeswar Tongbram, who is also the writ petitioner in the present case, i.e.,
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026]
[9] Thereafter, the Commissioner (Higher & Technical Education),
Govt. of Manipur issued a notice dated 23.01.2026 to the petitioner herein, to
appear in person and depose, regarding the procedural and other relevant
aspects of his appointment as VC of MTU on 29.01.2026. The notice dated
23.01.2026 was issued to the petitioner on the basis of a letter dated
16.01.2026 issued by Hon’ble Governor of Manipur directing the Administrative
Department to initiate enquiry regarding the appointment of VC, MTU under
Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the MTU Act, 2016 and in view of the
impugned order dated 28.02.2025 issued by the Chancellor of MTU. In the
writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.91 of 2026, the petitioner challenges: (i) the order
dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Chancellor, MTU; (ii) the letter dated
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 6 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
16.01.2026 issued by Hon’ble Governor to the Commissioner, Higher &
Technical Education, Manipur for initiating enquiry; and (iii) Notice dated
23.01.2026 issued by Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education, Govt. of
Manipur to the petitioner herein for deposing before him in the proposed
enquiry. The prayer in WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 is reproduced below:
(i) admit this petition;
(ii) to issue a Rule Nisi;
(iii) to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
back dated order 22/08/2025 issued by the Chancellor of
Manipur Technical University thereby giving a finding that
the Petitioner did not possess the required qualification for
the post of Vice-Chancellor, Manipur Technical University;
(iv) to issue a Writ in the Certiorari for quashing the U.O. No.
GSM/MU-2/2017 dated 16/01/2026 issued by the Chancellor,
Manipur Technical University for holding an enquiry into the
procedural and other relevant aspect regarding the
appointment of the Petitioner as Vice-Chancellor under
Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Manipur Technical
University Act, 2016 and also the Notice dated 23/01/2026
issued by the Respondent No.1 including the proceeding
initiated on the basis of the said Notice dated 23/01/2026 for
want of jurisdiction and authority for want of jurisdiction and
authority;
(v) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to allow the Petitioner to joint as Vice-
Chancellor of Manipur Technical University on the basis of
the appointment order dated 08/11/2021;
(vi) in the interim, to pass an order staying the Back dated Order
dated 22/08/2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and also
the proceeding initiated on the basis of the notice dated
23/01/2026; &
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 7 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
(vii) to pass any such further order (s) or direction (s) which this
Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper to secure the ends of
justice.
[10] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits
that in the counter affidavit filed by the State respondent, MTU as well as UGC,
the specific stand is that petitioner herein [respondent no. 3 in WP(C) No. 805
of 2021] is/was eligible for appointment as VC of MTU. However, without
withdrawing the specific stand submitted in the counter affidavit before the
court, it is observed by the Chancellor of MTU in impugned order dated
22.08.2025 at ‘para nos. 12 & 13’ that the petitioner does not possess the
requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of VC, MTU. It is urged that
the same is without any basis and no explanation is not given contradicting
the statement given in the counter affidavit before this Court. It is submitted
that the stand taken by the Chancellor in order dated 22.08.2025 cannot be
sustained. Learned sr. counsel for the petitioner further submits that
subsequent to the issuance of the order dated 22.08.2025 issued by the
Chancellor holding the petitioner ineligible for appointment as VC of MTU, a
Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the pending WP(C) No. 805 of 2021
by an order dated 27.10.2025 holding that the petitioner having been found
eligible and thus recommended for appointment as VC by the committee of
expert; the Court has no jurisdiction to examine the same in a judicial review
in absence of any malafide or illegality and observed at ‘para no. 17’ that
petitioner is eligible. It is submitted that the finding of the Chancellor in order
dated 22.08.2025 observing that the petitioner does not have requisite
qualification stands erased by the finding of learned Single Judge in order
dated 27.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, by which the writ petition
challenging the appointment of the petitioner herein as VC of MTU by order
dated 08.11.2021 was rejected. It is submitted that subsequent finding in
judicial order will prevail over the finding in the previous administrative order
in the same subject matter and as such, the petitioner herein, is eligible for
appointment as VC of MTU.
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 8 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
[11] Regarding the enquiry initiated, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr.
counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry is on the basis of erroneous
finding in order dated 22.08.2025 of the Chancellor. Since the finding in order
dated 22.08.2025 has been overridden by the finding of learned Single Judge
in order dated 27.10.2025, the enquiry cannot be sustained as the same is
without any foundation; and the summon dated 23.01.2026 to the petitioner
also cannot stand legal scrutiny. It is prayed that the finding in order dated
22.08.2025 and proposed enquiry in terms of letter dated 16.01.2026 and the
notice dated 23.01.2026 summoning the petitioner, be set aside and the
petitioner be restored as VC of MTU.
[12] Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG submits that the State
authority has ample power to enquire into the conduct of appointment of VC
of the University in terms of Section 13 of the MTU Act, 2016 and letter dated
16.01.2026 issued by the Hon’ble Governor to the Commissioner (Higher &
Technical Education), Govt. of Manipur for initiation of an enquiry, is an
internal communication and the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction
before the Court and also clarified that the notice dated 23.01.2026 to the
petitioner is to depose in the proposed enquiry and nothing more than that.
[13] On the other hand, Dr. RK Deepak, learned sr. counsel for the
MTU submits that since the stand of the MTU in the counter affidavit filed
before the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 was not perhaps
according to the rule. The Chancellor subsequently gave a finding in the order
dated 22.08.2025 that the writ petitioner does not possess requisite
qualification for being appointed as Chancellor of MTU. Regarding the
proposed enquiry, it is explained that the same is to find out the lapses in the
selection process and to fix responsibility and the enquiry is initiated under
Section 13 of the MTU Act, 2016. Learned sr. counsel has also adopted the
submissions of Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG to the point that letter
dated 16.01.2026 of the Hon’ble Governor should not be a matter of
adjudication before the writ court.
[14] This Court has perused the materials on record. The only issue
is whether the finding of the Chancellor of MTU in order dated 22.08.2025 to
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 9 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
the effect that the petitioner herein is not eligible and does not have requisite
qualifications for being appointed as VC of MTU, has been
superseded/overridden by the subsequent finding of learned Single Judge of
this Court in order dated 27.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 holding that
the petitioner has the requisite qualifications. This Court has gone through the
decisions cited by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel to the points that
judicial order prevails over the finding of the administrative order on the same
subject matter and the relevant citations are reproduced below:
“A. Executive vs Judiciary, Non Compliance of Court’s
Order.
Once a quasi-judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal,
consisting of a retired Judge of a High Court or a person
qualified to be a Judge of a High Court and other experts in the
field, gives its decision that decision would be final and binding
so far as the executive and the Government is concerned. To
permit the executive to review and/or revise that decision
would amount to interference with the exercise of judicial
functions by a quasi-judicial Board. It would amount to
subjecting the decision of a quasi-judicial body to the scrutiny
of the executive. Under our Constitution the position is reverse.
The executive has to obey judicial orders. (Para 7)
2. 2007(7) SCC 689 – Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board
vs C. MuddaiahOnce a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be
obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order
passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored,
there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom
such order is made has grievances, the only remedy available
to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate
proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by
not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no
such directions could have been issued by the court. (Para 32)
3. 2011 (6) SCC 535 – Amrik Singh Lyallpuri vs Union of India
and Others.
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 10 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
Judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution.
There cannot be an administrative review of a decision taken
by a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority which has the
trappings of a court. Since judicial review has been considered
an intrinsic part of constitutionalism, any statutory provision
which provides for administrative review of a decision taken by
a judicial or a quasi-judicial body is, therefore, inconsistent with
the aforesaid postulate and is unconstitutional. (Para 17, 23,
27,28)
4. 2003 (4) SCC 399 – People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union
of India.
The legislature has no power to review the decision of the court
and set it at naught except by removing the defect which is the
cause pointed out by the decision rendered by the Court. If this
is permitted it would sound the death knell of the rule of law.
(Para 34 to 37)”
[15] The learned sr. counsel for the petitioner also refers to the
following citation that when the matter is sub judice before the Court of law,
the administrative should not pass an order which is not a subject matter
before the Court and the relevant citation is reproduced below:
“B. Case already in sub judice.
Once the Government had known that the entire issue
regarding the validity of the process adopted by DMRC
including the transparency and fairness of the process of
evaluation of the bids was sub judice before the High Court of
Delhi and later before this Court, it ought to have kept its hands
off and let the law take its course. It could have doubtless
placed all such materials as was relevant to that question before
the High Court and invited a judicial pronouncement on the
subject instead of starting a parallel exercise.
The Committee may have not said anything adverse to the view
taken by the High Court but if the Committee were to find fault
with the evaluation process which the High Court has held to
be valid it indirectly amounted to putting a question mark on
the judgement of the High Court itself. Suffice it to say that the
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 11 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
Government ought to have stayed its hands once the matter
landed in the Court. (Para 16, 17, 27 to 29)”.
[16] Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to record
the admitted facts in the present case- (i) the petitioner was appointed as VC
of MTU vide order dated 08.11.2021 issued by the Chancellor; (ii) 4(four) writ
petitions being WP(C) Nos. 791 of 2021, 805 of 2021, 807 of 2021 & 825 of
2021 were filed before this Court challenging the appointment of the petitioner
herein as VC of MTU; (iii) Vide common order dated 27.01.2023, all the 4 writ
petitions were allowed and the appointment of petitioner as VC vide order
dated 08.11.2021, was set aside and direction was issued to initiate the
process afresh; (iv) Petitioner challenged the finding of the common judgment
& order dated 27.01.2023 before the Division Bench of this Court by filing writ
appeals being WA Nos. 14, 15, 16 & 21 of 2023; (v) Vide order dated
19.02.2025, the 4 writ appeals were allowed and finding of the Ld. Single
Judge in common order dated 27.01.2023 was set aside and writ petitions
were remanded for fresh adjudication; (vi) 3(three) writ petitions, being WP(C)
Nos. 791 of 2021, 807 of 2021 & 825 of 2021 were dismissed as withdrawn
and only WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 was pending before the Ld. Single Judge;
(vii) Petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.02.2025 to the Chancellor
for reinstating him as VC of MTU in view of the order of the Division Bench in
order dated 19.02.2025 setting aside the order of the Ld. Single Judge in order
dated 27.01.2023; (viii) the representation dated 20.02.2025 was disposed of
by order dated 22.08.2025 by the Chancellor of MTU holding that the
petitioner does not possess requisite qualifications for being appointed as VC
of MTU; (ix) Learned Single Judge dismissed the WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 vide
order dated 27.10.2025 holding that since the expert committee has examined
the eligibility of the petitioner for being appointed as VC of MTU and having
found so eligible, the Court does not have any expertise for examining the
same by way of judicial review. The effect is that the petitioner has requisite
qualifications for being appointed as VC of MTU; (x) in pursuance to the order
dated 22.08.2025, Hon’ble Governor issued a letter dated 16.01.2026 directing
Administrative Department to conduct an enquiry in a manner of appointment
of the petitioner as VC of MTU; and (xi) a notice dated 23.01.2026 was issued
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 12 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
by the Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education, Manipur that the
petitioner has to appear in person before the enquiry, if so advised.
[17] Vice order dated 06.02.2026 in WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 read with
MC(WP(C)) No. 99 of 2026, a co-ordinate Bench of learned Single Judge issued
notice and passed an interim order not to proceed further with the enquiry
against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 23.01.2026 issued by the
Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Education), Government of Manipur till next date.
The interim order has been extended from time to time and has been
operating till today.
[18] On perusal of the case record, a copy of the Notification dated
12.02.2026 issued by Ningthoujam Geoffrey, Enquiry Officer and
Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Education), Government of Manipur is found
amongst the order sheets. The notification lays down the terms of reference
of the proposed enquiry. ‘Para 2.4’ mentions about examining the eligibility
criteria as per recruitment. The scanned copy of the Notification dated
12.02.2026 is reproduced for ready reference as below:
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 13 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
[19] This Court carefully perused the sequence of events. On the
earlier occasion vide common order dated 27.01.2023 while disposing the
4(four) writ petitions, learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr.
Justice M. V. Muralidharan] set aside the appointment of the petitioner as VC.
However, the finding was reversed by a Division Bench vide order dated
19.02.2025 and remanded the writ petitions to learned Single Judge for
deciding afresh on merit. In the second round of litigation, another learned
Single Judge of this Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Bimol Singh] held
that this Court does not intend to interfere with the finding of the expert to
the point that the petitioner has requisite qualifications in absence of any
patent illegality in the selection procedure. In the counter affidavit of the
official respondents, the stand has been taken that the petitioner herein is
eligible for being appointed as VC of MTU. However, the MTU has taken a
different stand in order dated 22.08.2025 holding that the petitioner does not
have requisite qualification. This Court has carefully gone through the contents
of the order dated 22.08.2025 issued by Chancellor, MTU and nothing is
mentioned about the wrong stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the
MTU or by State respondents. However, the same is made subject matter of
the enquiry and a justification is made in the subsequent counter affidavit in
this writ petition before this Court.
[20] As on record, there are two contradictory findings about the
eligibility of the petitioner for being appointed as VC of MTU- (i) In the order
dated 22.08.2025 issued by Chancellor of MTU holding that the petitioner is
not eligible; and (ii) the finding of the learned Single Judge of this Court
[Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Bimol Singh] in order dated 27.10.2025 in
WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 holding that the Court is inclined to interfere the finding
of the expert committee holding that the petitioner as eligible for being
appointed as VC of MTU. The sum of substance of the effect of the order dated
27.10.2025 passed by this Court is that the petitioner is eligible for being
appointed as VC of MTU.
[21] It may be noted that the finding and decision of the learned
Single Judge in order dated 27.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021, is being
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 14 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
challenged by the writ petition therein, [i.e., Shri Mutum Shyamkesho Singh]
before the Division Bench by way of WA No. 59 of 2025 and the matter is
pending before the Division Bench. It is informed that there is not stay of the
finding and direction given by learned Single Judge in order dated 27.10.2025.
It may also be noted that State authority, MTU & UGC did not prefer any
appeal against the judgment & order dated 27.10.2025 passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 holding that the petitioner
is eligible for being appointed as VC as decided by the expert committee. This
Court is of the view that mere pendency of the writ appeal before the Division
Bench does not affect the binding nature of the finding of learned Single Judge
in order dated 27.10.2025, specially upon State authority, MTU and UGC who
did not prefer any appeal; having accepted the decision of learned Single
Judge and took stand that the petitioner herein is eligible. In the
circumstances, the judicial finding in order dated 27.10.2025 will prevail upon
the decision of the Chancellor in order dated 22.08.2025 with respect to the
conflicting opinion about the eligibility of the petitioner for being appointed as
VC of MTU.
[22] As noted supra, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court having found
the appointment of the petitioner as VC of MTU on the recommendation of the
expert committee as valid, this Court is also not going into this mater again.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly allowed and the finding of the
Chancellor in order dated 22.08.2025 especially with respect to ‘para nos. 12
& 13’ holding that the writ petitioner (Dr. Bhabeswar Tongbram) does not
have requisite qualification for being appointed as VC of MTU, is set aside; as
the same is merged with the judicial finding of learned Single Judge of this
Court in order dated 27.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021. Regarding the
enquiry, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with and the same
can be continued except for references in ‘Paras 2.3, 2.4 & 2.5’ of Notification
dated 12.02.2026 (supra), as learned Single Judge has already made a finding
in this regard in order dated 27.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021. This Court
is of the view that notice dated 26.01.2026 issued to the petitioner for
appearance in the proposed enquiry, is in the nature of appearance as witness
and hence the petitioner should not be aggrieved by this notice to give
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 15 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
statement before the enquiry committee. It is informed that at the present the
VC of Dhanamanjuri University is holding charge of VC of MTU as an interim
arrangement. Petitioner is reinstated as VC of MTU with immediate effect till
07.11.2026 or till he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier, in terms
of his appointment order dated 08.11.2021 issued by the Chancellor of MTU.
Interim VC is directed to handover charge of VC of MTU to the petitioner.
CONCLUSIONS:
[23] As held above, this Court passes the following directions:
I. WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 is partly allowed.
II. Decision of the Chancellor of MTU in order dated 22.08.2025,
especially para 12 & 13 to the effect that the petitioner, Dr. Bhabeswar
Tongbram, does not have requisite qualification, is set aside; as
administrative decision on the same issue is merged with and erased
by later judicial findings in order dated 27.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 805
of 2021.
III. Petitioner is reinstated to the post of VC, MTU with immediate
effect till 07.11.2026 or till he attains the age of 70 years, whichever
earlier, in terms of his original appointment order dated 08.11.2021.
In-charge VC of MTU [i.e., VC of DMU] is directed to hand over the
charge of VC of MTU to the petitioner.
IV. The enquiry in terms of directions in letter dated 16.01.2026 of
Hon’ble Governor of Manipur can continue, except for the term of
references mentioned in paras 2.3, 2.4 & 2.5 of Notification dated
12.02.2026 issued by Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Education),
Government of Manipur in view of judicial findings in order dated
27.10.2025 in WP(C) No. 805 of 2021 on these points.
V. Notice dated 23.01.2026 issued by Commissioner (Hr. & Tech.
Education), Government of Manipur to the petitioner for deposing
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 16 | 17
2026:MNHC:156
before the Enquiry Committee is in the nature of a summon to witness
and does not suffer from any infirmity.
[24] With these observations, WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 is partly
allowed and disposed of. MC(WP(C)) No. 99 of 2026 is also disposed of,
accordingly. Interim order dated 06.02.2026 merges with the final order. No
cost.
[25] Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Registrars of Manipur Technical University and Dhanamanjuri University, for
information and necessary compliance.
[26] This Court appreciates the fair submissions of all learned sr.
counsel appearing for the parties in disposal of the present petition.
Digitally signed by JUDGE
Oinam Oinam Thoiba Meitei
Thoiba Meitei Date: 2026.08.06
12:48:57 +05'30'
FR/NFR
Thoiba
WP(C) No. 91 of 2026 with MC[WP(C)] No.99of 2026 P a g e 17 | 17
