Rk Hemakumar Singh vs Manipur University And 3 Ors on 8 July, 2026

    0
    8
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Manipur High Court

    Rk Hemakumar Singh vs Manipur University And 3 Ors on 8 July, 2026

    Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma

    Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma

                                                                         Item no. 5 & 6
    Oinam Digitally
           signed by
                  Thoiba IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
    Thoib Oinam
           Meitei                  AT IMPHAL
    a      Date:
           2026.07.08
           16:29:22         WP(C) No. 492 of 2026 with
    Meitei +05'30'          MC(WP(C)) No. 509 of 2026
    
    RK Hemakumar Singh
                                                                       ... Petitioner
    
                                        - Versus -
    
    Manipur University and 3 Ors.
                                                                    ... Respondents
    
                                B E F O R E
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
    
                                        ORDER
    

    08.07.2026

    [1] Heard Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel along with Mr. Mangi,
    learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. BP Sahu, learned sr. counsel on VC
    assisted by Mr. Abhisek P Sahu, learned counsel on behalf of the Manipur
    University (MU); Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI assisted by Mr. N. Nongdamba,
    learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (Ministry of Education, Department of
    Higher Education, Govt. of India); and Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned counsel along
    with Mr. L. Akash, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 (UGC).

    SPONSORED

    [2] By the present petition, the petitioner, who is the 2nd seniormost
    Professor in MU approaches this Court that the respondents be directed to call
    him for personal interaction/ interview to be held on 01.07.2026 & 02.07.2026
    at New Delhi conducted by the Selection Committee appointed for this purpose.
    In terms of the advertisement in ‘Annexure-A/8′, appointment of Vice-Chancellor
    (VC) of MU, applications have been called from persons distinguished
    academician, with a minimum of 10 years’ experience as Professor in a University
    or 10 years’ experience in reputed research and/ or academic administrative
    organization with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership and not
    more than 65 years of age as on the closing date of receipt of applications of
    this advertisement. The petitioner also submitted his application along with his
    full bio-data and connected documents. However, he has not been given any call
    letter regarding interaction/ interview held on 01.07.2026 and 02.07.2026
    whereas, some of his colleagues have received call letter from the respondents.
    Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on
    25.06.2026. When the matter was taken up on 26.06.2026 (the last sitting prior
    to the summer vacation), the learned DSGI prayed for some time for taking
    instructions about the status of the petitioner and accordingly, the matter was
    listed before the first vacation bench on 01.07.2026. In the proceeding held on
    vacation sitting on 01.07.2026, this Court passed a detailed order and directed
    the Selection Committee to submit a detail about the selection procedure
    including the status of the petitioner.

    [3] In compliance of the direction passed by this Court on
    01.07.2026, the 3(three) Members Selection Committee submitted a statement
    dated 02.07.2026 to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of
    Education, Govt. of India giving a short and clear steps taken up by the Selection
    Committee with respect to the appointment of the VC for MU. It is stated that in
    pursuance to the advertisement, a total of 377 candidates including the petitioner
    herein i.e. RK Hemakumar Singh submitted applications. In the first stage of
    process held 11th & 12th of May, 2026, the detailed applications form, bio-data
    and other credentials of all 377 candidates including the petitioner were
    thoroughly examined about their illegibility as academic experience,
    administrative experience & publication etc. taking in view of the criteria for the
    post of VC. It is further stated that the Selection Committee unanimously
    shortlisted a list of candidates which is found more suitable for being called for
    personal interaction in the second stage of process. It is clarified that the
    Committee had not shortlisted the name of the petitioner in the second stage of
    the process for personal interaction. The statement of the Selection Committee
    dated 02.07.2026 was forwarded by the Ministry to the learned DSGI in a sealed
    envelope (vide a copy of letter dated 06.07.2026) and the sealed envelope was
    handed over to this Court by Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI and on the
    instructions of this Court, the envelope is opened and the contents as directed
    above was recorded by the Committee. Since, the Selection Committee has not
    shortlisted the name of the petitioner for being called for personal interaction/
    interview, the cause of the writ petition (the substantive prayer be permitted in
    the interaction) has become infructuous as this Court cannot be passed
    substantive direction to the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner,
    who is not shortlisted for the interaction.

    [4] In the circumstances, WP(C) No. 492 of 2026 is disposed of as
    infructuous and MC(WP(C)) No. 509 of 2026 is also disposed of, accordingly.

    [5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be
    given liberty to approach the Selection Committee or any other Authority for
    inquiry about the reason for his non-shortlisting for the second stage of the
    process for appointment of the VC in MU and for non-consideration of his name
    in the shortlisted candidates called for interaction in the second stage of the
    process for appointment of the VC of MU.

    [6] This Court observed that the petitioner has liberty to proceed as
    permissible by law and the sealed envelope is returned to the learned DSGI.

    JUDGE

    Thoiba



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here