The Manipur High Court has delivered a landmark ruling affirming the statutory autonomy of universities under the Dhanamanjuri University Act, 2017, holding that the Syndicate cannot unilaterally cancel appointments recommended by a Selection Committee for multiple candidates. The judgment restores the rights of eight candidates appointed as Assistant Professors in Physics and Botany, whose selection was annulled on grounds of alleged missing assessment sheets.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for 88 Assistant Professor posts across 22 subjects at Dhanamanjuri University (DMU), Manipur, initiated through Advertisement No. 03/2020 dated 19.12.2020. The selection process involved interviews conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee between October 2021 and December 2021. The results of the interviews were not declared for over two years, prompting six candidates to file WP(C) No. 790 of 2023 before the High Court. On 08.02.2024, the Court directed DMU to declare the results within four weeks.
Key Facts
- Advertisement dated 19.12.2020 notified 4 vacancies each for 22 subjects, including 4 posts in Physics and 4 in Botany.
- Interviews for all subjects were completed by December 2021.
- On 27.02.2024, the 11th Syndicate meeting approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee for 83 candidates across 21 subjects.
- Notification dated 29.02.2024, issued by former Vice-Chancellor Prof. N. Rajmuhon Singh, declared the results, including the following four candidates each for Physics and Botany:
- Physics: Kshetrimayum Jugeshwar Singh (UR), Longjam Lovedy Singh (UR), Laishram Modhuchandra Singh (OBC(M)), Solingyur Zimik Kachui (ST)
- Botany: Sanatombi Devi Yumkham (UR), Kamala Devi Thongram (UR), Md. Asad Ali (OBC(MP)), Dominil Thangminlen Haokip (ST)
- The subject of Zoology was excluded from the notification due to pending litigation.
- On 13.07.2024, the Registrar, Dr. Nivedita Lairenlakpam, and new VC H. Gyan Prakash retrieved sealed envelopes containing interview records from the former VC’s residence. The tabulation sheets for Physics and Botany were found blank.
- On 18.07.2024, an emergency Syndicate meeting declared the notification dated 29.02.2024 null and void, citing lack of State Government approval and blank assessment sheets.
- Notification dated 18.07.2024 was issued, listing 83 candidates across 19 subjects, excluding Physics and Botany.
- Addendum dated 18.07.2024 explicitly superseded the 29.02.2024 notification.
- Notification dated 19.07.2024 called for fresh interviews for Physics and Botany, limited to candidates who had appeared in the 2021 interviews.
- The Registrar’s affidavit dated 20.08.2025 confirmed that the 8 candidates from the 29.02.2024 notification were excluded from the 18.07.2024 list, while 13 additional posts in Physics and 11 in Botany were proposed.
- Subject experts Prof. Sumitra Phanjoubam (Physics) and Prof. M. Shyamkesho Singh (Botany) submitted affidavits confirming that all candidates were assessed and marked.
- The former VC’s affidavit detailed that the tabulation sheets were handed over to the Registrar for signature collection from online experts and were retained under lock and key.
Procedural History
- 19.12.2020: Advertisement No. 03/2020 issued for 88 Assistant Professor posts.
- 16.10.2021 to 18.10.2021: Interviews conducted for Botany.
- 17.12.2021 to 19.12.2021: Interviews conducted for Physics.
- 08.02.2024: High Court directs DMU to declare results within four weeks in WP(C) No. 790 of 2023.
- 27.02.2024: 11th Syndicate meeting approves recommendations for 83 candidates.
- 29.02.2024: Notification issued appointing 83 Assistant Professors in 21 subjects.
- 13.07.2024: Registrar retrieves sealed envelopes from former VC’s residence; tabulation sheets for Physics and Botany found blank.
- 18.07.2024: Emergency Syndicate meeting declares notification dated 29.02.2024 null and void; issues notification dated 18.07.2024 excluding Physics and Botany.
- 18.07.2024: Addendum issued superseding notification dated 29.02.2024.
- 19.07.2024: Notification issued for fresh interviews in Physics and Botany.
- 23.07.2024: Interim order issued in WP(C) No. 486 of 2024 staying declaration of result and keeping one seat apart.
- 29.07.2024: Interim order stayed fresh interview in Physics and Botany.
- 22.08.2025: Court modifies interim order permitting fresh interviews for 9 additional posts in Physics and 7 in Botany, while preserving the 8 appointments from 29.02.2024.
- 09.04.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners (selected candidates): Argued that the 29.02.2024 notification was validly issued under the DMU Act, 2017, and that the Syndicate had no power to annul a multiple-candidate recommendation. They contended that the blank tabulation sheets were a post-facto fabrication, as the subject experts had confirmed assessment and the Registrar never raised the issue during the 27.02.2024 Syndicate meeting. They relied on Statutes 13(i), 26(ix), and 27(v) of the DMU Act.
Respondents (DMU and State): Contended that the 29.02.2024 notification was invalid due to lack of prior approval from the Department of Personnel, Government of Manipur, under OMs dated 16.08.2021 and 11.04.2023. They further claimed that the blank tabulation sheets rendered the selection process defective and justified a fresh interview.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the emergency Syndicate meeting’s resolution dated 18.07.2024 regarding Physics and Botany.
- Quashing of notification dated 18.07.2024 and addendum dated 18.07.2024.
- Quashing of notification dated 19.07.2024 for fresh interviews.
- Directing DMU to include the names of the eight selected candidates in the 18.07.2024 notification.
- Issuance of appointment orders.
- Prevention of seniority dilution by ensuring new appointees are placed below the eight candidates.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Syndicate of Dhanamanjuri University has the statutory power under the DMU Act, 2017, to annul a multiple-candidate recommendation approved by the Selection Committee and previously notified by the University, and whether the absence of tabulation sheets after declaration of results can justify such cancellation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Statutes 13(i), 26(ix), and 27(v) of the DMU Act, 2017, to argue that the Syndicate’s power is limited to accepting or rejecting recommendations from the Selection Committee. Statute 27(v) explicitly provides that if the Syndicate cannot accept a multiple-candidate recommendation, it must remit the matter to the Selection Committee for reconsideration, and if unresolved, refer it to the Chancellor for a final decision. The power to annul any proceeding of the University, including a notified appointment, is exclusively vested in the Chancellor under Section 12(8). The petitioners emphasized that the Syndicate cannot annul its own prior decision. They further argued that the OMs dated 16.08.2021 and 11.04.2023, requiring State Government approval, are executive instructions that cannot override statutory provisions. The blank tabulation sheets were alleged to be a post-facto fabrication, as the subject experts had confirmed assessment and the Registrar had not raised any issue during the 27.02.2024 Syndicate meeting.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents contended that the DMU, as a State-funded institution, was bound by the OMs dated 16.08.2021 and 11.04.2023, which mandated prior approval from the Department of Personnel for declaration of results. They argued that the absence of tabulation sheets rendered the selection process defective and that the Syndicate had the inherent power to rectify administrative irregularities. They relied on Section 30 of the DMU Act to justify State intervention and claimed that the petitioners had no indefeasible right to appointment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous analysis of the DMU Act, 2017, and its Second Schedule, particularly Statutes 13(i), 26(ix), 27(iv), 27(v), and Section 12(8). It held that the Syndicate is the competent authority to appoint teachers on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, but its power is circumscribed. Statute 27(iv) permits the Syndicate to reject a single-candidate recommendation with reasons, but Statute 27(v) governs multiple-candidate recommendations. In such cases, the Syndicate may only remit the matter for reconsideration and, if unresolved, refer it to the Chancellor. The Court emphasized that the power to annul any proceeding of the University is exclusively vested in the Chancellor under Section 12(8), and the Syndicate has no such power.
"Statute 13 does not confer any power to the Syndicate to annul its earlier decision. The power to annul any proceeding of the University including the ‘multiple persons recommendations’ of the Selection Committee and ‘earlier decision’ and/or ‘proceeding’ of the Syndicate, can only be exercised by the Chancellor under Section 12(8) of the Act."
The Court further held that the OMs dated 16.08.2021 and 11.04.2023, requiring State Government approval, are not applicable to DMU, as they are executive instructions that cannot override statutory provisions. Section 30 of the DMU Act permits State intervention only in case of difficulties in implementing the Act, which the respondents failed to demonstrate.
Regarding the blank tabulation sheets, the Court noted that the former VC and subject experts had uncontrovertedly affirmed that assessments were conducted and marks awarded. The Registrar’s silence during the 27.02.2024 Syndicate meeting and the fact that the documents were retrieved only after the change of VC suggested possible tampering or misplacement. The Court held that the State cannot benefit from its own administrative failure.
"The silence of the Registrar regarding blank tabulation sheets at the time of collecting signatures of experts attended online and at the time of Syndicate meeting held on 27.02.2024, seems to suggest that the tabulation sheets and other documents were present at the time of Syndicate meeting held on 27.02.2024 and issuance of notification dated 29.02.2024."
The Court also rejected the argument that petitioners had no right to appointment, noting that their appointments were formally notified and approved by the Syndicate, thereby creating vested rights.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court set aside the resolution dated 18.07.2024 of the emergency Syndicate meeting concerning Physics and Botany, and directed the inclusion of the eight candidates from the notification dated 29.02.2024 in Tables A and C of the notification dated 18.07.2024, in the same order. The Court directed DMU to issue appointment orders to the six petitioners named in the judgment forthwith. New appointees from the fresh interviews for additional posts in Physics and Botany shall be placed below these eight candidates in seniority. The interim orders dated 29.07.2024 and 22.08.2025 merged with this final order. WP(C) No. 728 of 2024 was closed as infructuous, and WP(C) No. 580 of 2025 was dismissed as not maintainable.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Autonomy of Universities Prevails Over Executive Instructions
- Practitioners must argue that universities established under special statutes (e.g., DMU Act, 2017) are not bound by general State Government OMs on recruitment unless explicitly incorporated.
- Executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions; any conflict must be resolved in favor of the statute.
- Institutions must ensure their recruitment procedures strictly comply with their parent Act and Statutes, not administrative circulars.
Syndicate Cannot Unilaterally Cancel Approved Appointments
- The Syndicate’s power is limited to recommendation review and referral to the Chancellor under Statute 27(v); it cannot annul its own prior decisions.
- Once a multiple-candidate recommendation is approved and notified, the appointment acquires vested rights.
- Any attempt to cancel such appointments on grounds of administrative lapse (e.g., lost documents) is invalid unless initiated by the Chancellor under Section 12(8).
Burden of Proof Lies with the Authority for Administrative Lapses
- If an authority claims documents are missing or assessments were not conducted, it bears the burden of proving such claims.
- Uncontroverted affidavits from subject experts and former officials will prevail over post-facto allegations.
- Courts will not permit authorities to benefit from their own negligence in record-keeping.
Seniority Must Be Preserved for Legally Appointed Candidates
- Candidates appointed under valid notifications must be placed above new appointees in seniority lists, even if the latter are selected through subsequent interviews.
- This principle ensures fairness and prevents punitive consequences for administrative failures.
No Fresh Interviews for Already Appointed Candidates
- Candidates already appointed under a valid notification cannot be subjected to fresh interviews unless the appointment is lawfully annulled by the Chancellor.
- Fresh interviews may only be conducted for additional posts beyond those originally advertised and approved.
Natural Justice Requires Notice Before Annulment
- Before cancelling an appointment, affected candidates must be given an opportunity to be heard.
- The Syndicate’s failure to provide notice before declaring the 29.02.2024 notification void constitutes a violation of natural justice.
Legal Strategy for Practitioners
- In cases involving university appointments, always examine the parent Act and Statutes before relying on general government OMs.
- If a selection is notified, treat it as a vested right and challenge any cancellation as ultra vires.
- Secure affidavits from subject experts and former officials early to counter allegations of procedural defects.
- Argue that the Chancellor is the only authority empowered to annul appointments under Section 12(8), and that the Syndicate’s role is purely recommendatory.
