Only ‘Chancellor’ Can Annul Earlier Decisions Of University, Not ‘Syndicate’: Manipur High Court Upholds DMU Assistant Professor Selection
The Bench quashed fresh interview call, and held that University cannot unilaterally rescind approved results without Chancellor's intervention.
The Manipur High Court has quashed a resolution by the Dhanamanjuri University (DMU) Syndicate that sought to cancel the selection of Assistant Professors in Physics and Botany, holding that the Syndicate cannot bypass statutory safeguards to undo its own approved recommendations. The Court held that once a selection list is approved and notified, any disagreement must be referred to the Chancellor, rather than being annulled by the Syndicate itself.
The Court observed that the University’s attempt to declare earlier selection null and void based on executive orders from the State Government was a colorable exercise of power, as the University’s own Statutes take. Furthermore, that the alleged disappearance of mark sheets for specific subjects after the result declaration points to internal administrative lapses rather than candidate disqualification.
Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma observed, “…‘Syndicate’ does not have any power to annul or reject ‘multiple persons recommendations’ made by the ‘Selection Committee’ for appointment of as ‘teachers’ of the University including to the post of ‘Assistant Professor’ in terms of Statutes 13 & 27(v) of Second Schedule of DMU Act, 2017. (v) Only the ‘Chancellor’, under the provisions of sub section 8 of Section 12 of DMU Act, 2017, has the power to annul ‘any proceeding’ of the University including the ‘multiple persons recommendations’ of the Selection Committee for appointment as teachers and the ‘earlier decisions of the Syndicate…’”.
Senior Advocates HS Paonam, M. Hemchandra appeared for the petitioners and H. Debendra, Dy. AG and Senior Advocate Y. Nirmolchand appeared for the respondents.
The Registrar of DMU issued an advertisement in December 2020 for 88 posts of Assistant Professor. Interviews were completed by mid-2021, and following a High Court direction in a previous writ petition, the University’s 11th Syndicate meeting on February 27, 2024, approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
On February 29, 2024, a notification was issued recommending 83 candidates, including the petitioners in Physics and Botany.
However, following a change in Vice-Chancellorship, an emergency Syndicate meeting on July 18, 2024, declared the February notification "null and void" citing lack of State Government approval. While most candidates were re-notified for appointment, the results for Physics and Botany were withheld, and a fresh interview was called on the grounds that their tabulation sheets were found blank.
The selected candidates for Physics and Botany filed multiple writ petitions, challenging the Syndicate’s resolution and the subsequent notification for fresh interviews. Conversely, unsuccessful candidates filed petitions, seeking a review of the initial selection.
The Court had previously stayed the fresh interviews for the original four seats in each subject while allowing the University to proceed with additional sanctioned posts.
Now, the Court rejected the University’s reliance on State Government OMs, noting that Section 10(g) and Statute 13(i) of the DMU Act vest the power of appointment exclusively in the University Syndicate. Under the doctrine of "Approbate and Reprobate," the Court found it legally inconsistent for the University to invalidate the February 29 notification while simultaneously adopting its contents for other subjects.
Regarding the "blank" tabulation sheets, the Court noted that the former Vice-Chancellor and subject experts confirmed that evaluations were performed and signed. The Court held that if records went missing while in the University's custody, the candidates could not be penalised.
Furthermore, the Syndicate failed to follow Statute 27(v), which requires referring disagreements with the Selection Committee to the Chancellor rather than unilaterally cancelling results.
“From the above analysis, it is abundantly clear that Vice Chancellor is the ‘overall principal officer’ of the University as mandated by Section 13(3) of the Act and is ex-officio head of the Syndicate. Statute 3(iii) empowers the Vice Chancellor to convene meeting of the Syndicate including the ‘emergency meeting’ and permission and/or informing the Registrar is not required. However, in case of inability of the Vice Chancellor and other senior officers of the University to act, the Registrar can call an emergency meeting of the Syndicate for directions under Statute 7(iv)(d). To put in simpler term, Vice Chancellor is the ‘sole authority’ for convening the meeting of the Syndicate, including the ‘emergency meeting’ in terms of the provisions of Statute 3(iii) of the Act”, the Bench noted.
The Court quashed the Syndicate Resolution dated July 18, 2024, and the notification dated July 19, 2024, in respect of Physics and Botany. It directed the respondents to:
-Treat the original selection notification dated February 29, 2024, as valid.
-Issue offer forms and appointment orders to the petitioners within four weeks.
-The inter-se seniority of the petitioners shall be maintained as per the original merit list.
Cause Title: Dr. Thongram Kamala Devi & Ors. v. The Dhanamanjuri University & Ors. (WP(C) No. 633 of 2024)
Appearances:
Petitioners: HS Paonam, Sr. Adv, M. Hemchandra, Sr. Adv., M. Nabaghanashyam, Ajoy Pebam, Advocates.
Respondents: H. Debendra, Dy. AG, I. Denning, Adv., Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv. (Former VC).