Review Petition No. 23 of 2016. Case: Bhabeshwar Tongbram Vs Rajkumar Nando Singh and Ors.. Manipur High Court

Case Number:Review Petition No. 23 of 2016
Party Name:Bhabeshwar Tongbram Vs Rajkumar Nando Singh and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: S.D. Singh and K. Rabei, Advocates and For Respondents: R.K. Deepak, Advocate and Yangya, Addl. G.A.
Judges:Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J. and N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Issue:Constitution of India - Articles 137, 145, 226
Judgement Date:March 03, 2017
Court:Manipur High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J.

  1. By filing this Review Application, the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench on 12.9.2016 in W.A. No. 56 of 2016 affirming the judgment and order dated 14.6.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 215 of 2016 holding therein that the petitioner(respondent in the writ application) on account of not having Ph.D. in the subject of Engineering and also not having requisite administrative experience of 3 years as Head of Department for short HOD), is not eligible to be appointed on the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic, has been sought to be reviewed.

  2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner (appellant in the writ appeal) and also on behalf of the respondent (writ petitioner), the facts giving rise to this Review Application need to be taken notice of.

    When the post of Principal of Government Polytechnic fell vacant, the state instead of making appointment on the said post on regular basis, appointed the petitioner (respondent in the writ application) as in-charge Principal Govt. Polytechnic vide its order dated 29.2.2016. The said order was challenged by the writ petitioner (herein respondent) on the ground that though the petitioner does possess Ph.D., an essential qualification for being appointed to the post of Principal, but the said Ph.D. has been awarded to the petitioner, in the subject of History by the Department of Social Science Manipur University and not in any subject relating to engineering and also on the ground that the petitioner never acquired 3 years administrative experience as HOD. The petitioner contested the case and took a plea that whether the petitioner does have a requisite Ph.D. or not it should be left open for the Board of Governors to decide it.

  3. Learned Single Judge, having taken into account the claim and counter claim, was pleased to hold that the petitioner (respondent in writ application) neither does have requisite Ph.D. in the subject of engineering, which in terms of the eligibility was required to have, nor does have 3 years administrative experience as HOD and thereby found the petitioner ineligible to be appointed on the post of Principal, Govt. Polytechnic. Accordingly, the order under which the petitioner had been appointed as in-charge Principal Government Polytechnic was quashed. At the same time it was also held that the writ petitioner is also not eligible to be appointed on the post of Principal. However, it was observed that on account of the administrative exigency if the authority do consider that there has been no way out but to appoint a person as Principal in-charge, then authority must take into account the seniority while appointing a person as in-charge Principal and thereby writ application was allowed vide its order dated 14.6.2016. That order was challenged before the appellate court. Before the appellate Court, the same plea was advanced on behalf of the appellant (petitioner of the review application) that the learned single Judge should not have decided the issue as to whether the petitioner is eligible or not to be appointed as Principal on account of not holding Ph.D. in the field of Science but holding Ph.D. in related subject rather it should have been left open for the BOG to decide the matter relating to eligibility. The aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour as the appellate court did hold that the point as to whether the petitioner was having valid Ph.D. or not, is to be determined in the context of the eligibility prescribed by the AICTE which never involves any detailed examination or scrutiny by an expert body and thereby upon examining the matter it was found that the petitioner is not holding Ph.D. in engineering and thus the finding recorded by the learned single Judge was affirmed and the writ appeal was dismissed.

  4. Being aggrieved with that judgment, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP(C) No. 32434/16 which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file the Review Petition before this Court when Hon'ble Supreme Court did find that the point on which order passed by this Court is being assailed, had not been raised before...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL