WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026

1. Mr. Wangkhem Ranjan S/o Wangkhem Binoy Singh, aged

about 25 years, S/o, a resident of Ningomthong Sairom Leirak,

P.O. Singjamei , P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-

795008 .

2. Mr. Sukham Bidyananda, aged about 35 years, S/o Sukham

Kumar Singh, a resident of Bashikhong Torban Leikai, P.O.

Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008.

…... Petitioner/s

- Versus -

1. The Manipur University represented by the Registrar, Manipur

University Canchipur, Imphal West Manipur -795003 .

2. Ministry of Education, Government of India through Secretary,

Department of Higher Education, 122-C, Shastri Bhawan, New

Delhi-110001.

3. University Grants Commission (UGC) through Chairman,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.

........Respondent/s

With

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026

Mr. Sukham Bidyananda, aged about 35 years, S/o Sukham

Kumar Singh, a resident of Bashikhong Torban Leikai, P.O.

Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008.

…... Applicant/s

- Versus -

1. The Manipur University represented by the Registrar, Manipur

University Canchipur, Imphal West.Manipur-795003.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 2

2. Ministry of Education, Government of India through Secretary,

Department of Higher Education, 122-C, Shastri Bhawan, New

Delhi-110001.

3. University Grants Commission (UGC) through Chairman,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.

.......Respondent/s

With

MC(WP(C) No. 394 of 2026

[Applicants are treated as ‘INTERVENORS’ vide order dated

25.05.2026]

1. Shri Sagolsem Aboi Yaiphaba, aged about 31 years old, S/O

Sagolsem Dhiren Singh of Langol Ningthou Leikai, P.O & P.S

Lamphel. Imphal West District, Manipur 795004.

(Recommended as MTS).

2. Shri Victor Thokchom, aged about 21 years old, S/O Thokchom

Jitendra of Soibam Leikai Khanglabung Leirak, P.O & P.S

Porompat, Imphal East District, Mani pur-795001.

(Recommended as MTS).

3. Gitu Oinam, aged about 19 years old, D/O Oinam Jayenta

Singh of Langthabal Kunja Awang Leikai, P.O Canchipur, P.S

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur. ( Recommended as

MTS)

4. Achom Nelson Singh, aged about 32 years old, S/O Achom

Kesho Singh of Khonghampat Mayai Leikai, P.O Mantripukhri,

P.S Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur. (Recommended as

Junior Assistant)

5. Chingnakham Sharla Devi, aged about 27 years old, D/O Ch.

Gandhar Singh of Andro Khuman P.O & P.S Andro, Imphal East

District, Manipur-795149. (Recommended as Technical

Assistant)

6. Dorcas Panmei, aged about 36 years old, D/O Kiran Panmei of

Langthabal Khoupum, P.O Langthabal & P.S Singjamei, Imphal

West District, Manipur-795003. (Recommended as Junior

Stenographer)

7. Languimeilu Kamei, aged about 24 years old, D/O Sanachao

Kamei of Langthabal Khoupum, P.O Langthabal & P.S

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 3

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795003.

(Recommended as MTS)

8. Kamei Gaichui Kabuini, aged about 24 years old, D/O Kamei

Tamphajao of Langthabal Khoupum,P.O Langthabal & P.S

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -795003.

(Recommended as Junior Assistant)

9. Moirangshang N. Hongsha, aged about 30 years old, D/O H.

Tongin Maring of Old Lambulane Jail Road, P.O & P.S Imphal,

Imphal West District, Manipur-795001. (Recommended as

Technical Assistant)

10. Blessy Maringmei, aged about 23 years old, D/O Amos

Maringmei of Langthabal Chingthak, P.O Langthabal & P.S

Singjamei Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795003.

(Recommended as MTS)

11. Ahanthem Gaitri Devi, aged about 28 years old, D/O Ahanthem

Abani Singh of Keisamthong Ahanthem Leikai, P.O & P.S

Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001. (Recommended

as MTS)

12. Thokchom Manoj Singh, aged about 34 years Old, S/O

Thokchom Ramsingh of Heirangoithong Maibam Leikai. P.O,&

P.S Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.

(Recommended as Section Officer)

13. Wakambam Purnima Devi, aged about 30 years old, D/O

Wakambam Sharat Singh of Uripok Khumanthem Leikai, P.O &

P.S Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -795001.

((Recommended as Junior Assistant)

14. Chabungbam Velentina Devi, aged about 28 years old, D/O Ch.

Dobel Singh of Heirangoithong Maibam Leikai, P.O & P.S

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.

(Recommended as MTS)

15. Senjram Nomita Devi, aged about 30 years old, D/O S. Ibohal

Singh of Meitram Makha Leikai, P.O Tulihal & P.S Nambol,

Imphal West District, Manipur-795140. ( Recommended as

Technical Assistant)

16. Lenyndon Vemai, aged about 25 years old, S/O John of Taphou

Phyamai, P.O & P.S Senapati, District Senapati, Manipur-

795106. (Recommended as MTS)

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 4

17. Aeron Meitram, aged about 21 years old. S/O (L) Khangamba

Meitram of Uripok Sorbon Thingel, P.O & P.S Imphal,

Imphal West District, Manipur -795004.( Recommended as

MTS)

18. Yaikhom Telheiba Meetei, aged about 35 years old, S/O Y.

Pahari Meetei of Sekta Mayai Leikai, P.O & P.S Lamlai, Imphal

East District, Manipur-795010. (Recommended as MTS)

19. Yumnam Bijen Singh, aged about 28 years old, S/O Y. Biren

Singh of Top Siphai, P.O & P.S Wangoi, Imphal West District,

Manipur-795009. (Recommended as MTS)

20. Remchungpu Remmei, aged about 30 years old, S/O

Khumanjao Remmei of Keisamthong Kabuikhul, P.O & P.S

Imphal, Imphal West District. Manipur-795001.

(Recommended as MTS)

21. Maringmei Philip, aged about 31 years old, S/O Maringmei

William of Loktak Projret, P.O & P.S Loktak, Churachandpur

District, Manipur-795124. (Recommended as MTS)

22. Nongthombam Kabita Devi, aged about 27 years old, D/O N.

Manihar Singh of Luwangsangbam Makha Leikai, P.O

Mantriphukhri, P.S Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-

795002. (Recommended as Junior Assistant)

23. Sarda Elangbam, aged about 28 years old, D/O N. Bishwajit

Singh of Yaiskul Hiruhanba Leikai, P.O & P.S Imphal, Imphal

West District, Manipur-795001. (Recommended as Junior

Assistant)

24. Kamei Abungmei, aged about 37 years old, S/O Kamei David

R. Naga of Loktak Project, Lamdan Village P.O & P.S

Komkeirap, District Churandchandpur, Manipur-795124.

(Recommended as MTS)

25. Thairilung Golmei, aged about 32 years old, S/O Mohon Golmei

of Namdunlong Stadium Road, P.O & P.S Imphal, Imphal East

District, Manipur-795001. (Recommended as Junior Assistant)

26. Ahanthem Sankar Singh, aged about 36 years old, S/O

Ahanthem Isheihanba of Wangoo Naodakhong Mayai Leikai,

P.O Moirang, P.S Kumbi, Bshnupur District, Manipur-795133.

(Recommended as Junior Stenographer)

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 5

27. Elengbam Shyamananda Singh, aged about 31 years old, S/O

(L) E. Bijoy Singh of Nambol Mongjing Leikai, P.O & P.S

Nambol, District Bishnupur, Manipur-795134. ( Recommended

as MTS)

28. Nitish Laishram, aged about 24 years old, S/O L. Brojen Singh

of Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O & P.S Mayang

Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795132. (Recommended

as MTS)

29. Kangujam Ronaldo Singh, aged about 35 years old, S/O K.

Mangi Singh of Lalambung Makhong Takhellambam Leikai,

Thangjam Leirak, P.O Imphal, P.S City Police Station, Imphal

West District, Manipur-795001. ( Recommended as Section

Officer)

30. Yambem Ranjan Singh, aged about 32 years old, S/O Y. Naba

Singh of Charangpat Mamang Leikai, P.O & P.S Thoubal,

District Thoubal, Manipur-795138. Recommended as Technical

Assistant)

…... Intervenor/s

With

MC(WP(C) No. 395 of 2026

[Applicants are treated as ‘INTERVENORS’ vide order dated

26.05.2026]

31. S. Bishwanath Meitei, aged about 32 years, S/o resident of

Wangkhei Thambalkhong, P.O. Porompat, Imphal East District,

Manipur-795005;

32. Yangambam Suraj Singh aged about 26 years, S/o Y. Anand

Singh, resident of Keinou Thongthak Awang Leikai, P.O.

Nambol, P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795134;

33. N Naoba Singh, aged about 31 years S/o N Golden Singh of

Mayang Imphal Konchak, P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal West

District, Manipur-795132;

34. Ajax Ngasam, aged about 27 years, S/o N. Jiten of Khurai

Ningthoubung Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, Imphal East District,

Manipur-795010; 4.

35. M. Nganba Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o M Thoiba Singh of

Khaidem Mayai Leikai, P.O. Nambol, P.S. Patsoi, Imphal West

District, Manipur-795134;

…...Intervenor/s

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 6

B E F O R E

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the petitioner/s :: K. Kishan Singh, Adv.

For the respondent/s :: Mr. BP. Sahu, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Deepak Prasad Sahu, Adv.,

Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Adv. &

Mr. Abishek Prasad Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Adv. assisted

by Mr. M. Rustam, Adv. [all for Manipur

University]

Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Sr. PCCG

[for Central Government]

Mr. S. Jasobanta, Adv. [for UGC]

For the Intervenor/s :: Mr. HS. Paonam, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Ms. Harichhaya, Adv. [MC(WP(C) No.

394 of 2026]

Mr. A. Mohendro, Adv. with Mr. Kh.

Lupenjit, Adv. [MC(WP(C) No. 395 of

2026]

Date of Hearing :: 05.06.2026

Date of Judgement & Order :: 19.06.2026

JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)

A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.

[1] By the present writ petition being WP(C) No. 147 of 2026, the

petitioners challenged the Advertisement No. 2/2025 vide No.

MU/VI/14/2025/Admin.I/115 dated 13.05.2025 issued by the Registrar i/c,

Manipur University (in short and hereinafter referred to as ‘MU’) for

recruitment of Group B and C post in Manipur University including the

post of Junior Assistant and Multi-Tasking Staff (MTF); and the

subsequent notices dated 19.10.2025, 12.09.2025, 24.09.2025,

30.09.2025 and 27.01.2025 issued by Manipur University for recruitment

of 78 non-teaching posts in the University; to declare Cadre Recruitment

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 7

Rules (CRRs) for non-teaching post 2024 as illegal and void, as the same

being without approval of the Visitor (i.e. Hon’ble President of India); and

to quash all consequential recruitment process and advertisement

including shortlisting of candidates. In the advertisement, 12 different

category of posts numbering 78 in total, have been advertised including

10 posts of Junior Assistant appearing at serial No. 7 and 35 posts of

Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff (Janitor, Chowkidar, Ward Boy/Mess Helper,

Gardener, Conductor cum Cleaner, Sweeper) appearing at serial No. 12

of the advertisement. The petitioner No. 1 (Wangkhem Ranjan) applied

and appeared for the post of Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff and was not

successful in the examination while petitioner No. 2 (Sukham

Bidyananda) applied for the post of Junior Assistant. However, petitioner

No. 2 did not appear in the examination on the apprehension that the

examination would be set aside, as the recruitment was conducted on the

basis of illegal recruitment rules without obtaining assent from the

Visitor/Hon’ble President of India.

[2] Along with the writ petition, an application being MC(WP(C)

No. 152 of 2026 has been filed by petitioner No. 2 praying to withhold

declaration of the result of the examination vide advertisement No. 2/2025

dated 13.05.2025 for appointment of 78 posts, as the result of the

examination held on 28.01.2026 during the pendency of the writ petition.

The prayers in WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 and MC(WP(C)) No. 152 of 2026

are reproduced below:

“WP(C) No. 147 of 2026:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or

Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or

writ(s) or directions(s) to quash and set aside

Advertisement No. 2/2025 vide

no.MU/VI/14/2025/Admin.I/115 dated

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 8

13/05/2025 and consequent notice dated

10/09/2025, 12/09/2025, 24/09/2025,

30/09/2025 & 27/01/2026 issued by Manipur

University for recruitment of 78 non-teaching

posts.

ii. Declare that Cadre Recruitment rules of non-

teaching Posts 2024 of Manipur University,

without Visitor's approval is illegal and void and

to quash and set aside all consequent

recruitment process, advertisement including

shortlisting and tests.

iii. Pass any order(s) as to this Hon'ble Court may

seem fit and proper for the ends of justice.

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026:

i. Direct the respondent No. 1 to withhold

declaration of results of the examination vide

Advertisement No. 2/2025 Date 13.05.2025

vide No. MU/VI/14/2025/Admin.I/115 for

appointment of 78 posts as held examination on

28.01.2026 during the pendency of this writ

petition.

ii. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of

justice.”

[3] The scan copy of the front page of advertisement No. 2/2025

dated 13.05.2025 issued by Manipur University is reproduced as:

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 9

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 10

[4] Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has

pointed out that a letter dated 27.09.2022 from Secretary, University

Grants Commission (UGC) was addressed to the Registrar of all Central

Universities, India for adoption of Model Cadre Recruitment Rules

(MCRRs) for universities. It is mentioned in the letter that the Ministry of

Education, Government of India requested University Grants Commission

(UGC) vide letter dated 10.03.2022 to constitute a committee for

formulation of Model Cadre Recruitment Rules for non-teaching

employees in view of the difficulties faced by some of the universities for

finalization of their own Cadre Recruitment Rules (CRRs). Along with the

letter dated 27.09.2022, the Model Cadre Recruitment Rules approved by

the UGC was forwarded to all the Central Universities for appropriate

action, wherever the CRRs approved by their own competent authority

are not available. It is also clarified in the letter that the University, having

CRRs approved by the competent authority, may continue with the

recruitment process of non-teaching post as per their approved CRRs and

dying cadre posts are not to be filled up. It is further explained in the letter

dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-A/6 Colly) issued by the UGC that annexed

MCRRs of any seat/post existing/sanctioned in the University is not cadre

in this rule, the University may referred to the proposed CRRs for such

post for approval. This letter dated 27.09.2022 issued by the Secretary,

UGC to the Registrar, All Central Universities is reproduced as:

“The Registrar

All Central Universities (45)

Subject: Model Cadre Recruitment Rules for Central

Universities-reg.

Madam/Sir,

As you are aware, UGC is continuously pursuing with

all Central Universities for filling up of all vacant posts and to

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 11

conduct recruitment of faculty and non-teaching positions on

a Mission Mode

2. In view of the difficulties faced by some Central

Universities for finalization of their Cadre Recruitment Rules

(CRRs) of non-teaching employees, Ministry of Education

requested UGC vide letter No.F.45-1/2022-CU-III dated 10th

March, 2022 to constitute a committee for formulation of

Model Cadre Recruitment Rules for non-teaching

employees.

3. Accordingly, UGC constituted an expert Committee for

the purpose and based on the Committee's

recommendations, the Commission approved the Model

CRRs for non-teaching positions in its meeting held on 22nd

September, 2022.

4. The Model Cadre Recruitment Rules as approved by

the Commission are attached herewith for taking appropriate

action, wherever the CRRs approved by their competent

authority are not available. The Universities having CRRs

approved by the competent authority, may continue with the

recruitment processes for non-teaching positions as per their

approved CRRs. Also, the dying cadre posts are not to be

filled up.

5. In case, the Model CRRs of any specific post

existing/sanctioned in any university is not covered in these

rules, the university may refer the proposed CRRs of such

post to the UGC for approval.

With regards,

Yours sincerely.

(Rajnish Jain)”

[5] Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners,

further refers to the proceedings of the 36

th

Meeting of the Executive

Council of MU held on 06.10.2022 at 1:00 p.m. in the Committee Room

of the Vice-Chancellor’s Secretariat with the VC in the Chair and the

Executive Council resolved to adopt UGC Model Cadre Recruitment

Rules forwarded vide letter dated 27.09.2022 for implementation from the

next recruitment for vacant positions to be advertised. It is also mentioned

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 12

that recruitment of non-teaching posts already advertised and screening

process had been completed, be conducted according to the existing RRs

of the University. Vide letter dated 01.11.2022, the Registrar, Manipur

University forwarded the proceedings of the 36

th

Meeting of the Executive

Council to the Ministry of Education, Government of India for approval of

Model Cadre Recruitment Rules for non-teaching and other academic

posts. The relevant portion of 36

th

Meeting of the Executive Council’s

resolution No. 11/36 dated 06.10.2022 is reproduced as:

“11/36/6.10.2022

Consideration of the Model Cadre Recruitment Rules

(CRRs) for Central Universities

The Executive Council, after an in-depth discussion resolved

that it is mandatory to adopt UGC Model Cadre Recruitment

Rules forwarded vide their letter No.F. No.7-1/2022 (JCRC)

dated 27.09.2022 for implementation from the next

recruitment for vacant positions to be advertised.

However, recruitment of the non-teaching posts already

advertised and screening process had been completed be

conducted according to the existing RRs of the University.”

[6] The Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education,

Ministry of Education, Government of India informed the Registrar,

Manipur University vide letter dated 25.05.2023, seeking clarification

about MCRRs for non-teaching positions of Manipur University. In para

2(a), it is specifically mentioned that the Recruitment Rules should be

approved by the Hon’ble Visitor and it should also be duly notified and

uploaded on the website of the University; Para 2(b), the posts of Library

Cadre, i.e., Assistant Librarian and above and cadre of Assistant Director

of Physical Education and above are to be regulated by the corresponding

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 13

regulations and should not be a part of CRRs. It is also reiterated that the

University not to advertise and fill up any of the non-teaching post until

and unless CRRs of non-teaching posts as part of Ordinance, are

approved by the competent authority.

[7] By a letter dated 18.10.2021, the Under Secretary, UGC

informed to the Registrar of all Central Universities to frame Cadre

Recruitment Rules. Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioners, has further pointed out to another letter dated 18.10.2021

issued by the Under Secretary, UGC to all Central Universities informing

to frame Cadre Recruitment Rules of the non-teaching posts in the

Central Universities with the condition that the University shall not fill up

any posts of non-teaching posts until and unless CRRs of non-teaching

post as part of the Ordinance is approved by the Ministry of Education.

Any further amendment for CRRs, if any, also need to be approved by the

Ministry of Education (MoE) and Universities are informed to send a copy

of the CRRs to the UGC and there will be no recruitment with interview at

the junior level posts Group C & D. In the proceedings of the 40

th

Meeting

of the Executive Council of MU held on 30.12.2024 for consideration of

corrected MCRRs for non-teaching positions of Manipur University was

approved with the rationalisation of posts and scale of pay to the fulfilment

of the required RRs. The Relevant portion of the resolution in 40

th

Meeting

of Executive Council of MU is reproduced as:

“14/40/30.12.2024

Consideration of the Corrected Model Cadre

Recruitment Rules for the Non-Teaching Positions of the

Manipur University

The Executive Council unanimously resolved to approve the

Corrected Model Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non-Teaching

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 14

Positions of Manipur University. The Executive Council

further resolved to approve rationalization of posts and scale

of pay of the following Non-Teaching posts as per Corrected

Model Cadre Recruitment Rules subject to the fulfilment of

the required RRs.”

Rationalization were done for 25 posts of non-teaching.

[8] Mr. K. Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioners, further

submits that the Registrar, Manipur University submitted a letter dated

16.01.2025 to the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education,

Ministry of Education, Government of India, New Delhi for obtaining

assent of the Hon’ble Visitor to the Cadre Recruitment Rules (CRRs) of

non-teaching posts of Manipur University and requested to communicate

the same to the University as soon as possible. In the letter dated

25.05.2023 of the Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,

Government of India, Resolution No. 14/40/30.12.2024 of the 40

th

Meeting of the Executive Council held on 30.12.2024 is enclosed as part

of Annexure-A/11. The extract of the Executive Council resolution No.

14/40/30.12.2024 as enclosed in Annexure-A/11 and list of sanctioned

non-teaching posts in Manipur University as annexed in Annexure-A/11,

the scan copy is reproduced as:

“14/40/30.12.2024

Consideration of the Corrected Model Cadre

Recruitment Rules for the Non-Teaching Positions of the

Manipur University

The Executive Council unanimously resolved to approve the

Corrected Model Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non-Teaching

Positions of Manipur University. The Executive Council

further resolved to approve rationalization of posts and scale

of pay of the following Non-Teaching posts as per Corrected

Model Cadre Recruitment Rules subject to the fulfilment of

the required RRs.”

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 15

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 16

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 17

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 18

[9] In the writ petition along with this letter dated 16.01.2025,

Manipur University Cadre Recruitment Rules for non-teaching posts 2024

is also enclosed claiming the same as part of the enclosure to letter dated

16.01.2025 (Annexure-A/12 Colly). By a letter dated 04.04.2025, the

Under Secretary, Government of India informed the Registrar (i/c),

Manipur University to submit the proposal dated 16.01.2025 for the Model

Cadre Recruitment Rules for non-teaching positions in Manipur University

online through SAMARTH Portal. Thereafter, Manipur University

submitted the resolution No. 14/40/30.12.2024 of the 40

th

Meeting of the

Executive Council adopting Model Cadre Recruitment Rules on

30.12.2024, the Ordinance Amendment Request was submitted online on

14.10.2025 at 10:29:29 Hrs. and the Ordinance is numbered D-14.

[10] Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners,

refers to the provisions of Manipur University Act (in short, MU Act), 2005

(No. 54 of 2005). Section 9(1) of MU Act provides Hon’ble President of

India as the ‘Visitor’ of the University. Section 23(1) prescribes the

Executive Council as the ‘Principal Executive Body’ of the University.

Section 30 (1) & (2) explain ‘First Statutes’ are those set out in the

Schedule and the Executive Council has the power to make new or

additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the statutes. Section 30(3)

mandates that any new Statute or addition to the Statutes or any

amendment or repeal of Statute require the assent of the Visitor, who may

assent thereto or withhold assent or remit to the Executive Council for re-

consideration. Section 30(4) stipulates that a new Statute or a Statute

amendment or repealing an existing statute shall have no validity, unless

it has been assented to by the Visitor. Section 31(2) empowers the ‘Vice-

Chancellor’ to make ‘first Ordinances’ with previous approval of the

Central Government; the Ordinance so make may be amended, repealed

or added to at any time by the Executive Council in the manner prescribed

by the Statutes. Section 46(1) of the Act makes it mandatory that every

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 19

Statute, Ordinance or Regulation made under this Act shall be published

in the official gazette and Section 46(3) provides Statutes, Ordinances or

Regulations can be made to give retrospective effect not earlier than the

date of commencement of the parent Act. Along with Manipur University

Act, 2005, the Schedule appended in terms of Section 30 of the Act

provides for “Statutes of the University”. Statute 41 empowers to amend,

repeal or add to the first Ordinance made under Section 31(2) of the Act;

and the Executive Council shall not make any Ordinance under Section

31(1) unless such draft Ordinance has been approved by the ‘Academic

Council’. Statute 41(6) says that every Ordinance made by the Executive

Council should be submitted to the Visitor within two weeks from the date

of its adoption. Statute 41(7) provided the Visitor has power to direct the

University to suspend the operation of any Ordinance. Statute 41(8)

states that the Visitor shall inform the Executive Council about the

objection to the Ordinance referred to in clause (7) and after receiving the

comments from the University, the Visitor may either withdraw the order

suspending the Ordinance or disallow the ordinance, and the decision of

the Visitor shall be final.

[11] It is the core submission of Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned

counsel for the petitioners, that in terms of provisions of Manipur

University, especially, the provision of Statute 41 and in terms of letter

dated 27.09.2022 from UGC, the asset of Visitor of Manipur University

has not been granted till date to the Cadre Recruitment Rules submitted,

especially, CRRs 2024 and in spite of not getting assent from the Visitor,

the advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 has been issued and

recruitment process has been proceeded; and one Mr. Hidam Ojitkumar

who was serving as Junior Assistant on a daily-wage basis was

shortlisted in the eligible list for the skill test without fulfilling the eligibility

criteria. In short, Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel, emphasizes that

the advertisement No. 2/2025 and recruitment proceedings are void ab

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 20

initio, being based on CRRs 2024 which is yet to be assented by the

Visitor.

[12] The main ground for challenge the advertisement No. 2/2025

dated 13.05.2025 CRRs 2024 are:

(i) The same is in violation of the Ministry letter dated

25.05.2023 which mandates approval of the Hon’ble

Visitor of the CRRs and Mandatory uploading of the

same in the website of the University and not to

advertise for filling up vacant of non-teaching posts

until and unless CRRs of the non-teaching positions

as part of the Ordinance, are approved by the

competent authority;

(ii) The recruitment undertaken pursuant to

advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 for filling

up of 78 non-teaching posts has been issued by

Manipur University under an Ordinance purportedly

framed in terms of Statute 31(1)p of the Statutes

without approving prior approval from the competent

authority and without securing assent of the Visitor as

mandated under Section 30(3) & (4) of Manipur

University Act and Manipur University has no

independent right to frame Cadre Recruitment Rules

without following the procedure prescribed under the

Act;

(iii) The proposal to seek assent of the Visitor was sent

beyond stipulated timeline in violation to Section 41(6)

of the Act and the entire process is vitiated;

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 21

(iv) The corrected Model CRRs for non-teaching positions

2024 of Manipur University has already lapsed, as it

was adopted on 30.12.2024 but has neither been laid

before Parliament nor published on Official Gazette

nor received the assent of the President of India as

mandated under 30(4) and 46(1) & (2) of Manipur

University Act. The advertisement is not in terms of the

corrected CRR and the used of obsolete post titles

after rationalization renders advertisement rendered

the advertisement defective;

(v) The conduct of the authorities of Manipur University is

arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and illegal. If such

conduct is permitted to continue, it is likely to have

serious consequences in the future.

[13] When the matter was taken up on 25.02.2026, this Court

issued notice to the respondents and observed that the issue involved in

the present case is the examination of the rule making power of the

‘Executive Council’ of Manipur University for making CRR itself which is

the very foundation of the recruitment process. Since the results have

already been declared on 23.02.2026, this Court passed an interim order

staying the issue of appointment order to the candidates who have been

declared successful or to any other persons and all further proceedings

pursuant to the advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 would remain

stay/be kept in abeyance till next listing and the interim order has been

extended from time to time. It may be relevant to reproduce the

proceeding of this Court’s order dated 25.02.2026:

“25.02.2026

[1] Manipur University at Canchipur, Imphal issued an

advertisement being Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated

13.05.2025 inviting applications from eligible candidates for

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 22

appointment to 78 (seventy eight) posts (Group – B and

Group – C posts). To be noted, names of the posts are 12

(twelve) in number and in the captioned matter the writ

petitioners are concerned with Junior Assistant and

Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff (Janitor, Chowkidar, Ward

Boy/Mess Helper, Gardener, Conductor cum Cleaner,

Sweeper). To be noted, first writ petitioner applied for latter

and the second writ petitioner applied for the former. The first

writ petitioner was unsuccessful but the second writ

petitioner did not appear for the examination apprehending

that examination may be set aside on the ground that the

cadre Recruitment Rules of Manipur University are likely to

be struck down.

[2] Mr. Keisham Kishan, learned counsel on record for

writ petitioners submits that the uploaded advertisement has

been issued pursuant to cadre Recruitment Rules of Non-

Teaching Posts, 2024 (‘CRR Rules’ for convenience) but

CRR Rules are liable to be struck down on the ground that it

does not have the approval of the Visitor and it was further

submitted that the Visitor is Hon’ble President of India.

[3] Though learned counsel for writ petitioners predicated

his campaign against CRR on the above point, on a close

scrutiny of CRR, the following points come to light –

(a) CRR which has been made by the executive

council of Manipur University says that it has

been made in exercise of powers under Section

31(1)(p) of the Statutes but Section 31 of the

Statutes does not have any sub-Section or Sub-

Clause;

(b) CRR also says that it is pursuant to

Ordinance D-14 but entire Ordinance D-14 is

not before us though it comes to light that

Ordinance D-14 is an Ordinance made vide

resolution No. 14/40 made by the executive

council of Manipur University in the meeting

held on 30.12.2024.

[4] Issue notice.

[5] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel accepted

notice for R-1 (Manipur University represented by Registrar,

Manipur University, Canchipur, Imphal West, Manipur -

795003), Mr. S. Vijayanand, learned Sr. PCCG (Senior Panel

Counsel for Central Government) accepted notice for R-2

(Ministry of Education, Government of India though

Secretary, Department of Higher Education, 122-C, Shastri

Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001) and Mr. Jasobanta, learned

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 23

counsel accepted notice for R-3 [University Grants

Commission (UGC) through Chairman, Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi – 110002]. To be noted, R-1, R-2 and R-3

are abbreviations denoting first, second and third

respondents respectively. R-3 will be referred to as ‘UGC’

also for the sake of convenience.

[6] Mr. BP. Sahu, learned senior advocate appeared on

behalf of Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu who accepted notice for R-

1.

[7] This Court wanted to know from learned senior

counsel the Rule making power of the executive council of

Manipur University. This Court also wanted to know the

reason for reference of Section 31(1)(p) of the Statutes when

there is no such provision.

[8] Learned senior counsel very fairly submitted that

Section 31(1)(p) may be a reference to Section 31(1)(p) of

the ‘Manipur University Act, 2005 (No. 54 of 2005)’ {‘MU Act’

for the sake of brevity}. As regards Ordinance, learned senior

counsel submitted that it appears to be an Ordinance made

vide Ordinance making power traceable to Section 31(1) of

MU Act but he also submitted that it is necessary for his

instructing counsel to get further instructions before he

advances arguments in this regard.

[9] As the Rule making power qua executive council of

Manipur University for making CRR itself needs to be

examined, it is a case of examining the very substratum i.e.,

the very foundation of the recruitment edifice.

[10] As regards the interim prayer in the captioned MC,

though writ petitioners have sought for a prayer to withhold

declaration of results pursuant to afore-referred 13.05.2025

advertisement, as we are informed that results have been

published and uploaded in website day before yesterday

(23.02.2026), we resort to second limb of the interim prayer

which is residuary limb which seeks ‘any other order’.

[11] Learned senior counsel on instructions from

instructing counsel who in turn has got instructions from the

Registrar of Manipur University submitted that though results

have been published, no appointment orders have been

issued. To be noted, it was initially submitted (on instructions

from Registrar) that all candidates have been given

appointment orders and have even joined but when passed

over and called upon to produce files on instructions from

Registrar it was submitted that no appointment orders have

been issued. Learned senior counsel very fairly expressed

regret in this regard.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 24

[12] The narrative thus far makes it clear that prima facie

case has been made out qua campaign against CRR,

balance of convenience is in favour of staying issue of

appointment orders as it can create third party rights and also

put in peril the exercise leading to possible irreparable legal

injury. As all parameters for grant of interim order namely

prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable

legal injury have been made out, there shall be an order of

interim stay staying issue of appointment orders to

candidates who have been declared successful or to any

other person/s and all further proceedings pursuant to

advertisement No. 2/2025, dated 13.05.2025 shall be remain

stayed/be kept in abeyance. (To be noted, as it is not a case

of any alleged illegality qua writ petitioners and it is a case of

challenge to CRR itself we are not limiting interim order to

keeping one post vacant.) This interim stay will operate till

next listing. To be noted, Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu sought

listing immediately after Yaoshang vacation for getting

instructions for enabling learned senior counsel to address

this Court.

[13] List on 10.03.2026.”

[14] Manipur University filed affidavit-in-opposition (counter

affidavit) dated 23.03.2026. In para 3 of the affidavit of Manipur University,

the issue of maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the

present form has been elaborately raised. The ‘first ground on the

maintainability’ is that the petitioners have made a prayer to declare

Cadre Recruitment Rules of non-teaching posts 2024 of Manipur

University as illegal and void, as the same is without the Visitor’s approval

and to quash and set aside all the consequent recruitment rules

advertisement including short-listing and tests. It is alleged by the

petitioners that the CRRs 2024 has been sent by the Registrar of Manipur

University vide letter dated 16.01.2025 to the Ministry of Education for

approval. It is submitted by Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of Manipur University that the letter dated 16.012025

is correct. However, the annexures, i.e. CRRs of non-teaching posts 2024

of Manipur University is disputed, as the same does not exist in the office

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 25

file of Manipur University. In other words, it is stated that Manipur

University does not have any such document as alleged by the petitioners

as CRRs 2024, which appears to be forged and manufactured by the

petitioners for sabotaging the recruitment process. It is further submitted

that CRR 2024 is not a document submitted by MU to the Ministry along

with letter dated 16.01.2025. ‘Second ground’ for challenge to the non-

maintainability of the writ petition is that both the petitioners have applied

for the recruitment and one of them even faced the selection process but

could not succeed. It is reiterated that Manipur University Cadre

Recruitment Rules of non-teaching posts 2024 was never placed before

the Executive Council of Manipur University in its 40

th

Meeting held on

30.12.2022 and CRR 2024 was never approved by the Executive Council

on that day, the same has no existence. In fact, it is explained in the 40

th

Meeting of the Executive Council of MU held on 30.12.2024, the corrected

Cadre Recruitment Rules of Non-teaching and other academic posts,

2022 was placed before the Executive Council after deliberate discussion

and the same was approved and every page of the said corrected CRRs

of non-teaching posts and academic posts, 2022 was authenticated and

signed by the Registrar of Manipur University and the same was sent to

the Ministry. The corrected CRRs 2022 has been annexed with the

counter affidavit as Annexure-C/1. Annexure-C/1 is the same letter dated

16.01.2025 sent by the Registrar, Manipur University to the Ministry of

Education (Annexure-A/12 of the writ petition), but the enclosures are

different.

[15] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for Manipur

University, has pointed out that except for the front page of the letter dated

16.01.2025 of the Annexure-A/12 of the writ petition and Annexure-C/1 of

counter affidavit of Manipur University, the enclosures are different. In the

annexure filed by Manipur University, all the pages of the Annexures-A/I,

II, III & IV annexed with the letter dated 16.01.2024 have been counter-

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 26

signed by the Registrar; whereas every page where the CRRs 2024

annexed in the writ petition is only a computer print out without any

authentication and so called proceedings of the 36

th

Meeting of the

Executive Council of Manipur University held on 06.0.2022 and the

proceedings of the 40

th

Meeting of the Executive Council held on

30.12.2024 are not authenticated and unsigned copies. It is stated that

the documents annexed by the writ petitioners are not the authenticated

copies or perhaps fabricated one in order to derail the whole recruitment

process. On the basis of the documents which genuineness are doubtful,

the petitioners got interim order of staying issuance of appointment letter

to the successful candidates as recorded in the order dated 25.02.2026.

On merit, the stand of the University is that the CRRs 2024 allegedly sent

by the University as enclosure to letter dated 16.01.2025 to the Ministry

of Education does not exist in Manipur University. The recruitment has

been conducted on the basis of modified CRRs 2022. It is submitted that

in terms of Statute 41(6) of MU Act, every Ordinance made by the

Executive Council shall come into effect immediately and hence the

advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 for recruitment of non-

teaching staff does not suffer any illegality. The petitioners are not

aggrieved parties as there is no illegality in the recruitment process

conducted by Manipur University in terms of advertisement dated

13.05.2025 for filling up of 78 posts of Group B and C and hence they

have no locus to file the present writ petition. It is also pointed out that the

Model Cadre Recruitment Rules which was recommended by the UGC

has been approved and adopted by the Executive Council of Manipur

University in its 36

th

Meeting held on 06.10.2022 and shall become a part

of Ordinance and came into effect immediately in view of the Statute 41(5)

of Manipur University Act.

[16] Learned senior counsel for Manipur University further draws

the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 23(1) of Manipur

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 27

University Act which says that the Executive Council shall be the principal

executive body of the University. In view of Statute 41(5) of Manipur

University, every Ordinance made by the Executive Council came to

effect immediately and MCRRs which was recommended by the UGC

vide letter dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-A/6 colly to the writ petition) has

been adopted by the Executive Council and the same has become a part

of the Ordinance and effected immediately; and question of approval of

the Ministry of Education does not arise. It is clarified that Statute 41(5)

will override the last sub-para of the letter dated 01.11.2022 written by

Manipur University (Annexure-A/8 of the writ petition) to the Ministry of

Education requesting for approval of the enclosed CRRs, was

inadvertently written through oversight by the then Registrar. Learned

senior counsel has further stated that there is no provision in Manipur

University Act that every Statute and Ordinance made by the Executive

Council shall be assented/approved by the Visitor before it comes into

effect. It is mentioned in para 11 of the counter affidavit that due to

bonafide mistake, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Education,

Department of Higher Education, Government of India sent a letter dated

25.05.2023 to the Registrar, Manipur University informing not to

advertise/fill up of any posts in non-teaching posts until and unless CRRs

of non-teaching posts as a part of the Ordinance, are approved by the

competent authority. It is clarified that the Model CRRs forwarded by

UGC vide letter dated 27.09.2022 was placed before the Executive

Council of Manipur University in its 36

th

Meeting held on 06.10.2022 and

the same was adopted/approved and hence become enforceable. It is

submitted that there is no illegality in the advertisement dated 13.05.2025

for recruitment of 78 posts of non-teaching Group B & C post. It is also

stated that the corrected and rationalized CRRs 2022 was

adopted/approved by the 40

th

Meeting of the Executive Council held on

30.12.2024. It is the case of Manipur University that the Model CRRs

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 28

forwarded by the UGC vide its letter dated 27.09.2022 and corrected

CRRs 2022 have already been approved by the Executive Council of

Manipur University in its 36

th

and 40

th

Meetings and the same become

enforceable in terms of Manipur University Act, Statute and Ordinance

and there is no illegality in the advertisement dated 13.05.2025. During

the course of proceeding, learned senior counsel for Manipur University

handovers a notification dated 18.03.2025 which is publication of rules for

regulating recruitment of non-teaching and staff in Manipur University

under Ordinance No. D-14 which is Manipur University Model CRRs non-

teaching and academic staff 2025.

[17] The petitioners filed rejoinder affidavit to the affidavit-in-

opposition filed by respondent No. 1/Manipur University on 06.04.2026.

In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners reiterated almost all the

contentions made in the writ petition. However, it is clarified that the

SAMARTH Portal could not be accessed by the petitioners. It is stated

that the amended Ordinance (D-14) approved on 30.12.2024 in its 40

th

Executive Council Meeting submitted on 14.10.2025 in the SAMARTH

Portal, can be duly verified by this Court. The portal is accessible by

Manipur University and the Ministry of Education only. It is stated that

Ordinance (D-14) which is claimed to be based on Cadre Recruitment

Rules 2022 and 2024 is not available in the public domain and the same

has neither been uploaded in the official website nor been published in

the Gazette of India, nor was placed before Parliament as required by

law; and in absence of proper publication and statutory compliance, the

Ordinance cannot be said to have any legal existence or enforceability.

Consequently, even assuming its existence, the same is liable to be

treated as void and non est in the eyes of law.

[18] It may be noted at the bar both learned counsel for the

petitioners as well as respondents admitted that CRRs 2022, Modified

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 29

CRRs 2022 and so called CRRs 2024 have not got the asset of the Visitor

(Hon’ble President of India).

[19] On 06.05.2026, Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned counsel for

respondent No. 3 (UGC) made an endorsement that he would neither be

filing affidavit-in-opposition nor any document/annexures and the

endorsement made by him was recorded in the order itself. Likewise, Mr.

S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 2, i.e. Ministry of Education, Government of India, also

made the same endorsement that respondent No. 2 would not file any

affidavit-in-opposition or document.

[20] During the pendency of the writ petition, 30 (Thirty) of

successful candidates, who were awaiting appointment orders, but could

not get any appointment orders due to the interim order dated 25.02.2026

passed by this Court (staying issuance of appointment letter), filed

MC(WP(C)) No. 394 of 2026 for impleading them as respondent Nos. 4

to 33 in the writ petition. Similarly, five of the successful candidates also

filed an application being MC(WP(C)) No. 395 of 2026 for impleading

them as respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the writ petition. On 25.05.2026, these

applications were taken up along with the main petition. Mr. HS. Paonam,

learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Harichhaya, learned counsel for

the applicants appeared in MC(WP(C)) No. 394 of 2026 and Mr. A.

Mohendro, learned counsel for the applicants in MC(WP(C)) No. 395 of

2026; and with the consent of the learned counsel for the applicants as

well as writ petitioners and official respondents, the applications were

disposed of; and the applicants are treated as “Intervenors” without

impleading them as respondents as prayed for in the main writ petition;

and it was recorded that MC applicants would have audience before this

Court; and they would be described as “Intervenors” in the cause title.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 30

[21] On 26.05.2026 in the midst of hearing, learned senior

counsel for Manipur University sought some time to get instruction

regarding appointment as Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff (Janitor, Chowkidar,

Ward Boy/Mess Helper, Gardener, Conductor cum Cleaner, Sweeper)

either by creating a supernumerary post or as against an existing vacancy

which has arisen owing to superannuation, post commencement of

recruitment to petitioner No. 1 (Wangkhem Ranjan) alone, as petitioner

No. 2 (Sukham Bidyananda) did not appear the examination. This Court

observed that after three months of publication of the result, none

approached this Court for cancellation of the advertisement except for the

two writ petitioners. In case the University comes up with the proposal for

appointment petitioner No. 1, the Court will consider giving a closure of

the writ petition leaving the legal question open, if the same issue arises

in any other recruitment, other than advertisement No. 2/2025 dated

13.05.2025. Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners,

also agreed to the above proposal/possibility. Learned senior counsel and

counsel appearing for the intervenors also agreed for such closure, if that

so happened. This Court has also noted the right and interest of all the

parties before this Court, the submissions of the University that there are

3000 (Three thousand) applicants qua advertisement. Accordingly, the

matter was posted on 01.06.2026 under the caption part heard for further

hearing or closure. The order dated 26.05.2026 is reproduced as:

“26.05.2026

[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of

earlier proceedings made in the previous listings more

particularly, the proceedings made in the listing on

25.02.2026.

[2] Today, Mr. Keisham Kishan Singh, learned counsel on

record for writ petitioners; Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu along with

Mr. M. Rustam, learned counsel on record for respondent No.

1 led by senior advocates Mr. BP Sahu and Mr. Kh.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 31

Tarunkumar respectively; Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned

Sr. PCCG (Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government) on

record for respondent No. 2; Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned

counsel on record for respondent No.3 and Mr. H.S. Paonam,

learned senior counsel instructed by Ms. Ksh. Harichhaya and

Mr. A. Mohendro along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit and Mr. David

Boon, learned counsel on record for intervenors are before

this Court (physical Court).

[3] After some more arguments and submissions, Mr.

Anjan Prasad Sahu and Mr. M. Rustam led by senior

advocates Mr. BP Sahu and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar respectively

sought time to get instructions regarding giving appointment

as Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff (Janitor, Chowkidar, Ward

Boy/Mess Helper, Gardener, Conductor cum Cleaner,

Sweeper) either by creating a supernumerary post or as

against an existing vacancy which has arisen owing to

superannuation, post commencement of recruitment

exercise which is subject matter of the legal drill at hand.

[4] To be noted, the above (giving appointment) is only

with regard to writ petitioner No.1 (Mr. Wangkhem Ranjan,

S/o Wangkhem Binoy Singh, aged about 25 years, a resident

of Ningomthong Sairom Leirak, P.O. Singjamei, P.S.

Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795008) as the

second writ petitioner (Mr. Sukham Bidyananda, aged about

35 years, S/o Sukham Kumar Singh, a resident of Bashikhong

Torban Leikai, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East

District, Manipur - 795008) did not take the examination.

[5] Be that as it may, the Advertisement for recruitment

to 78 (seventy-eight) posts including 35 (thirty-five) posts of

Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff (Janitor, Chowkidar, Ward

Boy/Mess Helper, Gardener, Conductor cum Cleaner,

Sweeper) was issued on 13.03.2025 (Advertisement No.

2/2025) more than 1 (one) year ago. The recruitment

process culminated in publication/uploading of results in the

official website of Manipur University on 23.02.2026. To be

noted, this is captured in our afore referred 25.02.2026

proceedings and all counsel and senior counsel before this

Court submit in one voice/in unison that all facts, dates and

events have been correctly captured in the 25.02.2026

proceeding and the same can be the base document.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 32

[6] Even before the publication/uploading of results in the

official website on 23.02.2026, the two writ petitioners have

presented the captioned writ petition in this Court on

19.02.2026 inter-alia assailing the CRR (Cadre Recruitment

Rules of Non-Teaching Posts, 2024). Though the results

were published and uploaded in the official website on

23.02.2026 (Monday) in the last 13 (thirteen) weeks (more

than 3 months) no applicant other than the 2 (two) writ

petitioners has chosen to come before this Court. Therefore,

if the University comes up with the proposal of appointing

writ petitioner No. 1 alone either by creating a

supernumerary post or as against a post that fell vacant

owing to superannuation post commencement of the

recruitment process, such a benefit would not enure to any

other applicant if he or she approaches this court now.

[7] This Court is of the view that 13 (thirteen) weeks post

publication of results (more than 3 months) is long enough

for any applicant. If the University comes up with this

proposal of appointing writ petitioner No. 1 on Monday

(01.06.2026), this Court will consider giving a closure to the

captioned writ petition leaving open the legal questions if the

same arises in any other recruitment other than

Advertisement No. 2 of 2025 dated 13.05.2025.

[8] To be noted, Mr. Keisham Kishan Singh, learned

counsel for writ petitioners agreed to the above said

proposal/possibility. This submission is recorded.

[9] As regards the selectees who are being heard as

intervenors in captioned matter, Mr. HS Paonam, learned

senior advocate instructed by Ms. Ksh. Harichhaya and Mr.

A. Mohendro along with Mr. Kh. Lupenjit and Mr. David Boon

submitted that they have no say in afore referred

proposal/possibility and they also agreed for such a closure,

if that is to happen.

[10] In making this proceedings, besides taking into

account the trajectory the matter has taken thus far, we have

also considered balancing the rights and interests of all the

parties before this Court and also noticed the submission of

University counsel that there are nearly 3,000 (three

thousand) applicants qua Advertisement No. 2 of 2025 dated

13.05.2025.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 33

[11] Interim order already granted on 25.02.2026,

extended from time to time and now operating is further

extended and the same shall continue till next listing.

[12] List under the cause list caption ‘PART HEARD-FOR

FURTHER HEARING OR CLOSURE’ before this Bench on

01.06.2026 as it is a part heard matter.”

[22] When the matter was taken up on 01.06.2026, Mr. BP. Sahu

and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for Manipur University,

submitted that it would not be possible to accommodate petitioner No. 1

by creating a supernumerary post or as against any existing vacancy due

to two reasons: (i) Post proceeding dated 26.05.2026, writ petitioner No.

2 (Sukham Bidyananda) submitted right to information application on

29.05.2026 making six queries, inter-alia, questioning the authority of

Manipur University to create and appoint any individual to supernumerary

non-teaching post after final result of the recruitment examination has

been declared and to furnish details of the merit list and marks obtained

by selected candidates in the recruitment and other details; and (ii) Nine

unsuccessful candidates have also submitted representations all dated

29.09.2025 for appointment against appropriate posts on the basis of

submissions of counsel for Manipur University for accommodating one of

the petitioners against MTS seat against vacancy available or as

supernumerary. In the circumstances, it is submitted that it would not be

possible to give a closure to the writ petition by accommodating writ

petitioner No. 1 either by creating supernumerary post or against any

existing vacancy. It is further submitted that the matter may be heard on

merit; first by deciding the question of maintainability raised by Manipur

University. Learned senior counsel for Manipur University sought for

some time to file affidavit with annexures bringing on record the

applications submitted by nine unsuccessful candidates and RTI

application submitted by the writ petitioner No. 2 on record. Thereafter,

Manipur University filed affidavit dated 03.06.2026 bringing on record the

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 34

nine applications submitted by the unsuccessful candidates for

appointment against appropriate posts in terms of the submissions made

by the learned senior counsel for Manipur University and RTI application

of petitioner No. 2. The proceeding dated 01.06.2026 is reproduced as:

“01.06.2026:

[1] Read this in conjunction with and in

continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous

listing, more particularly proceedings made in the immediate

preceding proceedings dated 26.05.2026 which reads as

follows:

26.05.2026

[1] Read this in conjunction with and in

continuation of earlier proceedings made in the

previous listings more particularly, the proceedings

made in the listing on 25.02.2026.

…………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………….

[12] List under the cause list caption ‘PART HEARD-

FOR FURTHER HEARING OR CLOSURE’ before this

Bench on 01.06.2026 as it is a part heard matter.’

[2] In the hearing today, Mr. Keisham Kishan,

learned counsel on record for writ petitioners; Mr. Anjan

Prasad Sahu along with Mr. M. Rustam, learned counsel on

record for respondent No. 1 led by senior advocates Mr. BP

Sahu and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar respectively; Mr. S.

Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG (Senior Panel Counsel

for Central Government) on record for respondent No. 2; Mr.

S. Jasobanta, learned counsel on record for respondent No.3

and Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel instructed by

Ms. Ksh. Harichhaya and Mr. A. Mohendro along with Mr.

David Boon, learned counsel on record for intervenors are

before this Court (physical Court).

[3] Adverting to afore-referred earlier proceedings

dated 26.05.2026, Mr. BP Sahu and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar,

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 35

counsel on record for Manipur University (respondent No. 1,

‘R – 1’ for the sake of brevity) submitted in one voice, on

instructions that it is not possible to accommodate writ

petitioner No. 1 either by creating a supernumerary post or

against any existing vacancy.

[4] Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel submitted

that one of the reasons for inability to accommodate is, writ

petitioner No. 2, after earlier proceedings dated 26.05.2026,

has sent a ‘Right to Information’ (‘RTI’ for the sake of

convenience) query on 29.05.2026 inter-alia making a query

regarding the provision/powers of Manipur University (R-1)

to create a supernumerary post. To be noted, this is not the

only reason but one of the reasons is learned senior counsel’s

say.

[5] The above scenario puts an end to examining

the possibility of giving a closure to the captioned matter by

accommodating writ petitioner No. 1 either by creating a

supernumerary post or against any existing vacancy. This

means that captioned writ petition is to be heard out. In this

regard, learned senior for Manipur University submitted that

maintainability issue has been raised and that has to be

decided first.

[6] Be that as it may, learned senior counsel for

Manipur University (R-1) sought time to file documents,

more particularly developments post 26.05.2026 under a

suitable affidavit and bring it on record. Learned counsel on

record and learned senior counsel for Manipur University (R-

1) submitted that they want to continue arguments after

instructing counsel files such an affidavit with Annexures and

bring the same on Board.

[7] Learned counsel for Manipur University (R-1)

sought a couple of days time to complete the above exercise

of filing affidavit/annexures and bringing the same on Board.

[8] In the light of narration thus far, let the

captioned matter stand over to Friday i.e., 05.06.2026. Let

Registry list the captioned matter under the cause list caption

i.e., ‘PART HEARD FOR FURTHER HEARING’.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 36

[9] Interim order already granted on 25.02.2026,

extended from time to time and now operating, is further

extended and the same will continue till next listing.

[10] List on 05.06.2026.”

[23] Before proceeding further it may be noted that on

26.05.2026, SAMARTH Portal was opened in a neutral device, i.e.,

Laptop of this Court and the same was operated by the official

representative of Manipur University in open Court. Petitioner No. 2 who

was present in physical Court perused the SAMARTH Portal along with

Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; all the senior

counsel and counsel for the official respondents and intervenors also

perused the SAMARTH Portal opened in the Laptop of this Court. In the

portal, the first amendment in terms of the r esolution No.

14/40/30.12.2024 of 40

th

Meeting of the Executive Council of Manipur

University held on 30.12.2024 was submitted and adoption/approval of

the Executive Council to the corrected Model CRRs for non-teaching

position of Manipur University was uploaded on 14.10.2025 at 10:29:29

Hrs. This Court has also the benefit of perusing SAMARTH Portal. In the

portal, this Court found three queries from the Ministry of Education,

Government of India regarding the corrected CRRs. It is admitted fact that

both CRRs 2022 and corrected CRRs 2022 of Manipur University have

not got assent from the Visitor, i.e., Hon’ble Present of India till date.

CRRs 2024, which is the basis of challenge of the recruitment in the

present writ petition, is also not found in SAMARTH Portal. It is the

specific plea of Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners

that he got a copy of CRRs 2024 from some officials of Manipur

University. As urged by the learned senior counsel for Manipur University,

especially Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar that before proceeding to the merit, the

question of maintainability of the writ petition has to be decided first, this

Court proposes to deal with the issue of maintainability at the outset.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 37

PLEA OF MANIPUR UNIVERSITY ON MAINTAINABILITY:

[24] It is the focal point of submission of Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar,

learned senior counsel for Manipur University that CRRs 2024 does not

exist in the SAMARTH Portal and what is uploaded in the SAMARTH

Portal is corrected CRRs 2022. In 36

th

Meeting of the Executive Council

of Manipur University held on 06.10.2022 adopting Model CRRs

forwarded by the UGC in its letter dated 27.09.2022; 40

th

Meeting of the

Executive Council held on 30.12.2024 adopting modified CRRs; and

advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025, it is not specifically

mentioned that CRR concerned is CRRs 2022. However, it has been

clarified in the affidavit-in-opposition of MU that CRRs mentioned in all

those resolutions and documents are CRRs 2022; and corrected CRRs

2022 has been uploaded in the SAMARTH Portal. The writ petition of

challenging the validity of CRRs 2024 on the ground of not obtaining

assent from the Visitor as well as the consequent recruitment process

through advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 purportedly on the

basis of CRRs 2024, is not maintainable in the present form. In other

words, learned senior counsel for Manipur University submits that there

is no cause in the writ petition as CRRs 2024 which is the core foundation

of the writ petition, is a non-existent document and the writ petition is liable

to be dismissed and automatically collapsed; and the same is bound to

be dismissed on this ground alone. The second point of maintainability is

that petitioner No. 1 having applied, appeared and unsuccessful in the

first round of the examination cannot question the ongoing recruitment

process before its completion; he cannot blow hot and cold at the same

time; and principle of approbate and reprobate will be attracted in the

present case. Learned senior counsel has pointed out that the final result

of the examination was declared only on 23.02.2026. However, writ

petition was filed on 19.02.2025. A candidate having applied and

participated in the recruitment process cannot challenge the same unless

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 38

patent illegality affecting his right is made out. The only plea of the

petitioners is that the Visitor (Hon’ble President of India) has not granted

assent to the CRRs in terms of Statute 41(6) of the Manipur University

Act, 2005 and as directed vide letter dated 27.09.2022 of the UGC

informing all Central Universities in this regard. With regard to petitioner

No. 2 having applied and not appeared in the examination, he also cannot

challenge the recruitment process on the ground of his pre-conceive

apprehension of setting aside the recruitment process due to absence of

assent from the Visitor. It is submitted that the petitioners, especially

petitioner No. 2 are not aggrieved party, as none of their rights has been

affected and the writ especially in the nature of certiorari would not lie at

the hand of a person who is not aggrieved by any act of the University. In

short, it is submitted that the petitioners are strangers and they do not

have any locus. The third point is that in the writ petition, the petitioners

do not disclose all the facts including how they got CRRs 2024, the very

foundation of the writ petition annexed as a part of annexure (Annexure-

A/4 colly). In the writ petition, the manner of infraction of the rights of the

petitioners have not been explained. Both the writ petitioners have

conflicting interest. Petitioner No. 1 applied and appeared and petitioner

No. 2 applied and did not appear. Petitioner No. 1 who is an unsuccessful

candidate cannot challenge the recruitment in absence of any act of

patent illegality affecting his right and petitioner No. 2 being a candidate

who did not appear in the examination, cannot challenge the recruitment,

being a stranger. The second prayer for declaration of CRRs 2024 as void

does not survive, as in the SAMARTH Portal only CRRs 2022 is uploaded

and there is no trace of CRRs 2024.

[25] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for Manipur

University, refers to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court to the

following case laws to advance his argument:

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 39

“1. Securities & Exchange Board of India vs.

Mangalore Stock Exchange: (2005) 10 SCC 274

where a two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that the issue of maintainability of appeal before

the Securities Appellate Tribunal has to be decided

first before passing any further order as the issue of

maintainability of the appeal has been raised

specifically before the Tribunal and the Tribunal

passed an interim order without determining the

question of maintainability of the appeal as raised by

the other side.

2. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathaur &

Ors.: (2006) 11 SCC 696 at para 42 that in this case,

the maintainability of the fresh writ petition on the

principle of res judicata as earlier writ petitions before

the High Court and special leave petition before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court have already been dismissed.

Without deciding the question of maintainability as

raised, the High Court proceeded to hear the matter

on merit. In the earlier proceeding, the High Court

recorded the question of maintainability would be

considered first. However, the High Court heard the

matter on merit and reserved for order and passed

final judgement after three years. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court

shall first decide the preliminary objections raised by

the appellants about the non-maintainability of the writ

petitions and remit the matter to the High Court for

fresh hearing.

3. Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India: (2007)

8 SCC 449: While approaching the High Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner did not

disclose all the facts to the Court. It has been observed

by a three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court that if

there is a suppression of material facts on the part of

the applicant or twisted fact has been placed before

the Court, the Writ Court may refused to entertain the

writ petition and dismiss it without entering into the

merit.

Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for Manipur

University, submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable due

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 40

to non-disclosure of the complete facts, especially about the source of

non-existent CRRs 2024 in the petition.

4. Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad

Singh & Anr.: (2006) 1 SCC 75 para 17: Non-

compliance of curable defects should not entail

automatic dismissal or rejection unless the relevant

Statute or Rule so mandate. However, in para 17 of

the order well-recognised exceptions to this principle

are enumerated:

(i) where the statute prescribing the procedure, also

prescribes specifically the consequence of non-

compliance;

(ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even

after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for

rectifying it;

(iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to

be deliberate or mischievous;

(iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the

case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court;

(v) in case of memorandum of appeal, there is

complete absence of authority and the appeal is

presented without the knowledge, consent and

authority of the appellant.

It is submitted that the notification dated 18.03.2205 notifying

CRRs 2025 for adoption of the Ordinance D-14 ought not to be a void

document as CRRs 2025 is mentioned in place of corrected CRRs 2022

and mentioning of Section 30 in place of Section 31(p). It is urged that

such innocuous mistakes are curable and do not affect the validity of

CRRs 2022

6. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of

Maharastra & Ors.: (2013) 4 SCC 465 para 17, to the

point that a person who raises a grievance, must show

how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger

having no right whatsoever to any post or property cannot

be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 41

[26] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for Manipur

University, submits that the petitioners have failed to show how they have

suffered any legal injury. It is urged that the writ petition is not

maintainable in the present form for the reasons cited supra.

[27] Mr. BP. Sahu, learned senior counsel for Manipur University,

adopts the submissions and case laws cited by Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar who

is also appearing on behalf of Manipur University. However, he further

refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish

Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors.: (2010) 12 SCC 576 para 16 to

the point that having participate in the selection process fully knowing that

more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the

petitioner cannot challenge the selection criteria or process of selection.

The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution only after he found that his name did not figure in

the merit list prepared by the Commission and this conduct of the

petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection.

[28] Both the learned senior counsel for Manipur University have

projected that the petitioners are proxy candidates. With regard to

petitioner No. 2, it is pointed out that his wife participated in the

recruitment test and she crossed first round but failed in the second

round. This fact has been concealed.

[29] Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned Sr. PCCG for the Central

Government and Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned counsel for the UGC, adopt

the submissions of learned senior counsel for Manipur University on the

question of maintainability.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 42

PLEA OF INTERVENORS ON MAINTAINABILITY:

[30] Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for 30 intervenors,

submits that the petitioners are the proxy petitioners and they are fighting

on behalf of the others and writ petition is just a harassment to the genuine

candidates who have nothing to do with the publication or non-publication

of CRR or obtaining assent from the competent authority. The writ petition

on the basis of disputed fact, such as existence of CRRs 2024, is not

maintainable. In the counter affidavit of Manipur University, it has been

clearly stated that the advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 was

issued on the basis of CRRs 2022 and hence the same has demolished

the very edifice on the writ petition based on CRRs 2024. The writ petition,

which is not based on true facts (as disclosed in the counter affidavit of

Manipur University), has to be rejected summarily and it amounts to

wastage of valuable time of this Court. Learned senior counsel for the

intervenors has also submitted that the wife of the petitioner No. 2

participated and is not successful in the recruitment test. It is urged that

even if assuming that writ petition is maintainable, the same is not

entertainable.

[31] Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for 5 more intervenors

who are successful candidates, submits that the writ petition is not

maintainable in the present form, as there is no averment against CRRs

2022; and CRRs 2024 which is the very foundation of the writ petition, is

not in existence as stated in the counter affidavit of Manipur University

and as also seen by this Court from the SAMARTH Portal. Learned

counsel further submits that both facts and law do not support the case of

the petitioners. No lacuna or allegation is made against the successful

candidates and he prays that this Court may protect the rights of the

successful candidates. Learned counsel refers to a decision in the case

of Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana: (1979)

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 43

2 SCC to the point that failure to place the said subordinate legislation

before the Parliament does not affect the legality of the subordinate

legislation.

PLEA OF PETITIONERS ON MAINTAINABILITY:

[32] On the question of maintainability, Mr. K. Kishan Singh,

learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as a counsel, he has not

instruction about the participation of the wife of petitioner No. 2 in the

recruitment examination; but he has been instructed for the fact that

petitioner No. 1 applied, appeared and is not successful in the recruitment

and petitioner No. 2 applied and did not appeared in the examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioners clarifies that CRRs 2024 is not

fabricated document and the same has been procured from Manipur

University; perhaps CRRs 2024 might be deleted by the University after

filing of the writ petition in order to frustrate the cause of the present writ

petition. Whether CRRs 2024 has been deleted from the SAMARTH

Portal can only be verified on the examination of the cyber expert in this

regard. It is submitted that all the resolutions of the Executive Council of

Manipur University, especially proceedings of the 36

th

Meeting held on

06.10.2022 and 40

th

Meeting held on 30.12.2024 did not specifically

mention about CRRs 2022; in fact, these resolutions only mentioned

CRRs simply without any prefix or suffix of year. It is highlighted that

CRRs 2022 is mentioned for first time in the counter affidavit and

advertisement has been issued in terms of CRRs 2022. Both the

resolutions (30

th

& 40

th

) and advertisement do not mention CRRs 2022.

[33] Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners

emphasizes to the point that the advertisement No. 2/2025 dated

13.05.2025 also did not mention about CRRs 2022. It is only in the

counter affidavit of the University which has explained for first time that

advertisement has been issued under CRRs 2022. Learned counsel for

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 44

the petitioners invoke the doctrine of Mohinder Singh Gill vs The Chief

Election Commissioner, New Delhi AIR 1978 SC 851 at para 8 to

emphasize that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on

certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned

and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or

clarification and the impugned order cannot be improved subsequently by

way of affidavit or any clarification. Otherwise, an order bad in the

beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge,

get validated by additional grounds later brought out. It is the case of the

petitioners that the advertisement and all the approvals are in terms of

CRRs 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that

counsel for the University has admitted in the course of hearing that CRRs

2022 and/or corrected CRRs 2022 have not got assent from the Visitor

(Hon’ble President of India), but it is stated that in view of the Statute 41(6)

of the MU Act, CRRs 2022 and corrected CRRs 2022 have become

effective from the date of notification. Learned counsel for the petitioners

has pointed out that the submissions of the learned senior counsel for

Manipur University is total fallacy in view of the specific provisions of

Statute 41(6), (7) & (8) of Manipur University Act, 2005 that every

Ordinance made by the Executive Council shall be submitted to the Visitor

and assent of the Visitor is mandatory and also in terms of the instruction

of the UGC in the letter dated 27.09.2022 and letter dated 25.03.2023

issued by the Ministry of Education to Manipur University requiring

approval by Visitor of the draft recruitment rules. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submit that due to all these infirmities, the writ petition is

maintainable and this question requires detailed examination by this

Hon’ble Court. He refers to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajendra Agricultural University vs. Ashok Kumar Prasad &

Ors.: [2009] 15 (ADDL.) SCR 1168 para 16 to the point that publication

in the official Gazette of a Statute made by the University is a mandatory

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 45

requirement and without the same being published, the Statute will not

come into effect. Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners,

further refers to the case of Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India:

2026 INSC 80 to the point that publication in the official Gazette is

necessary for enforceability in notification issued under the Act.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

[34] This Court has considered the pleadings of the parties;

submissions made at the bar and the following points of determination

have been framed for adjudication.

(i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable and/or

entertainable in the present form?; and

(ii) Whether the cause of action qua the writ petition

based on Cadre Recruitment Rules for non-teaching

staff 2024 survives as on date (i.e. on 26.05.2026

SAMARTH Portal was open in a neutral device before

this Court) for the simple reason that CRRs 2024 was

not found uploaded in the SAMARTH Portal and only

modified CRRs 2022 has been uploaded by Manipur

University?

[35] Before proceeding further, it may be useful to reproduce the

relevant provisions of Manipur University Act, 2005, the Statute appended

in the Schedule of the Act and the relevant extract of the letter from the

University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Education,

Government of India:

“Manipur University Act, 2005”

Section 9.

(1) The President of India shall be the Visitor of the

University.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 46

(2) The Visitor may, from time to time, appoint one

or more persons to review the work and

progress of the University, including Colleges

and Institutions maintained by it, and to submit

a report thereon; and upon receipt of that report,

the Visitor may, after obtaining the views of the

Executive Council thereon through the Vice-

Chancellor, take such action and issue such

directions as he considers necessary in respect

of any of the matters dealt with in the report and

the University shall be bound to comply with

such directions.

(3) The Visitor shall have the right to cause an

inspection to be made by such person or

persons as he may direct, of the University, its

buildings, libraries, laboratories and equipment,

and of any College or Institution maintained by

the University or admitted to its privileges; and

also of the examinations, teaching and other

work conducted or done by the University and

to cause an inquiry to be made in like manner in

respect of any matter connected with the

administration or finances of the University,

Colleges or Institutions.

(4) The Visitor shall, in every matter referred to in

sub-section (3), give notice of his intention to

cause an inspection or inquiry to be made,-

(a) to the University, if such inspection or inquiry is

to be made in respect of the University or any

College or Institution maintained by it, or

(b) to the management of the College or Institution,

if the inspection or inquiry is to be made in

respect of College or Institution admitted to the

privileges of the University, and the University or

the management, as the case may be, shall

have the right to make such representations to

the Visitor, as it may consider necessary.

(5) After considering the representations, if any,

made by the University or the management, as

the case may be, the Visitor may cause to be

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 47

made such inspection or inquiry as is referred to

in sub-section (3).

(6) Where any inspection or inquiry has been

caused to be made by the Visitor, the University

or the management shall be entitled to appoint

a representative, who shall have the right to be

present and be heard at such inspection or

inquiry.

(7) The Visitor may, if the inspection or inquiry is

made in respect of the University or any College

or Institution maintained by it, address the Vice-

Chancellor with reference to the result of such

inspection or inquiry together with such views

and advice with regard to the action to be taken

thereon, as the Visitor may be pleased to offer,

and on receipt of address made by the Visitor,

the Vice-Chancellor shall communicate, to the

Executive Council, the views of the Visitor with

such advice as the Visitor may offer upon the

action to be taken thereon.

(8) The Visitor may, if the inspection or inquiry is

made in respect of any College or Institution

admitted to the privileges of the University,

address the management concerned through

the Vice-Chancellor with reference to the result

of such inspection or inquiry, his views thereon

and such advice as he may be pleased to offer

upon the action to be taken thereon.

(9) The Executive Council or the management, as

the case may be, shall communicate, through

the Vice-Chancellor to the Visitor such action, if

any, as it proposes to take or has been taken

upon the result of such inspection or inquiry.

(10) Where, the Executive Council or the

management, does not, within a reasonable

time, take action to the satisfaction of the Visitor,

the Visitor may, after considering any

explanation furnished or representation made

by the Executive Council or the management,

issue such directions as he may think fit and the

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 48

Executive Council or the management, as the

case may be, shall comply with such directions.

(11) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of

this section, the Visitor may, by order in writing,

annul any proceeding of the University which is

not in conformity with the Act, the Statutes or the

Ordinances:

Provided that before making any such order, he

shall call upon the Registrar to show cause why

such an order should not be made, and, if any

cause is shown within a reasonable time, he

shall consider the same.

(12) The Visitor shall have such other powers as may

be prescribed by the Statutes.

Section 23. (The Executive Council)

(1) The Executive Council shall be the principal

executive body of the University.

(2) The constitution of the Executive Council, the

term of office of its members and its powers and

functions shall be prescribed by the Statutes.

Section 30. (Statutes how to be made)

(1) The first Statutes are those set out in the

Schedule

(2) The Executive Council may, from time to time,

make new or additional Statutes or may amend

or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section

(1):

Provided that the Executive Council shall not

make, amend or repeal any Statutes affecting

the status, powers or constitution of any

authority of the University until such authority

has been given an opportunity of expressing an

opinion in writing on the proposed changes, and

any opinion so expressed shall be considered

by the Executive Council.

(3) Every new Statute or addition to the Statutes or

any amendment or repeal of a Statute shall

require the assent of the Visitor who may assent

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 49

thereto or withhold assent or remit to the

Executive Council for re-consideration.

(4) A new Statute or a Statute amending or

repealing an existing Statute shall have no

validity unless it has been assented to by the

Visitor.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

foregoing sub-sections, the Visitor may make

new or additional Statutes or amend or repeal

the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1),

during the period of three years immediately

after the commencement of this Act: Provided

that the Visitor may, on the expiry of the said

period of three years, make, within one year

from the date of such expiry, such detailed

Statutes as he may consider necessary and

such detailed Statutes shall be laid before both

Houses of Parliament.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

foregoing sub-sections, the Visitor may direct

the University to make provisions in the Statutes

in respect of any matter specified by him and if

the Executive Council is unable to implement

such direction within sixty days of its receipt, the

Visitor may, after considering the reasons, if

any, communicated by the Executive Council for

its inability to comply with such direction, make

or amend the Statutes suitably.

Section 31. (Power to make Ordinances)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the

Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for all or

any of the following matters, namely:

(a) the admission of students to the

University and their enrolment as such:

(b) the courses of study to be laid down for all

degrees, diplomas and certificates of the

University;

(c) the medium of instruction and

examination;

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 50

(d) the award of degrees, diplomas,

certificates and other academic

distinctions, the qualifications for the

same and the means to be taken relating

to the granting and obtaining of the same;

(e) the fees to be charged for courses of

study in the University and for admission

to the examinations, degrees and

diplomas of the University;

(f) the conditions for award of fellowships,

scholarships, studentships, medals and

prizes;

(g) the conduct of examinations, including

the term of office and manner of

appointment and the duties of examining

bodies, examiners and moderators:

(h) the conditions of residence of the

students of the University,

(i) the special arrangements, if any, which

may be made for the residence, discipline

and teaching of women students and the

prescribing of special courses of studies

for them;

(j) the establishment of Centres of Studies,

Boards of Studies, Specialised

Laboratories and other Committees;

(k) the manner of co -operation and

collaboration with other Universities,

institutions and other agencies including

learned bodies or associations;

(l) the creation, composition and functions of

any other body which is considered

necessary for improving the academic life

of the University;

(m) the institution of fellowships,

scholarships, studentships, medals and

prizes;

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 51

(n) the supervision of management of

Colleges and Institutions admitted to the

privileges of the University,

(0) the setting up of a machinery for redressal

of grievances of employees; and

(p) all other matters which by this Act or the

Statutes, are to be or may be, provided for

by the Ordinances.

(2) The first Ordinances shall be made by the Vice-

Chancellor with the previous approval of the

Central Government and the Ordinances so

made may be amended, repealed or added to

at any time by the Executive Council in the

manner prescribed by the Statutes:

Provided that till such time as the first

Ordinances are not so made by the Vice-

Chancellor, in respect of the matters that are to

be provided for by the Ordinances under this

Act and Statutes, the relevant provisions of the

Statutes and the Ordinances of Manipur

University in force immediately before the

commencement of this Act shall be applicable

insofar as they are not inconsistent with the

provisions of this Act and the Statutes.

Section 46. (Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations to be

published in the Official Gazette and to be laid

before Parliament.)

(1) Every Statute, Ordinance or Regulation made

under this Act shall be published in the Official

Gazette.

(2) Every Statute, Ordinance or Regulation made

under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be

after it is made, before each House of

Parliament, while it is in session, for a total

period of thirty days which may be comprised in

one session or in two or more successive

sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session

immediately following the session or the

successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses

agree in making any modification in the Statute,

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 52

Ordinance or Regulation or both Houses agree

that the Statute, Ordinance or Regulation should

not be made, the Statute, Ordinance or

Regulation shall thereafter have effect only in

such modified form or be of no effect, as the

case may be; so, however, that any such

modification or annulment shall be without

prejudice to the validity of anything previously

done under that Statute, Ordinance or

Regulation.

(3) The power to make Statutes, Ordinances or

Regulations shall include the power to give

retrospective effect, from a date not earlier than

the date of commencement of this Act, to the

Statute, Ordinance or Regulations or any of

them but no retrospective effect shall be given

to any Statute, Ordinance or Regulation so as to

prejudicially affect the interests of any person to

whom such Statute, Ordinance or Regulation

may be applicable.

Schedule (Statutes)

Statute 41. (Ordinances, how made)

(1) The first Ordinances made under sub-section

(2) of section 31 may be amended, repealed or

added to at any time by the Executive Council in

the manner specified in the following sub-

sections.

(2) No Ordinance in respect of the matters

enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 31

shall be made by the Executive Council unless

a draft of such Ordinance has been proposed by

the Academic Council.

(3) The Executive Council shall not have power to

amend any draft of any Ordinance proposed by

the Academic Council under clause (2), but

may reject the proposal or return the draft to the

Academic Council for re-consideration, either

in whole or in part, together with any

amendment which the Executive Council may

suggest

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 53

(4) Where the Executive Council has rejected or

returned the draft of an Ordinance proposed by

the Academic Council, the Academic Council

may consider the question afresh and in case

the original draft is reaffirmed by a majority of

not less than two-thirds of the members present

and voting and more than half the total number

of members of the Academic Council, the draft

may be sent back to the Executive Council

which shall either adopt it or refer it to the Visitor

whose decision shall be final.

(5) Every Ordinance made by the Executive

Council shall come into effect immediately.

(6) Every Ordinance made by the Executive

Council shall be submitted to the Visitor within

two weeks from the date of its adoption.

(7) The Visitor shall have the power to direct the

University to suspend the operation of any

Ordinance.

(8) The Visitor shall inform the Executive Council

about his objection to the Ordinance referred to

in clause (7) and may, after receiving the

comments of the University, either withdraw the

order suspending the Ordinance or disallow the

Ordinance, and his decision shall be final.

Letter dated 27.09.2022 from UGC para 4:

4. The Model Cadre Recruitment Rules as

approved by the Commission are attached herewith

for taking appropriate action, wherever the CRRs

approved by their competent authority are not

available. The Universities having CRRs approved by

the competent authority, may continue with the

recruitment processes for non-teaching positions as

per their approved CRRs. Also, the dying cadre posts

are not to be filled up.

Letter dated 01.11.2022 of Manipur University:

To

The Secretary

Ministry of Education

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 54

Department of Higher Education

Shastri Bhavan New Delhi-110115

Sub- Model Cadre Recruitment for Central Universities-reg.

Sir,

In inviting a reference to UGC letter No.F. No.7-1/2022

(JCRC) dated 27.00.2022 on the above subject, I am

directed to inform you that the Executive Council of the

University in its 36 meeting held on 06.10.2022 considered

the UGC letter mentioned above and resolved as under-

"11/36/6.10.2022

Consideration of the Model Cadre Recruitment Rules

(CRRs) for Central Universities

The Executive Council, after an in-depth discussion resolved

that it is mandatory to adopt UGC Model Cadre Recruitment

Rules forwarded vide their letter No.F.No. 7-1/2022 (JCRC)

dated 27.09.2022 for implementation from the next

recruitment for vacant positions to be advertised.

However, recruitment of the non-teaching posts already

advertised and screening process had been completed be

conducted according to the existing RRs of the University."

Under the above circumstances, I request you kindly

to approve the enclosed Cadre Recruitment Rules (CRRS).

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours faithfully

(Prof. W. Chandbabu Singh)

Registrar.

Letter dated 25.05.2023 of Ministry of Education,

Government of India:

To

The Registrar,

Manipur University.

Canchipur: Imphal-795003,

Manipur.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 55

Subject: Consideration of Model Cadre Recruitment

Rules for the Non-Teaching Positions of the

Manipur University, Imphal-regarding.

Sir.

I am directed to refer to your Letter No. MU/10-

4/2021/687 dated 01.11.2022 on the above mentioned

subject and to state that comments of UGC were sought in

the matter.

2. UGC vide its letter No. 59-4/2013(CU) Vol.II dated

22.05.2023 (copy enclosed) has furnished its

comments/suggestions, which are as under.-

(a) UGC vide its letter no. F.7-1/2022(JCRC) dated

27.09.2022 circulated the Model CRRs for non-

teaching positions at Central Universities (CUs) to

the Registrars of all CUs for taking appropriate

action, wherever the CRRS approved by their

competent authorities are not available. Furtherm

the Recruitment Rules should be approved by

Hon'ble Visitor and it should also be duly notified

and uploaded on the website of the University.

(b) UGC issues a public notice no. 15.11.2022 in which

it is clarified that since the posts of Library Cadre

for Assistant Librarian and above are covered

under the 'UGC (Minimum Qualifications for

Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic staff

in Universities and Colleges and other Measures

for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher

Education) Regulations, 2018', therefore,

notwithstanding anything contained in the UGC

Model CRRs for non-teaching posts, such posts of

Library Cadre i.e. Assistant Librarian and above

shall be regulated in accordance with the norms

prescribed under aforesaid regulations. Similarly,

the Cadre of Assistant Director of Physical

Education and above is also a part of UGC

Regulations, 2018, and hence, it should also be

regulated in accordance with the norms prescribed

under aforesaid regulations and should not be a

part of the Ordinance relating to CRRS.

Accordingly, while framing the CRR by the

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 56

University, the clause 19.5 and clause 2.9 may be

modified.

(c) In the CRR Preamble of Manipur University, the

University has to write the appropriate authority

whichever is applicable, i.e. Executive Council (EC)

or Board of Management (BoM). Manipur

University has mentioned both authorities i.e.

EC/BoM. This may be clarified.

(d) As per clause 34.4 of the Model CRRs of CUs, it is

clearly mentioned that these are the Model CRRs

which have been prepared generally to cover all the

posts sanctioned to different CUs and its

constituent/affiliated college(s), as far as possible.

The Universities shall accordingly adopt the CRR

only for such posts which are sanctioned to them

by the UGC. This Model CRRs does not entitle any

University to create any post mentioned in the

CRRs other than those sanctioned to them by

UGC. They shall not create/demand any other post

merely because such posts exist in the model

CRRs.

However, Manipur University has incorporated the

Model CRRs as a part of the Ordinance which

include those posts which are not available in the

University system like Internal Audit Officer, Law

Officer, Training & Placement Officer, Private

Secretary, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer,

Security Cadre, Guest House Manager etc. All CUs

including Manipur University have to frame their

CRRs as per the non-teaching posts available in

the University. The University has to also indicate

the number of sanctioned positions for each post

by UGC/Gol under Column 2.

(e) Further, UGC vide its letter no. F. 8-1/2014(CU)

dated 18.10.2021 has also clarified to all CUs that

the Universities may not advertise/fill up any of the

non-teaching posts unless and until CRRs of the

non-teaching posts as a part of the Ordinance are

approved by the Competent Authority.

4. University is, therefore, requested to take action on the

suggestions/views of UGC on the above mentioned

Ordinance and to send the proposal accordingly.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 57

Yours faithfully,

(Vijay Kumar)

Under Secretary to the Government of India”

General Rules:

General Rules

"MANIPUR UNIVERSITY"

MODEL CADRE RECRUITMENT RULES

NON-TEACHING AND OTHER ACADEMIC POSTS 2022

The Executive Council of the "Manipur University", in exercise of

the powers conferred under Section 30 of the University Act,

Statutes of Second Schedule to the "Manipur University Act 2005,

in supersession of all existing recruitment rules, relevant,

Ordinances/University regulations of the Executive Council in this

card hereby frames the following rules for regulating the

recruitment to the Non-Teaching and Other Academic Posts in the

University under Ordinance No.D-14(No. of Ordinance).

1. SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT:

1.1 These Rules shall be called Central University Non-

teaching and Other Academic Posts Model

Recruitment Rules 2022 of "Manipur University".

1.2 These Rules shall come into force with effect from the

date of issue of notification by the University.

2. DEFINITION:

In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:

2.1 'Act' shall mean the "Manipur University Act 2005" as

amended from time to time. 2.2 'Executive Council

shall mean the Executive Council of "Manipur

University".

2.3 'Appointing Authority' in relation to any post in the

University shall imply the authority competent to make

appointment to that post under the Act / Statute

/Ordinances/CRRS/Regulations of the University as

amended from time to time.

2.4 'Cadre' shall mean the strength of service or a part of

service sanctioned as a separate unit.

2.5 Departmental Candidate' shall mean the employee

working on regular basis in the "Manipur University"

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 58

against a substantive post in the University but does

not include an employee working on ad-hoc, daily

wage, contract, or temporary basis.

2.6 Direct Recruitment shall means the recruitment made

other than by promotion, deputation or absorption.

2.7 'Government' shall mean the Government of India.

2.8 Non-Teaching Employee' shall mean an employee of

the University other than the teachers of the

University.

2.9 'Other Academic Staff shall mean the other academic

staff as defined in the "UGC Regulations on Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other

Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other

Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher

Education, 2018' and as amended from time-to-time,

which includes the cadres of Librarians, Directors of

Physical Education and Sports.

2.10 'Regular Service' shall mean the service rendered by

an employee in the cadre on regular basis and shall

not include the service on contract/daily wage

/temporary/ad-hoc basis.

……………………………………………………………

……………………………………………….

18.03.2025: (Notification of Ordinance D-14 by MU)

MANIPUR UNIVERSITY

CANCHIPUR: IMPHAL

No.MU/10-4/2021 18th March 2025

"MANIPUR UNIVERSITY"

MODEL CADRE RECRUITMENT RULES

NON-TEACHING AND OTHER ACADEMIC POSTS 2025

The Executive Council of the "Manipur University", in

exercise of the powers conferred under Section 30 of the

University Act, Statutes of Second Schedule to the "Manipur

University Act 2005", in supersession of all existing

recruitment rules, relevant Ordinances/University regulations

of the Executive Council in this regard, hereby frames the

following rules for regulating the recruitment to the Non-

Teaching and Other Academic Posts in the University under

Ordinance No.D-14(No. of Ordinance) vide Resolution No.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 59

14/40/30.12.2024 of the Executive Council meeting held on

30.12.2024.

(Prof. Th. Binoy Singh)

Registrar i/c

DISCUSSION ON PLEA OF MAINTAINABILITY:

[36] From the above, it is clear that under Section 9(1) of Manipur

University Act, 2005, Hon’ble President of India shall be the ‘Visitor’ of the

University. Section 23 of the Act stipulates that the ‘Executive Council’

shall be the ‘Principal Executive Body’ of the University and the powers

and functions of the same are prescribed by the Statute. In terms of

Section 30, the ‘first Statute’ is set out in the Schedule to the Act and the

Executive Council may from time to time make new or additional

Statute/(s) or amend or repeal the existing Statute. Under Section 30(3),

every new Statute or addition to the Statute or any amendment or repeal

of a Statute shall require assent of the Visitor who may assent thereto or

withhold assent or remit to the Executive Council for re-consideration.

Section 30(4) prescribes for a new Statute or a new Statute amending or

repealing an existing Statute shall have no validity unless it has been

assented to by the Visitor. Section 31 of the Act prescribes rule making

power to make Ordinance, especially sub-clause ‘p’ of Section 31(1)

provides that Statute may be made for a matter by this Act or Statute or

Ordinance provide for by the Ordinance. Section 46(1) of the MU Act

stipulates that every Statute or Ordinance or Regulation made under this

Act shall be published in the official gazette and as such shall be laid

before each House of Parliament for consideration. Statute 41(2) provides

that no Ordinance shall be amended by the Executive Council unless a

draft by such Ordinance was approved by the Academic Council. Sub-

section 5 provides that every Ordinance made by the Executive Council

shall come to be effective immediately. On joint reading of Sub-clause 6,

7 & 8 of Statute 41, it is clear that new Ordinance made by the Executive

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 60

Council shall be subject to approval by the Visitor and decision of the

Visitor shall be final.

[37] From a mere perusal of: (i) the letter dated 27.09.2022

(Annexure-A/6 of the writ petition) of the UGC told Registrar of all Central

Universities; (ii) the letter dated 01.01.2022 from the Registrar of Manipur

Universities to the Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Government of

India; (iii) the letter dated 25.05.20223 from the Ministry of Education,

Government of India to the Registrar of Manipur University as reproduced

supra, it is clear that any new amendment, repeal or new Ordinance shall

require assent of the Visitor of University, i.e., Hon’ble President of India

and the same is also in tune with the provisions of Section 30(3) of the

Act and Statute 41(4), (6), (7) & (8) of the Act. In terms of Section 31(1)p

of the Act, the Executive Council has the power to make any Ordinance

for any matter provided under this Act. Cadre Recruitment Rules is

framed under Ordinance D-14 of Manipur University and the same

requires due approval the assent of Visitor as well as publication after

obtaining assent.

[38] It is submitted, during the course of hearing, that modified

CRRs for non-teaching and other academic posts 2025 was approved by

resolution 14/40/30.12.2024 of the Executive Council held on 30.12.2024

under Ordinance D-14 and the same was found uploaded in SAMARTH

Portal on 14.10.2025 at 10:29:29 Hrs. This was also published vide

notification dated 18.03.2025 by the Registrar i/c, Manipur University. It

has been clarified that in the notification dated 18.03.2025 instead of year

2022, it was wrongly printed as 2025 and instead of Section 31(1)p, it was

wrongly printed as Section 30 of the Act. It is the case of Manipur

University that the CRRs 2022 was duly notified by the University on

18.03.2025 and the same satisfied the provisions of MU Act, 2005 and

the requirement of Statute; and printing mistake in notification dated

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 61

18.03.2025 as CRRs 2025 in place of 2022 and mentioning Section 30 in

place of Section 31(1)p of the Act, does not invalidate the publication of

CRRs 2022 as such mistakes are curable.

[39] The first ground of maintainability is that since CRRs 2024

does not exist in the portal, it is specific case of Manipur University that

the adoption of CRRs in 36

th

Meeting held on 06.10.2022 and 40

th

Meeting held on 30.12.2024 of the Executive Council, is CRRs 2022 and

modified CRRs 2022 only. Modified CRRs 2022 has been uploaded in the

SAMARTH Portal maintained by the Ministry. As such, it is the case of

Manipur University that CRRs 2024 does not exist in the portal and hence

the writ petition based solely on CRRs 2024 automatically collapses like

a pack of cards. The second ground is non-maintainability of the writ

petition, as the petitioner No. 1 having applied, appeared and

unsuccessful, cannot challenge the ongoing recruitment process before

its conclusion in absence of any patent illegality in the advertisement; and

it is pointed out that petitioner No. 2 who applied and did not appear in

the recruitment, is not an aggrieved person and does not have any locus

to challenge the examination as well as CRRs. Another ground is the non-

disclosure of complete facts including the manner in which the petitioners

have got CRRs 2024 when the same does not exist in the file of Manipur

University and also in the SAMARTH Portal. Another ground is that the

petitioners are proxy on behalf of the others and they are the proxy are

sponsored parties to sabotage the recruitment process.

[40] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel and Mr. BP.

Sahu, learned senior counsel for Manipur University and Mr. A.

Mohendro, learned counsel for some of the intervenors, have highlighted

that the writ petition is not maintainable in the present form. Whereas, Mr.

HS. Paonam, learned senor counsel for some of the intervenors, submits

that assuming for the sake of argument the writ petition to be

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 62

maintainable, it is not entertainable in the present form for the simple

reason that nothing is alleged against CRRs, no malpractice against

Manipur University nor against the successful candidates, have been

alleged in the writ petition and the writ petition is also based on disputed

question of facts of existence or non-existence of CRRs 2024.

[41] The plea of Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioners, is that they got a copy of CRRs 2024 from a reliable source of

Manipur University and the same is not disclosed in the writ petition for

the protection of the right and safety of the person concerned. It is his

plea that CRRs 2024 might have been deleted from the SAMARTH Portal

by Manipur University or any person acting on its behalf in order to

frustrate the cause of the present writ petition. The very fact is that

whether CRRs 2024 has been deleted from the SAMARTH Portal or not,

can be verified only through examination of expert in this regard and the

cause of the writ petition still survives. It is also urged that in all the

proceedings of the Executive Council, especially 36

th

and 40

th

Meetings

of the Executive Council held on 06.10.2022 and 30.12.2024, the

adoption was only of CRRs and it does not mention the year, i.e., CRRs

2022. The advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 does not mention

a whisper about that the same is issued in terms of CRRs 2022 or

modified CRRs 2022, as alleged for the first time in the counter affidavit

of Manipur University and the same is hit by the principle of Mohinder

Singh Gill (supra).

[42] Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners,

further urged that even if assuming the advertisement has been issued in

terms of CRRs 2022 or modified CRRs 2022 as alleged in the counter

affidavit of Manipur University, it is admitted by learned senior counsel

appearing for Manipur University, in the course of hearing, that CRRs

2022 and/or modified CRRs 2022 are yet to receive assent of the Visitor

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 63

(i.e. Hon’ble President of India). It is the specific case of Manipur

University that assent of the Visitor is not required and the Ordinance

including Ordinance D-14 adopting modified CRRs 2022 shall come into

effect immediately in terms of Statute 41(5) of Manipur University Act,

2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in the

counter affidavit, it is nowhere stated by Manipur University that CRRs

2022 or modified CRRs 2022 has got assent from the Visitor in terms of

the provisions of Manipur University Act and applicable Statute. Learned

counsel submits that even if the advertisement No. 2/2025 dated

13.05.2025 is considered to be issued under modified CRRs 2022

(assuming for the sake of argument but not admitting), the advertisement

is void ab initio for the same reason that CRRs 2022 and/or modified

CRRs 2022 are yet to receive assent of the Visitor as required under

Section 30(3) & (4) of the MU Act. Mr. K. Kishan, learned counsel for the

petitioners, submits that the cause of the writ petition still survives as

CRRs 2022 is yet to receive assent of the Visitor and any act including

recruitment under Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 will be

void ab initio, as the same has been proceeded with on the basis of CRRs

which is not effective till date.

[43] This Court first decides the question of maintainability or

entertainability of the writ petition in the present form.

REASONING:

[44] The petitioner No. 1 applied for Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff

appeared and is unsuccessful in the recruitment of MTS as per the

advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 issued by Manipur University

and petitioner No. 2 applied for the post of Junior Assistant, but did not

appear as he has an apprehension that advertisement will be set aside

for the reason that CRRs 2024 has not been given assent by the Visitor.

Perhaps petitioner No. 1 challenged the advertisement No. 2/2025 dated

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 64

13.05.2025 mainly on the ground that even if he is successful in the

recruitment, his appointment is likely to be challenged by any other

person only on the ground that CRRs 2024 has not been given assent by

the Visitor. As such, the whole process is void ab initio being based on

the basis of CRRs which is yet to be assented by the Visitor in terms of

applicable provisions of Manipur University, especially Section 30(3) & (4)

and Statute 41(6), (7) & (8). On the other hand, petitioner No. 2 did not

appear in the examination, as the same would likely to be cancelled being

issued under CRRs 2024 which is yet to be given assent by the Visitor.

The main ground for challenge by both the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 is same,

i.e. advertisement is based on CRRs 2024 which is yet to be given assent

by the Visitor as mandated under the Act and Statute.

[45] The case of Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra) has been relied

heavily by Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel for Manipur

University, to support the point that writ petition is not maintainable for

concealment of material facts and not coming to the Court with clean

hand, such as source of CRRs 2024 has not been disclosed by the

petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have conflicting interest and so on. The

fact of the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra) is that the High Court held

that writ petition was not maintainable for concealment of material facts;

the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted interim stay to the appellant/borrower

against the respondent bank subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.

20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per month failing which the interim

stay would be vacated. After enjoying the benefit of the interim order for

a long period of time, the appellant never deposited the sum of Rs.

20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per month as directed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and the same amounted to contempt. It was observed by

the Hon’ble Apex Court that the appellant would not be entitled to be

heard on merit, until he has been purged for the contempt. The appellant

has subsequently created third party interest in the property mortgaged

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 65

to the bank as collateral security for the loan taken from the bank without

informing the bank. On consideration concealment of facts, material

alteration of the terms of loan and also non-compliance of the direction of

deposit/payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) per month

for interim stay of recovery, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that writ petition

based on suppression of material facts or twisted facts, may be refused

to be entertained. The Writ Court may refuse to entertain such petition in

exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been

observed in para 33 & 35 of Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of

India: (2007) 8 SCC 449 that the very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests

in the disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. It has been held that

the writ petition as well as special leave petition is not entertainable.

[46] This Court is of the opinion that the ratio in the case of

Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra) is that writ petition may not be entertainable,

if the parties come to the Court with unclean hands, on the basis of

suppressed and distorted facts and the ratio is not on the maintainability

of the writ petition. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned the

Writ Court to examine the bonafide and conduct of the parties in invoking

the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present

case the petitioners clearly states that copy of CRRs 2024 has been

obtained from the official of Manipur University and the foundation of the

writ petition is based on the only fact that the CRRs 2024 has not been

assented by the Visitor of the University (i.e. Hon’ble President of India)

as mandated under Section 30 (3) & (4) of the MU Act, 2005. The

advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2026 does not mention CRRs

2022 or CRRs 2024. It is mentioned for the first time in the counter

affidavit of Manipur University that the advertisement has been issued

under CRRs 2022. The plea of non-existence of CRRs 2024 is obviously

apparent to this Court only on 26.05.2026 when this Court has the benefit

of perusing the SAMARTH Portal; and only corrected CRRs 2022 is found

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 66

uploaded by Manipur University; and CRRs 2024 has not been uploaded

in the portal. It is altogether a different matter to be adjudicated in

appropriate proceeding that CRRs 2024 has been subsequently deleted

after filing of the writ petition (as alleged by Mr. K. Kishan Singh, learned

counsel for the petitioners) to frustrate the cause of the writ petition. In the

circumstances, it is held that the writ petition is maintainable in the present

form.

[47] With respect to the plea of ‘non-entertainability’ of the writ

petition, this Court is of the view that petitioner No. 1 challenged the

advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2026 as a matter of principle of

abundant caution. Even if he is selected in the examination, his

appointment is likely to be challenged by any other person on the same

plea that CRRs 2024 has not been given assent by the Visitor; and any

recruitment done in pursuance of the same would be a nullity and void ab

initio. For that purpose, petitioner No. 1 has challenged the recruitment

as well as CRRs 2024. So is the same reason for petitioner No. 2 that he

did not appear the examination as he has apprehension that the same

may be cancelled, as the CRRs 2024 has not been assented by the

Visitor. However, this Court finds some points of conflicting interest

between petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Considering the nature of challenge, the

stage of examination, interest of all parties and stakeholders, this Court

recorded in the proceeding dated 26.05.2026 recorded submission of

learned senior counsel appearing for Manipur University to get instruction

regarding appointment of petitioner No. 1 against one post of Peon/MTS

by creating supernumerary post or against existing vacancy arising out of

superannuation after commencement of examination. This Court has

considered the right of the parties, i.e. petitioners herein as well as

successful candidates who are allowed to appear as intervenors by this

Court.

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 67

[48] If a positive response is obtained from Manipur University,

this Court has considered giving a closure to the writ petition leaving the

questions of law involved for adjudicating in any other recruitment, other

than advertisement No. 5/2025 dated 13.05.2025. It was made clear that

the offer of appointment was confined to petitioner No. 1 alone, as

petitioner No. 2 did not appear in the examination and the matter was

fixed for further proceeding on 01.06.2026. When the matter was taken

up on 01.06.2026, learned senior counsel for Manipur University informed

this Court that the earlier proposal from Manipur University recorded vide

order dated 26.05.2026 about offering one post of Peon/MTS to petitioner

No. 1 would not be possible to be implemented, as petitioner No. 2 filed

an RTI application on 29.09.2025 making six queries including the power

of Manipur University to create supernumerary post for appointment to a

person after result has been declared; and nine unsuccessful candidates

also submitted representations for considering their appointment in terms

of the undertaking made by Manipur University before this Court. In the

proceeding dated 01.06.2026, Manipur University sought for a short time

for placing on record RTI application and representation submitted by

unsuccessful candidates and subsequently the same was filed and

brought on record. In the circumstances, this Court observed that the

proposal for closure of the writ petition on appointment of petitioner No. 1

against the post of Peon/MTS leaving the issues raised herein to be

agitated in the subsequent advertisement has been dropped and writ

petition would be heard out of merit. It is alleged, during the course of

hearing, by learned senior counsel for Manipur University as well as

learned senior counsel and counsel for the intervenors that the wife of the

petitioner No. 2 also appeared in the examination and was unsuccessful.

This fact was also concealed in the writ petition and Mr. K. Kishan Singh,

learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he has no instruction

regarding unsuccessful participation by wife of petitioner No. 2 in the

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 68

examination and petitioner No. 2 who has been consistently appearing

before this Court either in physical or on VC did not try to controvert this

allegation. Concealment of participation of the wife of petitioner No. 2 in

the recruitment examination, the conduct of petitioner No. 2 of filing

subsequent RTI application on 29.05.2026 after recording the

undertaking of Manipur University in the proceeding dated 25.06.2026 for

considering appointment of petitioner No. 1 against the post of

Peon/MTS, thereby preventing the possibility of appointment of petitioner

No. 1 as Peon/MTS etc. are to be considered by this Court to test his

bonafide. This Court is of the view that the conduct of petitioner No. 2 is

not above board and he does not deserve any sympathetic consideration

from this Court in exercise of extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction as a

Writ Court. Accordingly, writ petition is maintainable and entertainable

qua petitioner No. 1 and the writ petition is not entertainable qua petitioner

No. 2.

[49] It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that the very

foundation of the present writ petition is based on CRRs 2024; the same

being not given assent by the Visitor of the University in terms of mandate

of Section 30 (3) & (4) and Statute 41 of Manipur University Act, 2005.

However, when the SAMARTH Portal was opened before this Court,

CRRs 2024 has not been uploaded and what is found is modified CRRs

2024 as adopted by the 40

th

Meeting of the Executive Council of Manipur

University held on 30.12.2024 as Ordinance D-14. It is also admitted by

both the parties that CRRs 2022 and/or modified CRRs 2022 is yet to get

assent from the Visitor. Since CRRs 2024 is not in existence officially, this

Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition to examine the legality of

CRRs 2024. This Court is of the view that CRRs 2022 and/or modified

CRRs 2022 being not given assent by the Visitor, is a matter to be decided

in appropriate proceeding for the reason that CRRs 2022 and/or modified

CRRs 2022 is not subject matter of the present writ petition. In the

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 69

circumstances, we close the present writ petition leaving the issue

involved in the present case qua CRRs 2022 and/or modified CRRs 2022

to be adjudicated in appropriate proceeding.

[50] Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Interim order dated

25.02.2026 staying the issue of appointment orders to the candidates who

have declared successful or to any other person in terms of advertisement

No. 2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 and extending from time to time, stands

vacated. Before conclusion, we request Manipur University to consider

the case of petitioner No. 1 for being considered against one vacant post

of Peon/MTS as mentioned at serial No. 12 of the advertisement No.

2/20225 dated 13.05.2025, as possibility of his appointment as proposed

by Manipur University in the proceeding dated 26.05.2026, has

unfortunately been thwarted by his co-petitioner, i.e., petitioner No. 2 and

nine other unsuccessful candidates. Parties to bear their own cost.

CONCLUSION & DECISION:

[60] In view of the above conclusions and decisions, we hold and

observe as follows:

(i) the writ petition is maintainable in the present form qua

petitioner Nos. 1 & 2.

(ii) the writ petition is both maintainable and entertainable

at the instance of petitioner No. 1. However, the same

is not entertainable qua petitioner No. 2.

(iii) the writ petition is disposed of and interim order dated

25.02.2025 in MC(WP(C)) No. 152 of 2026 restraining

an issuance of appointment order to the successful

candidates stands vacated. Manipur University may

consider the case of the petitioner No. 1 for

WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 with

MC(WP(C) No. 152 of 2026 with

Page 70

appointment against any vacant post of Peon/MTS as

mentioned at serial No. 12 of the advertisement No.

2/2025 dated 13.05.2025 as he has been deprived of

the benefit of offer of Manipur University recorded in

the proceeding dated 26.05.2026 at the instance of

petitioner No. 2 and nine unsuccessful candidates.

The issue raised in the present writ petition is kept

open for adjudicating in appropriate proceeding.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

Kh. Joshua Maring