Mere Holding Of In-Charge Post For Certain Years Does Not Create Any Equity In Favour Of The Person Holding It: Manipur High Court

It was the case of the petitioner that he is serving as principal in-charge at LMS Law College, Imphal for more than 10 years. MPSC issued an advertisement on 27.10.2018 calling for applications for the post of Principal in three Colleges, including LMS Law College with eligibility conditions/qualifications.

The petitioner challenged the impugned advertisement on the ground that it is in violation or in total non-consideration of the Recruitment Rules set for appointment to the post of Principal of Centre for Legal Education by the Bar Council of India, depriving the fundamental rights of the petitioner for regular appointment as Principal.

The counsel for petitioner, Mrs. G. Pushpa submitted that MPSC or the Government of Manipur should not sideline the mandatory regulations provided by the Bar Council of India for running a Centre for Legal Education and must bear in mind that the Bar Council of India has power to de-recognize the Centre for Legal Education on account of non-fulfilment and violation of the Rules, hence, the impugned advertisement should be set aside.

Mr. R.K. Deepak, counsel for MPSC contended that the Bar Council of India is primarily concerned with inspection and supervision of Colleges/Institutions imparting legal education with regard to minimum standard and infrastructural facilities and is not concerned with the appointment of the Principal of LMS Law College, as it is not the appointing authority.

Mr. Lenin Hijam, Advocate General, appearing for the state stated that The Bar Council of India has nothing to do in the appointment of Principal of LMS Law College, as the Bar Council of India is not the appointing authority. The role of the Bar Council of India is primarily to inspect and supervise the Colleges/Institutions imparting legal education with regard to minimum standard and infrastructural facilities.

It was further pointed by the AG that the impugned advertisement was issued as per the UGC, and the petitioner was not having the qualification of Ph.D. and hence, he approached this Court and challenged the advertisement on the flimsy ground that the advertisement was made in the line of the Bar Council of India.

Dismissing the writ petition, Justice M.V. Muralidaran observed:

“having gone through the materials available on record and the relevant rules/regulations occupied the filed in matters relating to the appointment of Principals in the Law Colleges, this Court finds that the impugned advertisement was issued considering the relevant rules and guidelines, including the BCI Rules and the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC Regulations, 2018 and there is no violation of the BCI Rules and the UGC Regulations and any other law in issuing the impugned advertisement as alleged by the petitioner. Resultantly, the challenge made by the petitioner has no basis and the same is liable to be dismissed.”

The court also stated that it is clear that by the lethargic attitude of the concerned officials of the Department for nearly six years, the petitioner was serving as in-charge Principal and from 23.11.2018 under the protection of the interim order of the Court. No initiative and/or steps were taken by the respondent authorities to file an application to vacate the said interim order which shows the lethargic attitude of the respondent authorities.

Therefore, the court condemned the inaction by the official respondents in not filling up the post of regular Principal and observed that with the collusion of the officials of the concerned Department, the petitioner is continuing in the post of Principal in-charge for nearly ten years.

The court further held:

“Knowing very well that the in-charge post would be filled by regular appointment, to stall the recruitment process, the petitioner has filed the present petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have no right to call for applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the post of Principal, LMS Law College.”

In conclusion the court vacated the interim order granted by the court dated 23.11.2018 and extended from time to time and further directed the respondents to proceed for appointment of regular Principal, LMS Law College, Imphal, in accordance with law and complete the proceedings within a period of three months.

The court also directed the The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur to take appropriate action against the officials concerned for not taking steps to advertise the post between the years 2012 and 2018 and against the erring officials in not taking steps to file an application to vacate the interim order in this case.

“The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur may also to see as to whether similar situation in any other Government Colleges and if it is so found, take appropriate action in accordance with law”, the court ruled.

Case Title: Md. Salatur Rahman v. The State of Manipur and 3 Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Man) 2

Coram: Justice M. V. Muralidaran

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment