Dr. Oinam Rajendra Singh vs Dr. Naorem Jugeshwor Singh And Ors

[1] In order to give a quietus to a seemingly egoistic long drawn battle between the two persons claiming to the post of in-charge Principal, we are

inclined to pass the following order in the hope that the series of unwanted litigation will come to an end.

[2] The appellant is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. His appointment order dated 6.9.2018 as in-charge Principal was set aside by the learned

Single Judge in W.P(C) No.863 of 2018 on 15.03.2019 primarily holding that the present appellant/3rd respondent in the writ petition was appointed as

in-charge Principal replacing the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, who was then in-charge Principal. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition

holding as follows:-

“[11] In view of the above and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the impugned order dated

06-09-2018 by which the petitioner was replaced by the respondent No.3 as the Principal-in-charge of the College is bad in law.

[12] For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the State respondents and in particular, the

respondent No.1 shall cancel the impugned order dated 06-09-2018 forthwith after the receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no

order as to costs.â€​

[3] The learned Single Judge held that the order appointing the appellant/3rd respondent as in-charge Principal is bad in law by relying upon the order

passed in W.P(C) No.496 of 2016, Dr. Ngangkham Ibotombi Singh Vs. State of Manipur & ors. which followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana & ors. vs. Piara Singh reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118. The principle applied therein is that one temporary

employee should not be replaced by another employee.

[4] Brief facts are as follows:-

The Government of Manipur, Higher & Technical Education Department issued an order on 28.6.2018 at Annexure-X/20, Gazetted on 28.06.2018

holding that based on State Cabinet decision, 6(six) Government Aided/Private Institutions are taken over by the Government of Manipur and the

order reads as follows:-

“MANIPUR GAZETTE

SECRETARIAT : HIGHER & TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR: MANIPUR

Imphal, the 28th June, 2018

No.31/3/ADIDED-COL/CONSN/HE-16: In pursuance of the State Cabinet decision/approval taken on 28/03/2018 and also under Manipur Civil

Service (Appointment & other service conditions of employee of Government Aided/Private Institutions taken over by the Government ) Rules, 1981

notified by Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) vide order No.1/89/80-Rules/DP dated 25th May, 1981, the

Government of Manipur pleased to accord sanction to the taking over of the following 6(six) Government Aided Colleges along with 519 (approved

274 and un-approved 245) teaching staff including Principals and 207 (116 approved and 91 un-approved) numbers of non-teaching staff in different

categories of posts by the Government in public interest:

(i) Biramangol College, Sawombung

(ii) Mayai Lambi College, Yumnam Huidrom

(iii) Kakching Khunou College, Kakching Khunou

(iv) Liberal College, Luwangsangbam

(v) Thambal Marik College, Oinam

(vi) Standard College, Kongba

The Governor is further pleased to order conversion of the so taken over 6(six) Colleges named above into full-fledged Government Colleges under

the Department of Higher Education, Government of Manipur.

Consequent upon the taking over by the Government and subsequent conversion of the above named 6(six) Colleges into full-fledged Government

Colleges under the Department of Higher Education, Government of Manipur, the whole area of land, buildings, other infrastructure, properties/ assets

either movable or immovable and all the available monetary fund of any kind belonging to the above mentioned 6(six) (Government Aided) Colleges

shall be deemed acquired, possessed and owned by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Manipur.

Further, the functioning of the Governing Bodies of all the above mentioned 6 (six Government Aided) Colleges shall stand closed/abolished

henceforth.

However, all appointments of approved and un-approved posts of teaching including Principals and also of approved and unapproved posts of non-

teaching staff indicated in para -1 (one) above, shall be done against the sanctioned appropriate posts to be created with the formal concurrence of

F.D.(PIC) and also under Manipur Civil Service (Appointment and other service conditions of employees of Government Aided/ Private Institutions

taken over by the Government) Rules, 1981.

This issues with the concurrence of F.D (PIC) vide their U.O. No, 82/2018-2019 FD(PIC) dated 25-06.2018 and shall have immediate effect.

By orders & in the name of the Governor

Sd/-

H. DELLEP SINGH,

Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.),

Government of Manipur.â€​

[4] We are concerned with the Thambal Marik College, Oinam. Prior to taking over of the college by the Government, the appellant/3rd respondent in

the writ petition claims that he was appointed as a Lecturer on 28.9.1980 (page 46) in that private college. The 1st respondent/the writ petitioner was

appointed as a Lecturer in Mathematics on 31.8.1996 (page 65). It is claimed by the appellant that he was made in-charge Principal in September,

2006. In December, 2006 he was again appointed as in-charge Principal for a brief period. In 2014, he was appointed as Vice Principal of the

Thambal Marik College, Oinam w.e.f. 20.6.2014. On 18.02.2015, the Secretary of the Governing Body of Thambal Marik College, Oinam appointed

the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner as Principal-in-charge which was challenged by the present appellant along with 4(four) others in W.P(C)

No.405 of 2015 and on 06.5.2015, the following interim order was passed:-

“*** ****

*** ****

Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate submits that this approval has been granted on the basis of recommendation of the Governing Body of

the College.

Be that as it may, all these aspects will be considered on the next returnable date. Till, then, the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 shall remained

suspended as far as the approval granted by the Government to the proposal for appointment of the respondent No. 5 as in-charge Principal of the

Thambal Marik (Govt. Aided) College is concerned and accordingly, even if the respondent No. 5 is functioning as in-charge Principal, he shall not

function as in-charge Principal of the College.â€​

[5] The 1st respondent/writ petitioner filed a Miscellaneous case being M.C.(W.P(C) No.200 of 2015 to vacate the interim order dated 06.5.2015

which was dismissed on 26.8.2015. Thereafter, on 05.02.2016, Annexure-X/8 to the writ petition was passed by the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech.

Edn.), Government of Manipur communicating its decision and approval to the Government for appointment of Appellant, Dr. O.Rajendra Singh as

Principal-in-charge of Thambal Marik College, Oinam. The said order reads as below:-

“To, Imphal, the 5th February, 2016

The Director of Univ. & Hr. Edn.

Manipur.

Subject: Request for appointment to the post of Principal-in-charge of Thambal Marik College, Oinam, Bishnupur District-thereof.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to Directorate of Univ. & Hr. Edn., Manipur letter No. 3/3-528/15-EDC(16)/168 dated 18/01/2016 on the above subject and to

convey administrative deciison & approval of the Government, Department of Higher Education, Manipur to the appointment of Dr.O.Rajendra Singh

as Principal â€"in-charge of Thambal Marik College, Oinam , Bishnupur District. This is in terms of norms & guiding conditions of the UGC

REgulations, 2010.

For kind information and necessary action under intimation to the Government.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

( Y. Dimbajit Singh)

Deputy Secretary( Hr. & Tech. Edn.)

Govt. of Manipur.â€​

[6] Consequent to that, on 20th February, 2016, Annexure-X-10, the appellant was appointed as Principal-in-charge with DDO power. The said order

reads as below:-

“OFFICE OF THE GOVERNING BODY

THAMBAL MARIK COLLEGE, OINAM

No.TMC/APPT/S/1-1/87 Dated the 20th February, 2016

ORDERS

In pursuance of the Directorate of University & Higher Education, Govt. of Manipur letter No. 3/3-104/80-EDC( Vol.IV)Pt.1, dated 8th February,

2016 and in supersession of previous order(s), Shri Dr.O.Rajendra Singh, (Govt. approved) HOD Manipuri of this College is appointed as the

Principal-in-charge with DDO power of the college with immediate effect.

He is advised to take charge of office immediately.

(W.Debit Singh)

Secretary, G.B.

Thambal Marik College, Oinam.â€​

[7] However, while disposing of W.P(C) No.405 of 2015 on 09.11.2017, the following order was passed.

“BEFORE

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.N.KOTISWAR SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr.Kh.Ajit,Advocate

Mr.T.Rajendra, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Kh.Athouba, GA

Date of Order : 09.11.2017

ORDER

Heard Mr. Kh. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 41 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No.405 of 2015 as well as Mr. T. Rajendra, learned

counsel and Mr. Kh. Athouba, learned GA for the respondents.

The issue involved in this set of petitions is regarding appointment of Principal in the Thambal Marik College, Oinam, Oinam which is an aided college

which has been filled up on in-charge basis which has been challenged.

Since the matter has been lingering for the last couple of years, which is not desirable, the State Government is directed to take necessary steps in

accordance with the relevant rules and also by keeping in mind the relevant UGC Regulations for appointment of Principal of Thambal Marik College.

Since there are many claimants in this case as evident from these petitions, the petitioners or any other claimants may file their respective

representations to the authorities concerned who will further consider the applications under the relevant rules and the UGC Regulations and issue

proper order for appointment of Principal in the Thambal Marik College. All the petitioners herein and such claimants may file detailed representations

in support of their claims to the authorities with supporting documents within a period of two weeks from today. If there is the need for advertising the

post as per the rules for filling up, let the respondents do the needful.

The aforesaid exercise for appointment of the Principal shall be undertaken within a period of three months from today.

Accordingly, this set of petitions are disposed of with the above observation and direction and in the meantime, the present arrangement made for the

post of Principal shall continue till such proper order is passed by the respondent authorities for appointment to the post of Principal as directed above

and accordingly, all previous orders shall stand superseded by the order that may be passed in terms of the order as directed above.â€​

[8] The Government considered both the representations in its proceeding dated 22nd January, 2018 at Annexure-X/16 to the writ petition, page 144 in

the appeal and the Government took the following decisions as below:-

“Page 144, X/16

GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

SECRETARIAT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR OF MANIPUR

Imphal, the 22nd January 2018

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX

And whereas as per directive of Hon’ble High Court dated 9-12-2017 passed in W.P(C) No. 131 of 2016. W.P. (C) No. 41 of 2016 and W.P(C)

No.405 of 2015, only 2 (two) representation from namely Dr. O. Rajendra Singh (Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 405 of 2015) and Dr. N. Jugeshwor

Singh (Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 131 of 2016) have been received by the Competent authority for consideration to appointment of i/c Principal

Thambal Marik College claiming themselves as fit for appointment of i/c Principal Thambal Marik College under UGC regulation 2010.

And whereas on perusal of both the representations the following points enrage.

i. Dr. O. Rajendra Singh, lecturer in Manipuri was appointed by the Governing Body of TMC in the year 1981 and thereafter, his post was approved

by the Directorate of University & Higher Education, Manipur and Ph.D degree had been award in the year 2004.

ii. Dr. N. Jugeshwor Singh, lecturer in Mathematices was appointed by the Governing Body of TMC in the year 1996 still he is unapproved lecturer

and Ph.D Degree had been awarded in the year 2006.

And whereas , both Dr. O. Rajendra Singh and Dr. N. Jugeshwar Singh are found not eligible for appointment as regular Principal under UGC

regulation 2010.

Now under the facts and circumstances cited above, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to convey Administrative approval of the Government to the

appointment of Dr. O. Rajendra Singh as Principal in-charge of Thouabl Marik Aided College, Oinam, till the post is filled up by regular a principal.

This is issued in Compliance of the Hon’ble High Court’s Order dated 09-12-2017 passed in W.P(C) No. 131 of 2016, W.P(C) No.41 of 2016

and W.P(C) No.405 of 2015 and accordingly, by the Administrative Department of Higher& Technical Education is please to direct the Director of

University & Higher Education, Manipur and Secretary, Governing Body Thambal Marik College Aided College to take necessary action as per

Government Aided College Rules at the earliest.

(emphasis supplied)

By Order & in the name of the Governor

Sd/-

(H. Deleep Singh)

Commissioner, (Hr.& Tech. Edn.)

Government of Manipurâ€​

This proceeding clearly establishes that both the contesting parties are ineligible and the fight is only for in-charge post which is a purely a stop gap

arrangement.

[9] By virtue of the order dated 22.01.2018, the appellant was continuing as in-charge Principal. A third party filed a writ petition being W.P(C) No.92

of 2018 challenging the said appellant’s in-charge Principal appointment dated 22.01.2018. On 05.02.2018, the following interim order was passed

by a learned Single Judge as below:

“W.P.(C) No. 92 of 2018

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH 05.02.2018

Heard Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Issue notice, returnable within three weeks.

Mr.Athouba, learned G.A. accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2.

Petitioner is to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents No. 3 & 4 by Speed Post as well as Dasti Service.

The matter relates to appointment of Principal (in-charge) of the Government Aided College which had been considered by this Court in W.P.(C) 405

of 2015 by passing an order on 09.11.2017. Relevant para of the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2017 reads as follows :

“Since the matter has been lingering for the last couple of years, which is not desirable, the State Government is directed to take

necessary steps in accordance with the relevant rules and also by keeping in mind the relevant UGC Regulations for appointment of

Principal of ThambalMarik College. Since there are many claimants in this case as evident from these petitions, the petitioners or any other

claimants may file their respective representations to the authorities concerned who will further consider the applications under the relevant

rules and UGC Regulations and issue proper order for appointment of Principal in the ThambalMarik College. All the petitioners herein

and such claimants may file detailed representations in support of their claims to the authorities with supporting documents within a period

of two weeks from today. If there be the need for advertising the posts as per rules for filling up, let the respondents do the needful.

The aforesaid exercise for appointment of the Principal shall be undertaken within a period of three months from today.

Accordingly, this set of petitions are disposed of with the above observation and direction and in the meantime, the present arrangement

made for the post of Principal shall continue till such proper order is passed by the respondent authorities for appointment to the post of

Principal as directed above and accordingly, all previous orders shall stand superseded by the order that may be passed in terms of the

order as directed above.â€​

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order was subsequently not appealed against and hence

attained finality.

It has been submitted by Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel that Rule 4 of the Manipur Aided College Employees (Service) Rules, 1974 governs the

appointment of Principal. The aforesaid exercise for appointment of the Principal is to be undertaken by the authority concerned in accordance with

the aforesaid Rules of 1974 keeping in mind the UGC Regulations and also by way of direct recruitment, by advertising the post. He further submits

that while undertaking the exercise, the present arrangement made for the post of Principal is to continue. The petitioner was holding the post of

Principal (in-charge) in terms of the order dated 05.03.2017 at the same time of disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 405 of 2015. As

such, during the period, when the exercise for appointment of Principal on regular basis is being undertaken, the petitioner is to continue as the

Principal (in-charge) as directed in the order dated 09.11.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 405 of 2015. However, instead of doing so, the authorities

issued another order on 22.01.2018 by which the respondent No. 4 has been given appointment as in-charge Principal of ThambalMarik Aided

College. The fact that the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Principal (in-charge) of ThambalMarikAided College indicates that the appointment

madeis not on regular basis which is to be undertaken by issuing advertisement by way of direct recruitment. No such advertisement had been issued

for appointment of Principal by direct recruitment.However, in terms of the order of this Court on 09.11.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 405 of 2015, the

earlier arrangement is to continue, in which event, the petitioner is to continue as the Principal on in-charge basis. It has been thus, submitted that this

impugned order dated 22.01.2018 is contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 405 of 2015.Accordingly, the learned senior counsel for

the petitioner prays for suspending the impugned order dated 22.01.2018.

Issue notice on the interim prayer which will be considered on the next returnable date. Till then, the impugned order dated 22.01.2018 will remain

suspended.

List the matter again on 28.02.2018.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEâ€​

[10] Thereafter, surprisingly on 27.02.2018, the Joint Secretary, Higher & Technical Education, passed another order cancelling the order dated

22.01.2018. It is to be mentioned for narration of facts that one Shri O.Kullabidhu Singh, who was appointed as Principal-in-charge of the Thambal

Marik College, Oinam resigned on health grounds and the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, Dr.N.Jugeshwor Singh was appointed as in-charge Principal

without DDO power by the Governing Body by order dated 5th June, 2018 at Annexure-A/5 which reads as below:-

“ANNEXURE:-- A/5

OFFICE OF THE

GOVERNING BODY, THAMBAL MARIK COLLEGE, OINAM

Bishnupur District, Manipur

NAAC acrredited “Bâ€​ Grade College.

ORDER

Dated, the 5th June, 2018

No. TMC/APPT/S/1-1/87 : Since O. Kullabidhu Singh principal i/c of the college have resigned from the post of principal i/c on health ground, Shri Dr.

N. Jugeshwor Singh, Senior Lecturer in Maths Deptt. have been appointed as the Principal i/c of the college without DDO power with immediate

effect.

He is advised to take the charge of principal i/c immediately.

No.TMC/APPT/S/1-1/87

Sd/-

(W.Debit Singh)

Secretary, GB.

Thambal Marik College, Oinam

Dated, the 5th June 2018â€​

[11] The appellant did not challenge this order but filed a representation on 6th July, 2018 which was based on the order dated 9.11.2017 passed in

W.P(C) No.405 of 2015.

[12] In the meanwhile, as recorded earlier in para No.4 above, on 28.06.2018, 6(six) colleges were taken over by the Government in proceeding which

is reflected in the gazette order dated 26.8.2018. After taking over the colleges, the appellant filed a representation dated 6.7.2018 and thereafter, on

6th September, 2018, the Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education Department issued an order appointing Shri O.Rajendra Singh, appellant as in-

charge Principal until further order which reads as below:-

“GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

SECRETARIAT : Higher & Technical Education Department

ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR:MANIPUR

Imphal, the 6th Sepetember,2018

No.10/101/2011/HE : The Governor of Manipur is pleased to appoint Dr.O.Rajendra singh as the Principal i/c of Thambal Marik College as an interim

arrangement till the time a regular Principal is appointed or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

This order, does not, in any manner, confer the right to claim for extra remuneration or regularisation to the post in future.

Dr.O. Rajendra Singh, now appointed as Principal i/c of Thambal Marik College shall take charge with immediate effect.

By orders & in the name of Governor,

Sd/-

( H.Deleep Singh)

Commissioner ( Hr. & Tech. Edn.)

Govt. of Manipur.â€​

[13] The said order dated 6.9.2018 was challenged in W.P(C) No.863 of 2018 where the learned Single Judge held that the appointment of the

appellant is bad in law. Consequently, the present appellant has filed the writ appeal.

[14] Heard Mr.M.Devananda, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the private respondent as well as Mr.

Kh.Athouba, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

[15] It is the contention of Mr.M.Devananda, counsel for the appellant that the appellant being appointed in the 1980 as a Lecturer in the private

college which was thereafter declared as an aided college and subsequently, taken over by the Government, consequent to taking by the Government,

the power vest with the Government to appoint in-charge Principal in the absence of regular Principal.

[16] That the appellant is senior to the 1st respondent for more than 16 years and therefore, by virtue of seniority, he is eligible to be appointed to the

post of in-charge Principal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar vs. Union of India

& ors. reported in (1991) 2 Suppl. SCC 733 at para No.9 :

“9. The third contention is that appellant's 'in charge' arrangements in the higher post had continued for so long a period that a determination of

equivalence on the basis of his lower substantive post would become arbitrary. This contention ignores the fact that an 'in charge' arrangement is not a

recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that, therefore, no rights, equities or expectations could be built upon it. The third contention is

also unmeritorious.â€​

[17] In-charge Principal is not governed by any specific rule and therefore, the discretionary power vests with the Government to decide who will be

best person to hold the in-charge Principal till regular Principal is appointed. The respondent/writ petitioner is ineligible because he is not qualified to

hold the post of Principal and therefore, he cannot be appointed as in-charge Principal also.

The respondent/writ petitioner is not eligible as per UGC Regulations, 2018 because he is not an Associate Professor and does not possess the

eligibility criteria to hold the post of Principal.

[18] Per contra, Mr.Julius Riamei submitted that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is fully eligible because he fulfilled all the criteria for appointment as

Principal except that he is not designated as an Associate Professor. He pleaded that 1st respondent/writ petitioner satisfies the UGC guidelines for

appointment to the post of Principal and therefore, there is no bar for appointment as in-charge Principal. Further, 1st respondent/writ petitioner

satisfies all the norms under the Manipur Public Service Commission to be appointed as regular Principal and therefore, there was justification in

continuing as in-charge Principal. He refers to an Office Memorandum dated 4th March, 2014 filed in rejoinder affidavit to the writ petition which

provides for enhancement of age limit for teaching staff only and therefore, he pleads that the appellant is not eligible for the post of in-charge

Principal.

[19] Mr.Kh.Athouba, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State states that both these persons were not found to be eligible on the basis

of their service record. The proceeding dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education department clearly establishes

the same. Both these persons have not chosen to challenge this portion of the findings of the Commissioner, Higher & Technical Education

Department holding them to be ineligible to hold the post of Principal. Hence, they have no justification for filing cases against each other for an in-

charge post which is filled up as a temporary arrangement. The government has the discretion to appoint a person as in-charge pending regular

appointment.

[20] It is fairly stated by Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the respondent that on account of lack of qualification or designation, even today, the

respondent/ writ petitioner cannot hold the post of principal. But is eligible to be considered for in-charge Principal.

[21] Be that as it may, it has to be borne in mind that there is no position as in-charge Principal. Admittedly, the rules do not provide for appointment of

an in-charge Principal. This is a temporary arrangement pending appointment of the regular Principal. Unfortunately, for this college despite serious

efforts, Government is unable to fill up the post of Principal on regular basis. Hence, the appellant and private respondent are fighting for the in-charge

post. It appears that they have been spending more time and energy in fighting the case instead of dedicating themselves to the cause of education and

the welfare of the students. It is surprising that they have the enough time, energy and resources to this endeavour. We pity the students.

Mr. Athouba, learned Government Advocate states that selection to the post of principal was taken up. Some posts were filled up but for the present

college in question, it could not be filled up. The process will be pursued.

In the circumstances, in the order dated 09.11.2017 passed in W.P(C) No.405 of 2015 which is already extracted above, the Court was of the fond

hope that one of the two persons would make it to the post of regular principal. Therefore, a temporary arrangement was made but unfortunately, both

the appellant and writ petitioner did not qualify and they have not challenged the finding dated 22.01.2018 (para No.8). The temporary arrangement

had to continue and that has led to multiple litigations between the two parties blaming each other as ineligible, incompetent or otherwise.

[22] In this situation, it will be appropriate for the government to decide as to who would be best suited to hold the post of in-charge Principal taking

into consideration the larger interest of the college and the students in question. We are conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Piara Singh’s (supra) that replacing one ad-hoc by another ad-hoc should not be allowed. In the facts of the present case, that principle may not

arise because the Principals in this case are not ad-hoc or temporary employees who are replaced. These two parties are regular lecturers in the

college. They, while holding regular post as lecturers or otherwise, were asked to hold temporary in-charge post till a regular principal is appointed.

Therefore, it is not a case of appointment per se. It is a case of one person manning the position of the post of Principal till a regular Principal is

appointed. Therefore, the said principle laid down in the case of Piara Singh (supra) case may not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, the

order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned order dated 06.9.2018 is not correct in the facts of the present case. We, however, hold

that there appears to be no rationale in posting or directing a person as in-charge Principal. The order should show application of mind to some

relevant factors. This will avoid allegations of arbitrariness.

[23] Be that as it may, the controversy in this case could have been resolved had the government taken a pragmatic and clear stand while appointing a

particular person as in charge Principal. If they found that the appellant and the first respondent were ineligible, reasons should have been recorded in

the order justifying the rejection or the appointment of one of the two or any other person as in charge Principal till a regular Principal is appointed.

Assuming that both the appellant and the first respondent are ineligible to hold the post of Principal or the post on in-charge basis, then any other

suitable person can be appointed. Some guidelines should have been followed so that it is transparent and non- arbitrary. The inaction on the part of

the Higher and Technical Department in not filling up the post on regular basis and by not giving proper reasons to appoint one or other person as in-

charge person has led to multiple litigations. This can be avoided and should be avoided.

[24] If the authority had applied its mind and given some cogent reasons for appointing a particular person as in-charge Principal, then this litigation

could have been resolved one way or the other. On the contrary, the two parties are raising dispute against each other on the eligibility of the other

person to the post of in-charge Principal, when both of them fairly concedes that they have been found ineligible for appointment to the post of

Regular Principal by order dated 22.01.2017 which has not been challenged by either of them. This is nothing but ironical.

[25] We have no hesitation to hold that it is for the government to take a pragmatic decision as to who would be best suited to man the post as an in-

charge Principal till a regular principal is appointed. Even for such decision, there has to be reasons recorded in the proceedings. Even in

administrative order, reasons are required to be recorded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. E.G.

Nambudiri reported in AIR 1991 SC 1216 held in para No.6, as below:-

“6. Entries made in the character roll and confidential record of a Government servant are confidential and those do not by themselves affect any

right of the Government servant, but those entries assume importance and play vital role in the matter relating to confirmation, crossing of efficiency

bar, promotion and retention in service. Once an adverse report is recorded, the principles of natural justice require the reporting authority to

communicate the same to the Government servant to enable him to improve his work and conduct and also to explain the circumstances leading to the

report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the

explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. The superior authority competent to decide the representation is

required to consider the explanation offered by the Government servant before taking a decision in the matter. Any adverse report which is not

communicated to the Government servant, or if he is denied the opportunity of making representation to the superior authority, cannot be considered

against him. See: Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SC/0455/1979 : [1979]3SCR51. 8In the circumstances it is necessary that the

authority must consider the explanation offered by the Government servant and to decide the same in a fair and just manner. The question then arises

whether in considering and deciding the representation against adverse report, the authorities are duty bound to record reasons, or to communicate the

same to the person concerned. Ordinarily, Courts and Tribunals, adjudicating rights of parties, are required to act judicially and to record reasons.

Where an administrative authority is required to act judicially it is also under an obligation to record reasons. But every administrative authority is not

under any legal obligation to record reasons for its decision, although, it is always desirable to record reasons to avoid any suspicion. Where a statute

requires an authority though acting administratively to record reasons, it is mandatory for the authority to pass speaking orders and in the absence of

reasons the order would be rendered illegal. But in the absence of any statutory or administrative requirement to record reasons, the order of the

administrative authority is not rendered illegal for absence of reasons. If any challenge is made to the validity of an order on the ground of it being

arbitrary or mala fide it is always open to the authority concerned to place reasons before the Court which may have persuaded it to pass the orders.

Such reasons must already exist on records as it is not permissible to the authority to support the order by reasons not contained in the records.

Reasons are not necessary to be communicated to the Government servant. If the statutory rules require communication of reasons, the same must be

communicated but in the absence of any such provision absence of communication of reasons do not affect the validity of the order.â€​

(emphasis supplied)

And a Division Bench of the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors. Vs. Authority

for Advance Rulings and Ors. (Writ Petition Nos. 18132 and 18133 of 2010 Decided On: 25.03.2011) held in para No.51 as below :-

“51. The principles summed up infra - though not exhaustive; are culled out from M.P. Industries Limited v. Union of India MANU/SC/0044/1965 :

AIR 1966 SC 671, Bhagat Raja v. Union of India MANU/SC/0002/1967 : AIR 1967 SC 160, 6Som Datt, Travancore Rayon Limited v. Union of India

MANU/SC/0280/1969 : (1969) 3 SCC 868 : AIR 1971 SC 86, 2Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P MANU/SC/0018/1970 : (1970) 1

SCC 764 : AIR 1970 SC 1302, Union of India v. M.L. Capoor MANU/SC/0405/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC 836 : AIR 1974 SC 8, 7Woolcombers of India

v. Their Workers Union MANU/SC/0283/1973 : (1974) 3 SCC 318 : AIR 1973 SC 275, 8Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of

India MANU/ SC/0211/1976 : (1976) 2 SCC 981 : AIR 1976 SC 178, 5Tara Chand v. Delhi Municipality MANU/SC/0549/1976 : (1977) 1 SCC 472 :

AIR 1977 SC 567, S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India MANU /SC/0346/1990 : (1990) 4 SCC 594 : AIR 1990 SC 1984 and Shukla and Brothers.

(i) A quasi judicial authority is required to give reasons if the statute expressly requires the recording of reasons as mandatory (Mahabir Prasad

Santosh Kumar, M.L. Capoor and Siemens Engineering).

(ii) If the statute does not lay down expressly the requirement of recording reasons, the reasons have to be inferred from the facts and circumstances

of the case and on that ground, the order cannot be invalidated (Bhagat Raja, Som Datt and S.N. Mukherjee).

(iii) If the order of the quasi judicial authority is subject to appeal or revision, the necessity for recording reasons is greater because the appellate or

revisional authority cannot exercise their powers effectively without knowing the reasons which weighed with the quasi judicial authority (M.P.

Industries, Bhagat Raja, Travancore Rayons Limited and Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar).

(iv) Every quasi judicial order which is subject to judicial review by the High Court ought to be speaking order. Without reasons, the judicial scrutiny

would be ineffective and violates rule of law (Bhagat Raja, Travancore Rayons Limited and Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar).

(v) The extent, elaboration, nature of the reasons depend on each case; but quasi judicial decision without reasons would negate the rule of law. If the

reasons reveal the rationale nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached, it would be sufficient compliance (M.P. Industries, Bhagat

Raja, M.L. Capoor, Woolcombers and Tara Chand).

(vi) Irrespective of the requirement as to the stage at which an authority has to record reasons, if the applicable statute excludes the reasons for the

decision, the order cannot be invalidated only on the ground of lack of reasons (Som Datt and S.N. Mukherjee).â€​

(emphasis supplied)

It will enable the Courts to consider if such administrative decision was taken in a fair and non-arbitrary manner keeping in mind the interest of the

College and the students. Therefore, instead of allowing litigation to multiply any further, we direct the government to take a decision on the vexed

issue of appointment of in-charge Principal for Thambal Marik College, Oinam till the regular Principal is appointed. The decision should be taken to

appoint in-charge Principal based on the merit and ability of the appellant, the merit and ability of the first respondent/writ petitioner and any other

person on the basis of their service records and any other relevant guidelines. The Government may take all relevant factors for considering the claims

for posting as an in-charge Principal. We leave it to the wise decision of the government to decide it in a non-arbitrary manner by a speaking order as

to why one of the two or any other person should be appointed as an in-charge Principal.

[26] The Government or its competent authority will decide the issue on or before 30.03.2020. Appellant’s counsel states that he will give a

representation within a week. He is granted time upto 28.02.2020 to file his representation. In the same way, Mr. Julius Riamei states that his client

will submit a representation on or before 28.02.2020.

[27] The Government or the authority will decide the issue on or before 30.03.2020. Till the decision on the issue is taken by the Government or the

competent authority, the appellant will continue to hold the post of in-charge Principal and not beyond.

[28] With the above directions as indicated, the appeal stands allowed partly as above.