Facts
Dhanamanjuri University (DMU) issued Advertisement No. 03/2020 on 19.12.2020 to fill 88 Assistant Professor posts across 22 subjects.
Source reference: p. 7Following a High Court direction in WP(C) No. 790 of 2023, the DMU Syndicate, in its 11th meeting on 27.02.2024, recommended 83 candidates, and a notification was issued on 29.02.2024.
Source reference: p. 8-9Subsequently, a new Vice-Chancellor convened an emergency Syndicate meeting on 18.07.2024, which declared the 29.02.2024 notification "null and void" for lacking State Government approval per Department of Personnel (DP) Office Memoranda (OMs) dated 16.08.2021 and 11.04.2023.
Source reference: p. 9-10, 21-23While the Syndicate re-notified the results for 19 subjects on 18.07.2024, it excluded Physics and Botany, alleging that the tabulation sheets were blank and no assessment was made, and ordered fresh interviews.
Source reference: p. 10, 25The petitioners, who were selected in the 29.02.2024 notification for Physics and Botany, challenged this cancellation and the subsequent call for fresh interviews.
Source reference: p. 11-12Issues
1. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite allegations of disputed facts and the non-joinder of all shortlisted candidates?
Source reference: p. 72 / para. 542. Who is the competent authority to appoint teachers and whether the Syndicate has the power to annul its own earlier decisions or the Selection Committee's recommendations?
Source reference: p. 72 / para. 543. Whether prior approval from the State Government (DP) is mandatory for declaring University recruitment results?
Source reference: p. 72 / para. 544. Whether the selection of Assistant Professors in Physics and Botany could be legally cancelled on the ground of "blank tabulation sheets"?
Source reference: p. 73 / para. 54Law Applied
The court applied the Dhanamanjuri University Act, 2017, specifically Sections 10(f) and (g), which vest the power to create posts and appoint teachers in the University.
Source reference: p. 34Under Section 12(8), the Chancellor is the sole authority empowered to annul University proceedings.
Source reference: p. 35, 75Statute 13(i) designates the Syndicate as the appointing authority on the recommendation of the Selection Committee.
Source reference: p. 39Statute 27(v) mandates that if the Syndicate disagrees with multiple recommendations, it must remit them for reconsideration or refer them to the Chancellor; it lacks inherent power to reject them outright.
Source reference: p. 41, 76Section 30 regarding the "Removal of Difficulties" was interpreted to limit State Government interference to specific procedural hurdles, excluding general recruitment control.
Source reference: p. 37, 78The court also relied on the principle from Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, requiring evidence to support factual pleas in writ proceedings.
Source reference: p. 83Reasoning
The court reasoned that the DMU Act establishes the University as an independent statutory body where the Syndicate acts as the executive head for appointments.
Source reference: p. 73-75It found that the Syndicate exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the 29.02.2024 notification "null and void," as Section 12(8) exclusively reserves the power of annulment for the Chancellor.
Source reference: p. 76Regarding State approval, the court held that the DP OMs cannot override statutory provisions; since the Act does not require government concurrence for appointments, the lack of such approval did not invalidate the initial results.
Source reference: p. 78-79On the "blank tabulation sheets" issue, the court noted that the former Vice-Chancellor and subject experts confirmed that assessments were conducted and signed.
Source reference: p. 82-83The Registrar's failure to raise this issue during the first Syndicate meeting or while collecting expert signatures suggested that the records were initially complete.
Source reference: p. 84The court concluded that the University could not penalize candidates for its own subsequent failure to maintain or preserve examination records.
Source reference: p. 85Holding
The High Court allowed the petitions of the selected candidates (WP(C) Nos. 633, 501, 495, and 486 of 2024).
It held that the Syndicate lacks the power to annul its earlier decisions or reject Selection Committee recommendations involving multiple candidates.
Source reference: p. 87-88The court set aside the Syndicate's 18.07.2024 resolution cancelling the Physics and Botany appointments and the 19.07.2024 notification for fresh interviews.
Source reference: p. 88DMU was directed to include the petitioners' names in the selection list and issue appointment orders forthwith.
Source reference: p. 88WP(C) No. 728 of 2024 was closed as infructuous, and WP(C) No. 580 of 2025 was dismissed as not maintainable.
Source reference: p. 89Original Court PDF
Longjam Lovedy SinghvsState of Manipur and Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in