[1] Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri B.P. Sahu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Manipur University and Shri M. Hemchandra, learned Senor Advocate appearing for the private respondents.

[2] By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set-aside the offer letters dated 16.12.2015 issued by the Registrar, Manipur University in favour of the private respondents and its consequential appointments in respect of the post of Section Officer, Manipur University.

[3.1] Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the Registrar, Manipur University issued a notification dated 22.10.2014 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment to various posts including the Section Officer and after the applications being received from amongst the candidates for the post of Section Officer, the Manipur University displayed the names of 13 eligible candidates on its notice boards- one, at the main gate and two, in the Administrative Block.

[3.2] Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar, Manipur University issued a notification dated 26.08.2015 informing generally the eligible candidates that they were eligible to appear at the written test and that they should submit their 4 (four) recent passport size photographs on or before the 04.09.2015. The written test was held on 12.09.2015 wherein all the said 13 eligible candidates had appeared. After the written test being conducted, the Deputy Registrar, Manipur University vide its letter dated 01.12.2015 informed the petitioner to sit for the interview to be held on 05.12.2015 and accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 05.12.2015 as informed by the Deputy Registrar, Manipur University.

[3.3] The result of the said examination was not declared at all by the Manipur University and consequently, the selection list was not published nor was it uploaded in the Manipur University website. However, the Registrar, Manipur University issued offer forms to the Private Respondents vide its letter dated 16-12-2015 containing the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Being aggrieved by the actions of the Manipur University, the petitioner approached the State Public Information Officer, Manipur University by way of an application dated 10.10.2016 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act praying for furnishing information sought for therein which were not furnished to him. The petitioner was compelled to approach the appellate authority of the Manipur University which also failed to furnish the information without assigning any reason thereof. Being aggrieved further by the inaction on the part of the Manipur University, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.1032 of 2016 praying for a direction to the Manipur University to furnish the information.

[3.4] The said offer letters dated 16.12.2015 came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of the instant writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that although the Manipur University issued the advertisement to fill up 3(three) posts of Section Officer- two for unreserved category and one for the Scheduled Caste, it proceeded for appointment of 4(four) private respondents; that the reservation norms have been violated by the Manipur University and that the selection process was not conducted in a transparent manner which is unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of the provisions of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. After the instant writ petition being filed, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit enclosing therewith the information furnished by the Manipur University vide its letter dated 21.02.2017 wherein it has been stated that there is no selection list for the post of Section Officer but the offer forms have been issued to the private respondents.

[4] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondents, it has been stated that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the Manipur University has reserved its right to increase or decrease the number of vacancies on its own discretion and not to fill up any of the advertised posts. As per the proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 05.12.2015, the names of 5 candidates were recommended for appointment and pursuant to the said recommendation, the offer forms were issued to the private respondents. Since the appointment orders issued in favour of the private respondents not being challenged by anyone, their appointments had attained finality. Even assuming but not admitting that the selection list was not published, it would make no difference to the petitioner as his name was not recommended by the Selection Committee. The stand of the Manipur University as indicated in its affidavit, is that the appointment to the post of Section Officer was made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 05-12-2015 and this is a practice which has been followed by the Manipur University for regular appointment to all the posts starting from the lowest post of Grade-IV to the higher posts like the Registrar, Professor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner has no right to interfere in the selection process of the Manipur University which has the power to increase or decrease the number of posts at the time of selection as provided in its statute. The instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the same has been filed by him after almost a year from the date on which the private respondents have been appointed and confirmed to their respective posts.

[5] The allegation made in the writ petition that the result of the examination was not declared at all, is not denied by the Manipur University in its affidavit and all that it has stated, is that the appointment of the private respondents was made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 05-12-2015 and it is the practice which has been followed by the Manipur University for all regular appointments. In other words, the Manipur University appears to have taken the stand that the offer forms were issued to the private respondents on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the offer forms can be issued to the private respondents without the result of the examination being declared by the Manipur University.

[6] It has been submitted by Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the result of the examination has not been declared at all, the issuance of the offer forms in favour of the private respondents is highly unfair, unreasonable and illegal resulting in the violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & ors. v. State of Punjab & ors., (2006) 11 SCC 356 [LQ/SC/2006/428] wherein it has been held that an appointment made in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be void. It would be a nullity. The second decision relied by him is the one rendered in Arup Das & ors. v. State of Assam & ors., (2012) 5 SCC 559 [LQ/SC/2012/101] wherein the Honbe Supreme Court held:

"17. It is well established that an authority cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the number of posts advertised, even if there were a larger number of posts available than those advertised. The principle behind the said decision is that if that was allowed to be done, such action would be entirely arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since other candidates who had chosen not to apply for the vacant posts which were being sought to be filled, could have also applied if they had known that the other vacancies would also be under consideration for being filled up.

On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri M. Hemchandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondents that although appointment orders have been issued by the Registrar, Manipur University before the writ petition being filed by the petitioner, the same are not annexed therein; that since the petitioner having failed in the selection, he has no right to question the offer forms issued in favour of the private respondents; that it is the practice of the Manipur University that the appointments are made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee without the result of the examination being declared and that one of the private respondents is on the verge of retirement. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on various decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court and in particular, in Om Prakash Shukhla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukhla & ors, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 285 [LQ/SC/1986/84] wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that the petitioner there should not have been granted any relief because he had appeared in the examination and filed the petition only after he had perhaps realized that he would not succeed in the examination. Relying upon the said decision, the Honble Supreme Court in Madan Lal & ors. v. State of J & K & ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486 [LQ/SC/1995/195] held that it is well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. A similar observation has been made by the Honble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari & ors. v. Shakuntala Shughlaa & ors., (2002) 6 SCC 127 [LQ/SC/2002/637] and also in Dhanajay Malik & ors. v. State of Uttaranchal & ors., (2008) 4 SCC 171 [LQ/SC/2008/602] , the Honble Supreme Court held that having successfully participated in the process of selection without demur, the private respondents therein were stopped from challenging the selection criterion inter-alia that the advertisement and selection with regard requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. Further reliance has been placed in Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu & ors., (2000) 8 SCC 395 [LQ/SC/2000/1472] wherein the Honble Supreme Court held:

"40. Unless there is a strong case for applying the Wednesbury doctrine or there are mala fides, courts and Tribunals cannot interfere with assessments made by Departmental Promotion Committees in regard to merit or fitness for promotion. But in rare cases, if the assessment is either proved to be mala fide or is found based on inadmissible or irrelevant or insignificant and trivial material and if an attitude of ignoring or not giving weight to the positive aspects of ones career is strongly displayed, or if the inferences drawn are such that no reasonable person can reach such conclusions, or if there is illegality attached to the decision, then the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution are not foreclosed.

The stand of the Manipur University as indicated in its affidavit, is similar to that of the private respondents and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. In its affidavit, it has been stated on behalf of the Manipur University that it has been following the practice which was started some time ago as regards the regular appointment to all the posts.

[7] It may be noted that some methods of appointment- by direct recruitment; by promotion; by absorption; by transfer etc., are recognized in service jurisprudence, out of which the first two, namely by direct recruitment and by promotion, are commonly prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules. From the facts of the present case as set out in the pleadings, the subject matter in issue relates to the appointment of Section Officer by direct recruitment. Article 16 of the Constitution of India provides for equality in matters relating to public employment and this constitutional scheme has been succinctly explained by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2006/324] . The constitutional scheme envisages the process of recruitment which includes the creation of posts; the publication of notice in the newspaper inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates; the selection of the candidates by a Selection Board or a Recruitment Board etc. In the present case, the Registrar, Manipur University issued a notification dated 22.10.2014 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment to various posts including the Section Officer which is relevant for this case and it has been notified therein that there are three posts to be filled up- two for unreserved category and one for scheduled caste. Thirteen candidates were found to be eligible as per the notice being put up at the main gate and in the Administrative Block, Manipur University and they were informed vide letter dated 26-08-2015 of the Deputy Registrar, Manipur University that they were eligible to appear at the written test which was held on 12.09.2015. After the written test being conducted, the Deputy Registrar, Manipur University vide its letter dated 01.12.2015 informed the petitioner to sit for the interview to be held on 05.12.2015 which he did on that day as informed by the Deputy Registrar, Manipur University, the result thereof was admittedly not declared by the Manipur University and consequently, the selection list was not published nor was it uploaded in the Manipur University website. However, without the result being declared to make the candidates aware of it, the offer forms were issued in favour of the private respondents vide letters dated 16-12-2016 of the Registrar, Manipur University.

[8] As has been observed hereinabove, the result of the examination with respect to the post of Section Office was not declared by the Manipur University. It is a common knowledge that if an examination is conducted by an authority either for academic purpose or for selection of candidates for appointment to a post, the result thereof is required to be declared, failing which the purpose of holding the examination will stand defeated and will have no value at all. In other words, the declaration of such a result is indispensable. As regards the academic examination, if the result is not declared, it will not be known as to who has passed it for purpose of promotion to the next higher class. So far as the examination for selection of candidates for appointment is concerned, the candidates will have no occasion to know as to who has been selected, if the result is not declared and this sort of practice will always create a room of manipulation and will render the concept of transparency a meaningless. Such a process of selection can never be said to be completed without the result being declared by the Selection Board/ Committee or the Recruitment Board/ Committee. The Manipur University is not above the rule of law and in particular, the Constitution of India. The Manipur University being an institution established under an Act enacted by the Parliament, ought to act fairly and reasonably. It has to act within the bounds of law. The practice being followed by the Manipur University in matters relating to appointment, is absolutely contrary to the constitutional scheme as mandated in Article 16 of the Constitution of India and any action taken by it following the said practice is unreasonable and arbitrary which is anathema to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Manipur University being a Government instrumentality, is bound to act in accordance with rules which are in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India.

[9] There can be no any dispute as regards the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the said decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the private respondents but since the facts of those cases are not identical with that of the present case, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. On perusal of the said decisions, it is seen that the same can be categorized into two-one, relating to the law that a candidate who has participated in the process of selection and has failed therein, cannot turn around and question it and two, relating to law as regards the power of judicial review of the Court on administrative action. In the present case, the fact remains that the process of selection did remain incomplete as the result thereof was not declared by the Manipur University and therefore, the question that the petitioner did not challenge the process of selection after he having failed therein, does not arise at all. The public was not made known officially as to who had succeeded or failed in the said examination and therefore, there was no occasion for any aggrieved person to question it. The validity and correctness of the marks given by the Selection Committee is not being examined by this Court and all that this Court is concerned, is to see whether the non-declaration of the result of the selection by the Manipur University is unreasonable and arbitrary or not. In view of what has been observed hereinabove and after having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the non-declaration of the result is unreasonable and arbitrary and consequently, the issuance of offer forms in favour of the private respondents is bad in law. When the foundation itself is bad in law, the office orders dated 28-12-2015 by which the private respondents have been appointed on the strength of the said offer forms, will be rendered bad in law, although the same could not be challenged by him on the ground that they had been issued secretly to the private respondents only. In other words, both the offer forms and the appointment orders ought to sink together.

[10] One aspect which needs to be considered by this court is as regards the relief to be granted by this court after the non-declaration of result being found to be bad in law. It has been jointly and commonly submitted by the counsels appearing for the respondents that as per the proceedings of the Selection Committee, the marks secured by the petitioner are less than the marks secured by the private respondents, there is not point of declaring the result. In other words, whether the result is declared or not, the outcome will remain the same and therefore, the declaration of result will be a futile exercise and will be a mere formality. They may be true to that extent but since there are other grounds on which the writ petition has been filed, the same cannot be ignored while considering the issue involved herein. It has been specifically submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that while conducting the examination, the reservation norms have not been followed for the reason that although one post was reserved for the candidates belonging to scheduled caste, none was appointed from that category and on the contrary, one candidate belonging to schedule tribe was appointed. This is not permissible in law and if no one from the scheduled caste category was found to be eligible or qualified for appointment, the post reserved for them shall be kept unfilled and shall be carried forward to the next recruitment year and the exchange of reserved posts amongst the reserved categories is longer permissible in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and the OM issued by the Government of India thereafter in this regard. The other submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the terms and conditions as prescribed in the advertisement, have not been strictly followed by the Manipur University, in the sense that four persons were appointed against three posts being advertised, to which the submission of the counsels appearing for the respondents is that the Manipur University has reserved the right to increase the number of post. It is true to that extent that the right to increase the number of post has been reserved by the Manipur University but it is nowhere stated in the affidavit that while the process of selection was going on, a decision was taken by the Manipur University that the number of post be increased from three to four posts. In the absence of such a decision, the appointment of four persons against three posts, is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. Various decisions have been rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in this regard and in particular, State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 [LQ/SC/2010/594] .

[11] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the offer forms dated 16-12-2015 and the appointment orders dated 28-12-2015, issued by the Registrar, Manipur University, are quashed and set aside with the direction that it is open to the Manipur University to take appropriate steps to ensure that the process of selection is either cancelled with a fresh notification being issued thereafter or completed by declaring the result thereof, in accordance with law, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.