The Gauhati High Court has quashed the order appointing Lalnundanga to the post of Registrar of Mizoram University and directed the varsity to undertake fresh recruitment process expeditiously [Zaithanzauva Pachuau and Anr v The Mizoram University] .In a judgment dated May 27, Justice Kaushik Goswami found that the appointment was vitiated on account of apparent bias and manifest conflict of interest resulting from Lalnundanga’s continued participation in the institutional and administrative processes governing the recruitment in question.The Court said Lalnundanga, despite being an applicant for the post, continued to function as Registrar throughout the recruitment process. “In the present case, the cumulative circumstances unmistakably create such reasonable apprehension. A candidate for selection continued to occupy the office administering the recruitment process; issued official communications connected therewith; participated in Executive Council proceedings; circulated draft minutes; and authenticated proceedings culminating in his own selection. Such a process cannot inspire confidence in institutional impartiality,” the Bench found..Lalnundanga had earlier been appointed as the Registrar in 2019 for a period of five years. He was granted an extension in 2024 till fresh appointment. Later when the appointment process began, he continued to remain as a Registrar. He also applied for a fresh appointment to the post. Ultimately, he was again appointed as the Registrar.His appointment was challenged by two other candidates, Zaithanzauva Pachuau and Lalthanchami Sailo. They claimed that Lalnundanga continued to function as Registrar throughout the recruitment process and actively participated in various stages of the selection.Such conduct gives rise to a clear and reasonable apprehension of bias and thereby vitiates the entire process, it was argued. On the other hand, Lalnundanga said he merely discharged ministerial functions attached to the office of Registrar by communicating decisions taken by the Vice-Chancellor and Executive Council..However, the Court found that he was not a detached or a passive participant. “On the contrary, he remained institutionally embedded within the recruitment architecture at every material stage. He continued to occupy the office through which communications were routed, nominations processed, records maintained, minutes circulated and Executive Council proceedings authenticated,” the Bench found.The ability to convene meetings, process communications, circulate agendas and maintain records cannot be regarded as insignificant or incapable of affecting institutional outcomes, the Court held..It also found that there was no record to show he had withdrawn himself from the process when the candidates were considered for the appointment. “Equally untenable is the submission that respondent No. 6 had walked out when his candidature was considered. Apart from a bald assertion in the affidavit-in-opposition, there exists no contemporaneous material to substantiate such claim. Neither the minutes of the Executive Council meeting nor any official record reflects that respondent No. 6 recused himself or withdrew during deliberations concerning his candidature,” the Court said.The Court observed that any process creating a perception that the institutional machinery stood controlled by a candidate himself inevitably damages the credibility of the institution concerned.Thus, the Court quashed the appointment and ordered initiation of a fresh process. “In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case represents a clear case where the apprehension of fairness in the selection process stood irreparably compromised,” the Bench said..Advocates Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, Rosy Manlawmsangi, Mary Lalramngheti, Lalrinchhana, Aldrin Zothanmawia and F Lalzarzovi represented the petitioners.Senior Advocate LH Lianhrima with advocates AR Malhotra, Ruth Lalruatfeli, C Tlanthianghlima and Vanlalthlamuani appeared for the respondents.[Read Judgment]
