The Aizawl bench of the Gauhati High Court on Wednesday delivered a landmark judgment ordering the removal of Mizoram University registrar Professor Lalnundanga from his post. The decision came after a legal challenge questioning the validity of his reappointment for a second term by Vice Chancellor Professor Dibakar Chandra Deka.
The court pronounced its verdict following a petition filed by two unsuccessful candidates who contested the selection process that led to Professor Lalnundanga securing a second term as registrar of the central university. The petitioners had approached the court on December 13, 2024, alleging procedural irregularities in the selection and appointment process for the registrar's post.
Court Ruling and Implications
After hearing the matter over several months, the High Court bench ruled in favor of the petitioners and directed that Professor Lalnundanga be removed from the position of registrar. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding transparency and fairness in administrative appointments within educational institutions.
Background of the Case
Professor Lalnundanga had completed his first five-year term as registrar, which officially ended on April 30, 2024. The Vice Chancellor reportedly allowed him to continue functioning in the post from May 1, 2024, until the process for appointing a new registrar was finalized. Subsequently, interviews for the second term were conducted.
For the registrar's post, a total of 10 candidates applied, out of which six appeared for the interview held on October 23, 2024. Following the selection process, Professor Lalnundanga formally assumed his second term on November 19, 2024.
Petitioners' Grievances
Aggrieved by the outcome and the manner in which the selection process was conducted, the two unsuccessful candidates moved the court seeking judicial intervention. They alleged that the reappointment process lacked transparency and violated established norms, leading to the High Court's intervention.
The ruling has significant implications for university administration and sets a precedent for similar cases involving reappointments and procedural compliance.
