The Gauhati High Court recently annulled the appointment of Lalnundanga as Registrar of Mizoram University, citing significant conflicts of interest and potential bias. The court has mandated that the university swiftly commence a new recruitment process to fill the position, as per the ruling in Zaithanzauva Pachuau and Anr v The Mizoram University.
Judicial Findings on the Appointment Process
In a detailed judgment dated May 27, Justice Kaushik Goswami highlighted the flawed nature of the recruitment process. The ruling focused on Lalnundanga’s dual role as both a candidate and an acting Registrar during the recruitment process. The court concluded that his involvement in administrative and institutional processes compromised the impartiality of the selection mechanism. Justice Goswami observed, “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.”
Background of the Case
Lalnundanga was initially appointed as Registrar in 2019, with a term extending over five years. When the recruitment process for a fresh appointment began in 2024, he continued to act as Registrar and applied for reappointment. Eventually, he was selected again, prompting legal challenges from other candidates, Zaithanzauva Pachuau and Lalthanchami Sailo. They contended that Lalnundanga’s continued role during the recruitment process presented a reasonable risk of bias.
Lalnundanga defended his position by claiming that his actions were merely ministerial, simply executing the decisions of the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council. However, the court found this defense unconvincing. Instead, it noted his active involvement in the recruitment stages, stating, “On the contrary, he remained institutionally embedded within the recruitment architecture at every material stage.”
Implications of the Court’s Ruling
The court underscored the significance of impartiality in institutional processes, noting that Lalnundanga’s pervasive involvement was problematic. The judgment pointed out the lack of evidence supporting his claim of recusal during deliberations about his candidature. “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 noted.
More Read
In conclusion, the court determined that the recruitment process was irreparably compromised and ordered its annulment, emphasizing the need for an unbiased selection mechanism. “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,” Justice Goswami stated.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, Rosy Manlawmsangi, Mary Lalramngheti, Lalrinchhana, Aldrin Zothanmawia, and F Lalzarzovi, while Senior Advocate LH Lianhrima, along with advocates AR Malhotra, Ruth Lalruatfeli, C Tlanthianghlima, and Vanlalthlamuani, appeared for the respondents.
