Manipur High Court
WP(C)/949/2022 of AKHAM JOYKUMAR Vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 5 on 14 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No.949 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.949 of 2022
Akham Joykumar … Petitioner -Versus-
State of Manipur & 5 Ors … Respondents
BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA 15.5.2026
Heard Mr.I.Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.N.Khellemba, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Priyokumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, Mr.A.Jagjit, learned counsel along with Devdutt, learned counsel for respondent No.4. None appears on behalf of respondent No.5, in spite of service.
In the present case, petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur (BOSEM) vide order dated 11.11.2021 issued by the Joint Secretary, Education, (S), Government of Manipur, in exercise of power under Section 12(1) of the Manipur Secondary Education Act, 1972 for a tenure of three years as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules for recruitment and conditions of service of the Chairman of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, Rules 1979.
The main prayer in the writ petition is that retirement age for the petitioner, i.e., Chairman of the BOSEM, should be 65 years. However, during pendency of the present writ petition, tenure of Chairman of the BOSEM expired. The petitioner has been appointed vide another order dated 6.12.2024 issued by the Government of Manipur, as Chairman of BOSEM for another fresh term.
The present petition concerns with appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of BOSEM vide order dated 11.11.2021 and term for such appointment has already expired and petitioner has been subsequently appointed for a new term vide another order dated 6.12.2024.
This Court is of the opinion that relief prayed for in the present writ petition does not survive as the tenure for Chairmanship vide order dated 11.11.2021 has already expired.
Mr.A.Priyokumar Sharma, learned counsel for the State and Mr.A.Jagjit, learned counsel for BOSEM also submit that the matter may be closed as infructuous keeping the question of law open.
Considering the subsequent event, i.e. expiry of appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of BOSEM vide order dated 11.11.2021 has already expired, the writ petition is closed, keeping the question of law open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.
It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case.
JUDGE
Priyojit
RAJKUMA R PRIYOJIT SINGH Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2026.05.19 09:51:41 +05'30'