Appointments of 23 individuals to various positions without any recruitment advertisement have put Manipur Khadi and Village Industries Board (MKVIB) in trouble. Reports have further surfaced that the joining report of the 23 individuals were accepted by the Member Secretary whose tenure expired.
Sources told Imphal Times that the tenure of the MKVIB Board had expired on October 28, 2025. It is surprising to note that despite the expiration of its tenure, the Members of the Board, whose term had already expired, continue to attend the office.
The crucial point to be noted here is regarding Chingakham Sanajaoba Singh, who was Member Secretary of the Board. As per information available with Imphal Times, he accepted the joining reports of the 23 individuals appointed, even after the expiration of the tenure of the Board.
This poses a crucial question regarding the statutory power of the office. Could the Member Secretary, whose tenure had expired, exercise his power of office and accept the joining report of 23 individuals appointed?
However, in the context of an official communication from MKVIB dated May 2, 2026, wherein Sanajaoba Singh was referred to as “Outgoing Secretary, MKVIB,” and wherein he and the outgoing Vice-Chairman and Secretary were asked to return their official vehicles, the importance of the issue becomes clear. If the Board considered him as “outgoing” in its official communication, then the circumstances under which he exercised his power to accept joining reports should be examined in detail.
Merely because the MKVIB is a statutory body and enjoys perpetual succession does not mean that this solves the issue. Perpetual succession refers only to the fact that the body continues to exist as a corporate entity but does not confer perpetual tenure on members of the body.
According to the MKVIB Rules governing the issue, a member’s tenure of office is for such period as is mentioned in the notification of appointment subject to maximum tenure, and the member may be re-appointed. The issue, therefore, is whether the said members had any new appointment, re-appointment, extension, or other lawful authorisation after October 28, 2025.
The appointment of the Secretary assumes particular significance. Under Section 6 of the MKVIB Act, the Secretary is to be appointed amongst the members of the Board except the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. In case the membership and consequently the tenure of the Secretary had lapsed, there needed to be some statutory basis for his continued functioning as the Secretary.
The next question pertains to the total absence of any recruitments advertisement in the public domain for 23 appointments.
For an institution, which has been constituted statutorily and is working with Government money, there are questions which arise concerning recruitment apart from those relating to the appointment orders. The documents would be able to show whether the post was sanctioned, whether there was any Government sanction, the procedure adopted for recruitments, whether applications were invited, how selection was made, and who made the appointments.
It must be mentioned that the absence of a public advertisement itself does not make the appointments illegitimate.
If, as per the information received by Imphal Times, the problem had been brought to the notice of Administrator Anurag Bajpai, IAS, (The present Chairman in-charge) but nothing concrete has been done in this regard yet, the matter assumes even more gravity.
Given the fact that the tenure of MKVIB Board lapsed on October 28, 2025, former members still attending the office, the acceptance of joining reports from the former Secretary of MKVIB Board who had completed his/her tenure, and the fact that 23 persons have been recruited without any publicised recruitment process, there certainly must be some explanation on the part of the Government.
Thereby, both the Government and MKVIB need to clarify many points.
Whether MKVIB Board was constituted after the date October 28, 2025? Whether their members were reappointed or their tenure was extended in any manner? Who authorised the appointment of the 23 persons? Where was the recruitment notice issued? Were those posts duly sanctioned and approved by the Government? Who formed the selection committee? Whose order for appointments were issued? But most importantly, under whose authority did the former member secretary accept the joining report?
It is evident that the matter is not limited to the appointment of only 23 persons. It is an issue about whether a statutory body can exercise its public functions through persons whose term of office has already ended.
While perpetual succession will ensure the legal existence of the Board, it will not be enough to extend the term of office of individuals beyond the terms for which they have been appointed. The Government now owes the public a transparent account of the entire process. Unless the relevant Board reconstitution orders, recruitment notification, sanctioned-post approvals, selection proceedings, appointment orders and authority for acceptance of the joining reports are produced and placed beyond doubt, the 23 appointments will remain under a serious cloud of procedural and legal questions.