Back
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S. V. N. BHATTI
Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur – Respondent
ORDER :
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. The State of Manipur is represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Mr. V. Giri and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel. Also heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the already appointed candidates.
3. These matters pertain to the process of recruitment of, inter-alia, 1423 posts of Primary Teachers in the state of Manipur. The recruitment process commenced with the notification dated 12.09.2006 issued by the Employment Officer, Imphal West which required the aspirants to have their names sponsored through the Employment Exchange. The same notice also notified vacancies of 203 Primary Hindi Teachers and 46 Hindi Graduate Teachers, all in the Directorate of Education in Government of Manipur. At the outset, it is made clear that in this order, we are dealing with the case of 1423 Primary Teachers only.
4. For the purpose of this order, the records of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15482 of 2016 together with the convenience compilation filed in the W.P. (C)
Parity – When there is a declaration of law by court, Judgment can be treated as Judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by treating those similarly situated, similarly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice and the failure to consider all relevant facts and materials in reaching the decision.
The court affirmed that appointment claims require direct engagement in the selection process, emphasizing no valid grievances from unlisted candidates based on prior judicial findings.
The court established that adherence to statutory rules and fair selection processes is essential to uphold candidates' rights and ensure justice in recruitment.
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
[Judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to administrativ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners are entitled to appointment as primary teachers against the available vacant posts, and the respondents are directed to comple....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
