Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10682 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 15482 of 2016), Civil Appeal No............of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 15589 of 2016), Civil Appeal No............of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 18133 of 2016), Civil Appeal No............of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 18136 of 2016), Civil Appeal No............of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 18128 of 2016), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 817 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2017, Civil Appeal No............of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19902-19903 of 2017), Civil Appeal No............of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 20733-20734 of 2017), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1355 of 2020, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1476 of 2020, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.....of 2024 (Arising Out of Diary No. 20462 of 2021)
Decided On : 19-09-2024
Service Law – Appointment – Posts of Primary Teachers – When select list is being revised in terms of High Court’s Order, new names are bound to figure in revised select list, as per respective performance of candidates, in recruitment test – As this Court is directing appointments strictly in accordance with merit of candidates in recruitment test, as per revised list, parity relief should be considered for all similarly situated persons – Differential treatment for those who did not approach Court earlier may not be warranted in facts of present case, by treating them to be fence-sitters and would amount to denial of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India – For those who are not yet appointed, door of justice must be opened as this Court is quite capable of hearing silent knocks of selectees, possibly incapacitated to approach Court by reasons beyond their control – Benefit of High Court’s Judgment should be made available by State Authorities to everyone as per their respective merit position, in revised select list, against notified 1423 posts of Primary Teachers – Judgment rendered by High Court upheld. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 24 and 28)
Facts of the case:
These matters pertain to process of recruitment on 1423 posts of Primary Teachers in State of Manipur. As official result of selection process was not declared despite process having commenced on 12.09.2006, some of aggrieved candidates moved High Court and pursuant to order passed by High Court on 27.07.2011, result of selection was notified on 04.09.2011 by Director of Education, Government of Manipur indicating that 1423 candidates are selected for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers, pursuant to recruitment process which commenced on 12.09.2006.
Findings of Court:
State authorities must draw up revised select list in terms of High Court’s judgment within 4 weeks from today. Appointment orders for those who figure in revised select list are ordered to be issued, within 4 weeks of publication of select list. By virtue of such appointments, fresh appointees shall have no claim towards arrears salary. But they shall be granted benefit of notional appointment w.e.f. 9.12.2011 when substantive appointments were given to those who are serving but this notional benefit is ordered only for the purpose of superannuation benefits.
Result : Civil Appeals and Writ Petitions dismissed.
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) No. 817 of 2016 are taken into account to narrate the salient circumstances of the case.
5. On 22.12.2006, the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur (hereinafter referred to as, “the Board”) conducted a written test and the result of the test was declared on 16.04.2007 by the Secretary of the Board indicating that 5322 candidates were successful in the written examination. The interviews for the short-listed candidates were held from 06.02.2009 and continued till August, 2009. At that stage a local daily in Manipur on 26.06.2010, published the result of the selection process when official results were yet to be declared for the subject recruitment. The said newspaper publication led to an Enquiry Committee being constituted by the Government of Manipur to determine whether any illegality has been committed by the Recruitment Committee (referred to as, “the DPC” by the authorities and courts) in the selection process pursuant to notification dated 12.09.2006.
6. Thereafter, on 07.03.2011, the Director (Education), Government of Manipur notified that 1051 Primary Teachers would be engaged on contract basis on remuneration of Rs.7600 per month. The breakup of the list of 1051 appointees was (Gen.-512, OBC-177, ST-322, SC-21 and PH-19). Since most of the names in the notification dated 7.3.2011 were amongst the names published in the local newspaper on 26.06.2010, the leakage of the select list received the attention of the Manipur Legislative Assembly when it was clarified by the Chief Minister of Manipur before the House that the appointments made through the notification dated 07.03.2011 was a temporary arrangement, since the academic session is to commence from April, 2011.
7. As the official result of the selection process was not declared despite the process having commenced on 12.09.2006, some of the aggrieved candidates moved the High Court and pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on 27.07.2011, the result of the selection was notified on 04.09.2011 by the Director of Education, Government of Manipur indicating that 1423 candidates are selected for the 1423 posts of Primary Teachers, in pursuant to the recruitment process which commenced on 12.09.2006.
8. The appellant-Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi and others moved the High Court challenging the selection process. Besides other petitions, the challenge was also made, inter-alia, through the W.P. (C) No. 815 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012. These writ petitions were taken up for consideration and the learned Judge of the High Court through the common judgment dated 6.10.2015, concluded as follows:
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.
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.
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge the process or regulations post-selection, establishing a principle of acquiescence in recruitment law.
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
