Supreme Court Upholds Manipur HC Direction Setting Aside Selection Of 242 Primary Teachers
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court's decision which annulled the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural flaws. The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti held that the State should draw up a fresh selection list following the High Court's judgment limiting appointments to...
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court's decision which annulled the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural flaws.
The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti held that the State should draw up a fresh selection list following the High Court's judgment limiting appointments to the originally stated 1,423 vacancies.
The recruitment for 1,423 Primary Teachers in Manipur started in 2006, involving written tests and interviews. However, the release of an unofficial selection list in a local newspaper in 2010 sparked widespread claims of irregularities. Although an official result was announced in 2011, several petitions contested the selection process, arguing that reservations for OBC candidates were applied retroactively without proper notice, thereby invalidating the selection of the 242 OBC candidates.
The main issue was the legality of the OBC reservation, which was applied retroactively through a notification issued after the recruitment process had commenced. The petitioners argued that this change infringed upon their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the original recruitment notice did not include any reference to OBC reservations.
The High Court set aside the selection made on 242 seats of OBC finding the retroactive application of the OBC reservation as illegal because proper opportunity was not served to all the candidates belonging to the OBC category to apply for the said posts.
“In other words, in case certain seats were to be reserved for the OBC, the State respondents must have ensured that all the candidates belonging to OBC category had got themselves sponsored by the Employment Officer. It appears that no such excercise had been done by the State respondents at all in the present case and no opportunity was granted to them. Denial of such opportunity to the petitioners has attracted the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Failing to do that, the actions of the State respondents are unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal as being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”, the High Court said.
Approving the High Court's decision, the order pronounced by Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that changing the rules of the selection process mid-way would undermine the fairness of the selection process as it would deny equality of opportunity to other candidates eligible to be recruited in the OBC category.
The Court also took notice of the candidates who appeared in the interview but weren't yet appointed and haven't appeared before the Court adjudicating the issue.
“Also, one cannot ignore that the job seekers who participated in the recruitment test following the Board's notification dated 22.12.2006 and are selected, are put in limbo waiting for employment for last several years. So far those who are not yet appointed, the door of justice must be opened as this Court is quite capable of hearing the silent knocks of the selectees, possibly incapacitated to approach the Court by reasons beyond their control.”, the court said.
Accordingly, the Court ordered as follows:
“In consequence, the appeals/writ petitions filed by the aspirant teachers stand disposed of and those filed by the State of Manipur stand dismissed. The State authorities must draw up the revised select list in terms of the High Court's judgment within 4 weeks from today. The appointment orders for those who figure in the revised select list are ordered to be issued, within 4 weeks of the publication of the select list. By virtue of such appointments, the 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 the substantive appointments were given to those who are serving but this notional benefit is ordered only for the purpose of superannuation benefits.”
Case Title: KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 792