Preserve Answer Scripts Till Selection Process Is Complete To Obviate Allegations Of Wrong-Doing : Supreme Court
In a matter pertaining to recruitment of primary teachers in Manipur, the Supreme Court recently observed that when recruitment for public posts is being done, authorities shall preserve answer scripts of candidates until the process is complete, to obviate any allegations of wrong-doing.
"When recruitment for public posts is being made by the State, the preservation of the answer scripts till reasonable time after the final declaration of result is the prudent course to adopt....we expect all concerned to be mindful of their responsibility in future recruitments, to preserve the answer scripts till the selection process is successfully completed, to obviate similar such allegation of wrong doings", it said.
In terms of a judgment by the Manipur High Court, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti ordered for a revised select list of candidates to be drawn in 4 weeks, based on merit, which shall include all similarly situated persons - even those candidates who participated in the recruitment process but did not litigate to secure appointment.
"A differential treatment for those who did not approach the Court earlier may not be warranted in the facts of the present case, by treating them to be fence sitters and would amount to denial of opportunity under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India" the Court said.
Background
Briefly stated, the matter pertained to process of recruitment of 1423 posts as Primary Teachers in Manipur, which commenced with notification dated 12.09.2006. While interviews of short-listed candidates were pending, a local daily published the result of the selection process. An Enquiry Committee was constituted by the state to determine if any illegalities were committed.
On 07.03.2011, the state notified that 1051 Primary Teachers would be engaged on contract basis. Most of the names in this notification were amongst the names published in the local newspaper. Later, it was clarified that the appointments in terms of the 2011 notification were a temporary arrangement.
After some candidates moved the High Court, the official result was finally declared and 1423 candidates selected. Challenging the recruitment process, the appellant and others moved the High Court.
Vide a judgment dated 06.10.2015, the High Court noted that the answer sheets for the written test stood destroyed because of paucity of space and practice followed by the Education Board for weeding out answer scripts within a fix time frame. It condoned candidates' allegations about the selection being vitiated by publication of select names in the local newspaper, well before the official declaration of result.
The High Court directed the state to constitute a Review DPC to submit fresh recommendation in accordance with the notification vide which the recruitment process began.
After her plea was disposed of in view of the High Court judgment dated 06.10.2015, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. However, this challenge was disposed of with an observation that no further claim at the instance of any other unsuccessful candidate shall be entertained by the High Court.
Seemingly, the observation was a result of an undertaking given by the state regarding willingness to accommodate the writ petitioners against existing vacancies, if other unsuccessful candidates who had not approached the Court in the preceding 5 years were restrained from raising any claim in future. Later, however, it came forth that petitions of other aggrieved candidates were already pending before Courts, but the Supreme Court was not informed of the same and as such, overlooked their concerns.
Court observations in the present case
The Supreme Court noted that vide judgment dated 06.10.2015, the High Court interfered with the appointment to 242 posts in the OBC category. As such, those posts would be available for appointment after the select list is redrawn.
Insofar as candidates who participated in the recruitment process till the interview stage, but did not litigate to secure appointment, the Court was of the view that it would be unfair to deprive them of parity. In this regard, it was considered that the recruitment process was prolonged and interspersed with multiple litigations by candidates.
"...as this Court is directing appointments strictly in accordance with merit of the candidates in the recruitment test, as per the revised list, we are of the view that parity relief should be considered for all similarly situated persons."
Underlining that the candidates were left in a limbo waiting for employment, the Court added, "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."
Calling for the appointment of candidates as per a revised select list, in the order of merit, it further clarified that its orders are restricted to the 1423 posts notified. In response to the claim that some primary teachers, appointed in 2011 and serving since, will have to make way for new select candidates, the court stated,
"We do appreciate that the concerned appointees have been serving for over 13 years and disruption of their service may lead to unimaginable hardships for this group of people. It is therefore left to the Government's discretion to take a decision for those who are serving and whose names may not figure in the revised select list, in pursuant to the ordered exercise."
Conclusion
The Court upheld the High Court's judgment dated 06.10.2015 and directed that the appointment orders for those who figure in the revised select list 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", it said.
Appearance: Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Aparna Bhat (for appellants); Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates V. Giri, K. Parameswar (for Manipur); Senior Advocate Anupam Lal Das (for already appointed candidates)
Case Title: KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS., SLP (C) NO. 15482 OF 2016
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 756