Summary
In the long-running dispute over recruitment of 1423 Primary Teachers in Manipur begun in 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's 2015 judgment that quashed selections made against OBC reservation not notified in the advertisement, and directed the State to redraw the select list on merit and appoint all candidates in it against the 1423 notified posts, including those who had not litigated, since that judgment operated in rem. Fresh appointees get no arrears but notional appointment from 09.12.2011 for superannuation benefits.
Issues
- Whether the selection list for the 1423 notified posts must be redrawn in terms of the High Court's judgment dated 06.10.2015, which set aside selections against OBC reservation introduced after the notification.
- Whether the Supreme Court's earlier order dated 16.03.2016, barring further claims by other unsuccessful candidates, precluded the claims of aspirants whose petitions were then pending.
- Whether candidates who did not approach the court should be denied the benefit of the redrawn list as fence-sitters.
- Whether beneficiaries could be appointed against vacancies arising after the 2006 notification, and what protection should be given to long-serving appointees who may not figure in the revised list.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaTreating candidates who did not approach the court differently from identically placed litigants, by labelling them fence-sitters, would deny equal opportunity in public employment; parity relief was therefore extended to all similarly situated candidates according to merit in the revised list. (¶¶ 20, 22, 24)
Held
- Answer scripts in public recruitment should be preserved until a reasonable time after the final result; though the destruction of the scripts in this case could not be undone, authorities must preserve them in future until the selection process is completed. (¶ 9)
- The order of 16.03.2016 was passed without the Court being told that other petitions challenging the selection were pending; the State's affidavit gave an incorrect impression in that regard. The order did not adjudicate the merits of the High Court judgment, which had set aside the OBC-category selections and was left undisturbed, so the rights of the pending claimants remained open. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The select list must be redrawn in terms of the High Court judgment of 06.10.2015. The posts from which OBC-category selections were removed become available, and the appellants and petitioners, who agitated their claims around the same time as the successful writ petitioners, deserve similar consideration. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Applying the principles in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the normal rule is that identically situated persons must be given the same relief, subject to laches and acquiescence, an exception that does not apply where the judgment is in rem. Given the prolonged recruitment from 2006 to 2011 and repeated litigation, candidates who did not approach the court were not to be treated as fence-sitters. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The High Court's judgment of 06.10.2015 is to be construed as a judgment in rem meant to benefit all similarly situated persons, whereas the Supreme Court's order of 16.03.2016 is a judgment in personam confined to those covered by it; the State must extend the benefit of the High Court judgment to everyone according to merit in the revised list. (¶ 24)
- Appointments are confined to the 1423 posts notified on 12.09.2006, because filling later vacancies would infringe the rights of those who later became eligible to compete for them. (¶ 25)
- Teachers appointed on 09.12.2011 who have served over 13 years but may not figure in the revised list are left to the Government's discretion, in view of the hardship that displacement would cause. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Result
High Court judgment dated 06.10.2015 upheld; appeals and writ petitions by aspirant teachers disposed of and those by the State of Manipur dismissed; revised select list to be drawn within 4 weeks and appointment orders issued within 4 weeks of its publication; no arrears of salary, but notional appointment from 09.12.2011 for superannuation benefits; connected SLP dismissed.