A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolved around the recruitment process for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers in the State of Manipur. Issues emerged regarding procedural irregularities in the selection process, including allegations of premature publication of the select list in a local newspaper, omission of OBC reservation in the original notification, and destruction of written examination answer scripts before the final result declaration. The High Court’s judgment mandated recalibration of the recruitment process, specifically excluding OBC candidates from the revised selection list as the reservation for OBC was added retrospectively. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directive to prepare a revised select list based strictly on merit and further clarified the balance between equity for litigants and non-litigants, applying principles from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava. Relief was extended to all eligible candidates appearing in the revised list irrespective of litigation history, while protecting long-serving appointees against undue disruption. This case underscores judicial scrutiny over recruitment processes in public employment to uphold Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Keywords:

Recruitment irregularities, OBC reservation, Answer scripts, Judgment in rem, Prolonged litigation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 10682 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
19 September 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.

vi) Author:
Hrishikesh Roy, J.

vii) Citation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18 : 2024 INSC 733

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 14, Constitution of India (Equality before law).
• Article 16, Constitution of India (Equality in public employment).
• Reservation policy under Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2006.

ix) Judgments Overruled:
None explicitly identified.

x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects:
Service law, Constitutional law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The recruitment process for 1423 Primary Teacher posts commenced on 12.09.2006 through a notification by the Employment Officer, Imphal West. The process was marred by irregularities, leading to challenges in the Manipur High Court. Allegations included procedural violations like premature public disclosure of selected candidates and retrospective application of OBC reservation, contrary to the original notification. The High Court intervened to rectify these anomalies by directing the exclusion of OBC reservation from the revised select list and mandating appointments strictly in accordance with merit. The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court to balance equities for affected candidates, including those serving under the contested appointments.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A notification issued on 12.09.2006 invited applications for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers, categorized as follows:

   • General: 910
   • Scheduled Tribes (ST): 442
   • Scheduled Castes (SC): 29
   • Physically Handicapped (PH): 42

2. The selection process included a written examination conducted on 22.12.2006, and interviews held in 2009.

3. The result of the selection was prematurely leaked and published in a local newspaper on 26.06.2010, raising questions of transparency.

4. Answer scripts for the written test were destroyed on 15.05.2008, prior to the official result declaration in 2011.

5. The State engaged 1051 candidates on a contractual basis through an order dated 07.03.2011.

6. The High Court’s judgment in 2015 declared the selection process invalid for OBC candidates, whose reservation was introduced only after the recruitment notification.

7. The Supreme Court heard appeals and petitions from aggrieved parties, addressing issues of merit, reservation, and procedural delays.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the revised select list should accommodate all aspirants irrespective of litigation history.
ii) Whether OBC candidates could be legitimately included in the selection process despite the absence of OBC reservation in the original notification.
iii) Whether the destruction of written examination answer scripts invalidated the recruitment process.
iv) Whether long-serving appointees under contested appointments could retain their positions.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The petitioners contended that including OBC candidates violated the recruitment criteria in the 12.09.2006 notification, which did not provide for OBC reservation.

ii) They argued that the destruction of answer scripts before the final result created doubts about the transparency of the written examination process.

iii) Petitioners sought parity in relief for all meritorious candidates whose names figured in the revised list, irrespective of litigation status, citing Articles 14 and 16.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The State defended its decision to include OBC candidates based on a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2006 implementing reservation for OBCs.

ii) It justified the destruction of answer scripts as per routine administrative procedures.

iii) The State emphasized the prolonged service of appointees, asserting that displacing them would result in significant hardship and disruption.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The Court held that recruitment must strictly adhere to the criteria in the original notification. Inclusion of OBC candidates, not mentioned in the 12.09.2006 notification, was deemed invalid.

• All aspirants on the revised select list were entitled to consideration for appointment based on merit, irrespective of litigation history.

• The judgment sought to balance equity for both litigants and long-serving appointees.

b. Obiter Dicta

• The Court emphasized the need for retaining answer scripts until the final declaration of results to prevent allegations of procedural impropriety.

c. Guidelines

1. Revised Select List: Prepared strictly based on the original recruitment notification and subsequent High Court directives.
2. Appointments: Issued to those on the revised list against the original 1423 vacancies.
3. Long-serving Appointees: Protected from undue disruption, subject to the discretion of the State Government.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair and transparent public employment practices. By balancing rights under Articles 14 and 16, the judgment safeguards meritocracy while protecting those appointed under flawed processes from excessive hardship.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347.
2. Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2008 SC 1657].
3. Shoeline v. Commissioner of Service Tax (2017) 16 SCC 104.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Article 14, Constitution of India.
2. Article 16, Constitution of India.
3. Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2006.