Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently emphasised the principle that when there is a declaration of law by court, the judgment can be treated as a judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by treating those similarly situated.

A three-judge bench led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy directed the Manipur government to redraw the merit list in the selection process of primary teachers within four weeks, by upholding the high court's order, which stated that the selection of as many as 242 candidates against the seats reserved for the OBC category, without mentioning in the 2006 notice, was bad and liable to be quashed.

The bench, also consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and S V N Bhatti, left it 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.

"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," the bench said.

The bench underscored that as it is directing appointments strictly in accordance with merit of the candidates in the recruitment test, as per the revised list, parity relief should be considered for all similarly situated persons. 

"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 bench said.

The court pointed out that one reason for taking such a view was the prolonged recruitment process commencing from September 12, 2006 culminating in the official declaration of results on September 04, 2011, interspersed with multiple litigations by the aggrieved candidates.

"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 bench said.

The court held that the benefit of the high court’s judgment dated October 6, 2015, should be made available by the State Authorities to everyone as per their respective merit position, in the revised select list, against the notified 1423 posts of Primary Teachers. 

The bench was informed that many more vacancies of primary teachers have since become available. 

"As the recruitment process was initiated on September 12, 2006, vacancies are bound to occur by efflux of time but to order appointment against the later vacancies (beyond the 1423 posts then notified) will mean, infringing the rights of those who have since become eligible to apply for consideration, for the subsequent vacancies," it said.

Therefore, the beneficiaries of this judgment subject to their respective merit position in the revised select list, should be accommodated only against the notified 1423 posts, the bench said. 

The appointment to the 214 OBC category candidates was set aside by the high court on October 6, 2015 and the said decision was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court in its judgment on March 16, 2016 and as such these vacancies will be available to accommodate most of the deserving selectees, the court clarified.

Court upheld the high court's judgment, disposed of writ petitions filed by aspirant teachers, and dismissed the plea by the state government.

"The State authorities must draw up the revised select list in terms of the high court’s judgment within 4 weeks from today," the bench ordered. 

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, it directed. 

The court, however, clarified larified that the fresh appointees shall have no claim to arrears salary. However, they will be granted the benefit of notional appointment effective from December 9, 2011, when the substantive appointments were made for those currently serving. This notional benefit is ordered only for the purpose of superannuation benefits, it said.

Case Title: Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi Vs The State of Manipur & Ors