A three-judge bench led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy, along with Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and S V N Bhatti, disposed of an 18-year-long awaited primary teacher recruitment case of 2006, directing the Manipur government to redraw the merit list in the selection process of primary teachers within four weeks.
The apex court also directed the state to do so 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 SC further directed that the appointment orders for those who figure in the revised select list are ordered to be issued, within four weeks of the publication of the select list. By virtue of such appointments, the fresh appointees shall have no claim towards arrears salary, the SC said. But they shall be granted benefit of notional appointment with effect from December 9, 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.
“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.
On September 12, 2006, the state government notified an advertisement for recruitment of 1,423 primary teachers, 203 Hindi primary teachers and 49 Hindi graduate teachers. The written test for recruitment was held on December 6, 2006 and the result was declared in September, 2007. The viva voce for the selected candidates was held in December, 2009.
Prior to the formal announcement of the results, a local newspaper in Manipur disclosed the names of the shortlisted candidates on June 26, 2010. The disclosure prompted the Government of Manipur to establish an investigation to examine any irregularities by the Recruitment Committee, referred to as the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
On March 7, 2011, the Director of Education for the Government of Manipur issued a notice to engage 1,051 Primary Teachers on a contractual basis. The distribution included 512 applicants from the General category, 177 from OBC, 322 from ST, 21 from SC, and 19 from the PH category.
The Chief Minister of Manipur elucidated that the appointments were provisional, since the academic session was scheduled to commence in April 2011. In the absence of an official results statement, some discontented candidates petitioned the High Court.
On July 27, 2011, the High Court mandated the State to announce the results, culminating in the formal notice of chosen candidates on September 4, 2011.
The Supreme 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 the 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 SC also granted limited relief to those who had already been nominated and were acting as teachers.