Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment is a judgment in rem intended to benefit all similarly situated candidates, and therefore appointments must be made strictly according to merit from the revised select list for the 1,423 primary teacher posts.

Summary

The case concerned the recruitment of 1,423 primary teachers in Manipur, where the written test was held in 2006, interviews were delayed, and a premature newspaper publication led to an enquiry and a temporary contract appointment of 1,051 teachers. The official result was finally declared in 2011, but the selection of 242 OBC candidates was challenged as the original notification did not provide for OBC reservation. The Manipur High Court set aside the OBC appointments and directed a fresh selection list limited to unreserved, SC and ST categories, treating its judgment as a judgment in rem. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's order should extend to all similarly situated candidates, including those who had not litigated, and affirmed that it must, rejecting any claim of acquiescence or laches. Consequently, the Court ordered the State to draw up the revised select list and issue appointment orders for candidates appearing on it, strictly according to merit, for the 1,423 posts, while granting notional benefits for superannuation purposes. The appeal was dismissed and the aspirants' petitions were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether aspirants whose names appear in the revised select list are entitled to appointment against the 1,423 notified posts irrespective of whether they have litigated.
Whether the High Court's judgment constitutes a judgment in rem or in personam and its effect on similarly situated persons.
Whether the inclusion of OBC candidates in the original selection violated the terms of the 12‑09‑2006 notification which did not provide for OBC reservation.
Whether the destruction of answer scripts of the written test vitiated the selection process.
Whether the State must issue appointment orders, and the nature of salary and service benefits for the newly appointed teachers.

Subjects

Revised select listAppointmentPosts of Primary TeachersAcquiescenceRecruitment processEnquiry CommitteeAnswer scripts destroyedPractice of weeding outTreating similarly situated persons similarlyDenial of opportunityProlonged recruitment processMultiple litigationsJudgment in remJudgment in personamRecruitment for public postsPreservation of answer scriptsAllegation of wrong doings

Judgment

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

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi
v.
The State of Manipur & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 10682 of 2024)
19 September 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy,* Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether all aspirants whose names find place in the
revised select list, pursuant to the course correction process,
would secure appointment against the notified 1423 posts of
Primary Teachers, irrespective of whether they were litigating for
appointment.

Headnotes†
Service law – Appointment/recruitment – Recruitment process
for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers – Written examination held
and interviews were pending, meanwhile local daily published
the result of the selection process when official results
were yet to be declared – Enquiry Committee constituted –
Government notified 1051 Primary Teachers to be engaged
on contract basis – Later clarified that said appointments
made was temporary arrangement – Thereafter, official result
of the selection notified and 1423 candidates selected for the
posts – Appellant and others challenged the selection – High
Court condoned the allegation about publication of names
of selected candidates in local newspaper – State directed
to constitute Review DPC to submit fresh recommendation –
Recommendations directed to confine to only unreserved, SC
and ST categories and candidates shortlisted in OBC category
to be excluded from the fresh select list – Challenge to:
Held: When there is a declaration of law by court, the judgment
can be treated as judgment in rem and require equities to be
balanced by treating those similarly situated – Thus, as this Court
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 – Differential

* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 19

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

treatment for those who did not approach the Court earlier may
not be warranted and would amount to denial of opportunity u/
Arts.14 and 16 – Selected candidates are put in limbo waiting for
employment for last several years – This Court is quite capable
of hearing the selectees, possibly incapacitated to approach the
Court by reasons beyond their control – High Court’s judgment
to be construed as judgment in rem with intention to give benefit
to all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they were
before the Court or not – Whereas, this Court’s judgment is confined
only to those covered by the order and should be considered
to be judgment in personam – Beneficiaries of this judgment
subject to their respective merit position in the revised select list,
should be accommodated only against the notified 1423 posts –
Appointment to the OBC category candidates was set aside by
the High Court and as such these vacancies would be available
to accommodate most of the deserving selectees – Appointment
ordered for those whose names would figure in the revised
select list, strictly in order of merit against the 1423 vacancies
notified – Concerned appointees have been serving for over 13
years and disruption of their service may lead to unimaginable
hardships, thus, 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, pursuant to the ordered exercise –
Judgment by the High Court upheld – State authorities to draw
up the revised select list in terms of the High Court’s judgment –
Appointment orders for those who figure in the revised select list
to be issued. [Paras 21-25, 27, 28]
Service law – Appointment / recruitment – Recruitment process
for posts of Primary Teachers – Written test conducted in
2006, and the answer scripts destroyed in 2008 – Allegations
of selection being vitiated:
Held: When recruitment for public posts is being made by the
State, preservation of the answer scripts till reasonable time after
the final declaration of result is the prudent course to adopt – This
omission was overlooked which definitely was disappointing for
those who failed to qualify in the written test – Since things can’t
be undone, it is expected 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. [Para 9]
20 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Case Law Cited
Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others
[2014] 12 SCR 193 : [2015] 1 SCC 347; Shoeline v. Commissioner
of Service Tax & Ors. [2017] 8 SCR 582 : [2017] 16 SCC 104 –
referred to.

List of Keywords
Revised select list; Appointment; Posts of Primary Teachers;
Acquiescence; Recruitment process; Enquiry Committee; Answer
scripts for written test destroyed; Practice of weeding out; Treating
those similarly situated, similarly; Denial of opportunity; Prolonged
recruitment process; Multiple litigations; Judgment in rem; Judgment
in personam; Recruitment for public posts; Preservation of answer
scripts; Allegation of wrong doings.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10682 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2016 of the High Court
of Manipur at Imphal in WPC No. 620 of 2011
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10683, 10684, 10685 and 10686 of 2024, Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 817 of 2016 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22 of
2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 10687-10688 and 10689-10690 of 2024,
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1355 and 1476 of 2020 and Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 22118 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, V. Giri,
K. Parameshwar, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sanjay Hegde, Anupam Lal Das,
N Jotendro Singh, Dr. Joseph Aristotle, Sr Advs., F. I. Choudhury,
David Choudhury, Somiran Sharma, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi,
Amit, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Ms. Vani Vyas, Ms. Shivani Vij, Prakhar
Singh, Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, Ms. Rajshri A Dubey,
H.B. Dubey, Amit P. Shahi, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Rahul Sethi,
Ms. Sona Khan, Sumant A Khan, Mayank Sapra, Ms. Lalima Das,
Pratik R. Bombarde, Mohit Bidhuri, Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Jitendra
Kumar, Kirti Anand, Abhishek Kumar, Raj Kumar Mehta, Elangbam
Premjit Singh, Niraj Bobby Paonam, Ms. Karishma Maria, Yash S.
Vijay, Ms. Pooja B. Mehta, Abhisheck Chauhan, Harshad Sunder,
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 21

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

Sumant Akram Khan, Amit Kumar, Anshuman Singh, Shah Rukh
Ali, Ankit Tiwari, Ms. Tatini Basu, Bharat J Joshi, Kumar Shashank,
Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Mohan Singh, Aniket
Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Kumar Mihir, D. Abhinav Rao,
David Ahongsangbam, Sayed Murtaza Ahmed, Rahul Kumar, Rajeev
L Mahunta, Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, K
Sita Rama Rao, Shakti K Pattanaik, Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Sandeep
Kapoor, M.P. Parthiban, R. Sudhakaran, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas
Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K, Mohit Biduri, Divakar Kumar,
Satya Kam Sharma, Garv Bajaj, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants. The State of Manipur
is represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and
Mr. V. Giri and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel. Also
heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned senior counsel appearing for
the already appointed candidates.
3. These matters pertain to the process of recruitment of, inter-alia, 1423
posts of Primary Teachers in the state of Manipur. The recruitment
process commenced with the notification dated 12.09.2006 issued by
the Employment Officer, Imphal West which required the aspirants to
have their names sponsored through the Employment Exchange. The
same notice also notified vacancies of 203 Primary Hindi Teachers
and 46 Hindi Graduate Teachers, all in the Directorate of Education
in Government of Manipur. At the outset, it is made clear that in this
order, we are dealing with the case of 1423 Primary Teachers only.
4. For the purpose of this order, the records of Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP (Civil) No. 15482 of 2016 together with the convenience
compilation filed in the W.P (C) No.817 of 2016 are taken into account
to narrate the salient circumstances of the case.
5. On 22.12.2006, the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur
(hereinafter referred to as, “the Board”) conducted a written test and
22 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the result of the test was declared on 16.04.2007 by the Secretary
of the Board indicating that 5322 candidates were successful in the
written examination. The interviews for the short-listed candidates
were held from 06.02.2009 and continued till August, 2009. At that
stage a local daily in Manipur on 26.06.2010, published the result of
the selection process when official results were yet to be declared
for the subject recruitment. The said newspaper publication led to an
Enquiry Committee being constituted by the Government of Manipur
to determine whether any illegality has been committed by the
Recruitment Committee (referred to as, “the DPC” by the authorities
and courts) in the selection process pursuant to notification dated
12.09.2006.
6. Thereafter, on 07.03.2011, the Director (Education), Government of
Manipur notified that 1051 Primary Teachers would be engaged on
contract basis on remuneration of Rs.7600 per month. The breakup
of the list of 1051 appointees was (Gen.-512, OBC–177, ST–322,
SC–21 and PH–19). Since most of the names in the notification dated
7.3.2011 were amongst the names published in the local newspaper
on 26.06.2010, the leakage of the select list received the attention
of the Manipur Legislative Assembly when it was clarified by the
Chief Minister of Manipur before the House that the appointments
made through the notification dated 07.03.2011 was a temporary
arrangement, since the academic session is to commence from
April, 2011.
7. As the official result of the selection process was not declared despite
the process having commenced on 12.09.2006, some of the aggrieved
candidates moved the High Court and pursuant to the order passed
by the High Court on 27.07.2011, the result of the selection was
notified on 04.09.2011 by the Director of Education, Government of
Manipur indicating that 1423 candidates are selected for the 1423
posts of Primary Teachers, in pursuant to the recruitment process
which commenced on 12.09.2006.
8. The appellant - Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi and others moved the High
Court challenging the selection process. Besides other petitions, the
challenge was also made, inter-alia, through the W.P (C) No.815 of
2011 and W.P(C) No.127 of 2012. These writ petitions were taken up
for consideration and the learned Judge of the High Court through
the common judgment dated 6.10.2015, concluded as follows:-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 23

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

“[9] In the present case, the selection process can be
divided into two parts - one, the part relating to the
written examination being conducted by the Board and
the second, the rest of the selection process till the end.
The first part is the responsibility of the Board and its role
was limited to the conduct of written examination only and
the moment the result thereof was declared, its role came
to an end and it had nothing to do with the rest of the
selection process. There is no material on record to show
that the Board was instructed by the State Government
not to destroy the answer scripts till the completion of
the selection process. As has been stated in its affidavit
which is not controverted by the petitioners, the Board in
its normal course disposes of answer scripts after three
months from the date of declaration of result thereof. In
the absence of any instruction from the State Government,
the Board was not supposed to and could not be expected
to keep the answer scripts un-destroyed or preserved
for indefinite period when it was not sure as to when the
selection process would be completed by the DPC. In the
present case, one year after which the Board destroyed the
answer scripts, is reasonable time for keeping the answer
scripts un-destroyed or preserved. It is understandable if
the Board was entrusted to complete the entire selection
process but it was not so in the present case. Therefore,
keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances, there
is no reason as to why this court ought to interfere with
the written examination being conducted by the Board,
when there was no grievance from any of the unsuccessful
candidates against the Board except only the fact that the
answer scripts were destroyed before the completion of
the selection process which was not in its control and the
reasons as to why the answer scripts were to be destroyed,
have been narrated above. As regards the interview also,
there appears to be no allegation/complain from any of
the unsuccessful candidates raising objection against
the DPC. The petitioners have not stated in their petition
anything about the irregularities, manipulation, arbitrariness
committed by the DPC in the viva-voce test. When the
24 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

select list came to be published in the newspaper, the public
suspected the genuineness of it and therefore, it attracted
the attention of the Cabinet which directed to constitute a
Committee to look into it. At that point of time also, there
is no material on record to show that any one demanded
that the viva-voce be repeated in the interest of public.
The fact that only some of the petitioners approached the
Hon’ble High Court praying that the State respondents
be directed to make the official declaration of the result,
shows that they were not aggrieved by the viva-voce being
conducted by the DPC and they wanted only the result
to be declared by the State respondents. Accordingly,
on the recommendation of the Review DPC, the result
of the selection was declared on 04-09-2011. Thus, it
can be seen that there is nothing wrong in the selection
process upto the stage of viva voce test and therefore,
no order can be passed by this court quashing the entire
selection process, as prayed for by the petitioners, only
on the ground that the answer scripts had been destroyed
before the completion of the selection process.
[10] As regards the second issue, the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the
declaration of result, some candidates were shown to have
been selected against the seats allegedly reserved for the
OBC category which was totally contrary to the Notice
dated 12-09-2006, merits consideration by this court. In
the said Notice dated 12-09-2006, nothing is mentioned
about any seat being reserved for the OBC category and
it could not be done also, at that point of time, for the
simple reason that admittedly, the Office Memorandum
prescribing reservation of seats for the OBC category
came to be issued only on 27-12-2006 after the Notice
dated 12-09-2006 having been issued by the Employment
Officer and even after the written examination having been
held by the Board. Moreover, this OM dated 27-12-2006
does not indicate that it would apply retrospectively. There
is no material on record to show that after the said OM
dated 27-12-2006 having been issued, a decision was
taken by the State respondents to make an amendment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 25

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

in the breakup of seats, as detailed in the said notice,
allotted amongst the categories by adding OBC category
therein and a notice thereof was issued informing the
candidates about such amendment. From the perusal of
the proceedings of the Review DPC, it appears that it had
proceeded on an erroneous assumption that seats were
reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC and the
DPC had not referred to any order issued by the State
respondents, subsequent to the issuance of the said OM,
that the OM would apply to the then ongoing selection
process after due notice being given to the candidates.
The Review DPC, in its proceeding, has merely stated
that it has followed the 200 point reservation roster which
came to be introduced only after the written examination
and the viva-voce test were over.
……. ……... ……… …….. …… ….
As is evident from the above decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, an advertisement shall be issued in matters
of public employment. The purpose of requiring the issuance
of an advertisement is to give wide publicity to the eligible
candidates as regards the terms and conditions including
the criteria in respect of the details of selection. Any
change in the terms and conditions shall be made known
to all the candidates so that they could act accordingly.
As mandated under Article 16 of the Constitution of India,
equal opportunity shall be given to all in matters of public
employment. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners has submitted that although almost all
the petitioners belong to OBC category, they did not get
an opportunity to get their names sponsored as OBC
candidates. There is no statement in the writ petition in
support of his submission but when he made the submission
during the course of hearing, the same was not denied
by any of the counsels appearing for the respondents. It
may also be noted at this juncture that the grievance of
the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 is that in spite
of her name being sponsored as OBC candidate, she had
been treated as unreserved candidate and accordingly,
her name was not included in the impugned list of OBC
26 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

candidates, though she secured more marks than many
of the candidates shown in the said OBC list. Thus, it is
not clear as to how the candidates were sponsored by the
Employment Officer. At the time of getting his/her name
sponsored, was the concerned person required to indicate
whether he/she belongs to OBC category because by then,
the OM dated 27-12-2006 had not yet been issued at all?
Or is it the case that the candidates were sponsored by
the Employment Officer based on the information furnished
by the person concered at the time of registration of his
name in the employment exchange and if that be so, why
was the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 denied the
benefit of being OBC candidate. On a query put to the
learned Government Advocate by this court in this regard,
he was unable to give a concrete answer saying that the
Government file was silent about it. No additional affidavit in
compliance with the order dated 10-09-2015 passed by this
court, has been filed by the State respondents in respect
of similar queries. In the present case, in the Notice dated
12-09-2006, it is specifically provided as under:

1) Primary Teacher
Gen. Category 910
ST 442
SC 29
Phy. Handicapped 42
1423
……. ……. ……. …… …….
It is nowhere mentioned in the said notice that certain seats
are reserved for the OBC category and on the contrary,
when the result of the selection was declared, the names
of as many as 242 candidates were shown to have been
selected against the seats reserved for the OBC category.
To contend that the criteria cannot be changed after the
process for selection has commenced, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan
Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors, reported in
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 27

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

AIR 2008 SC 1657 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that once the advertisement had been issued on
the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the
effect would be that the selection process should continue
on the basis of the criteria which was laid down and it
cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made
subsequently. The Review DPC had committed error while
recommending the candidates belong to OBC category
as if there was reservation for them as per the Notice
dated 12-09-2006 and the State respondents had blindly
accepted the same. In fairness and in order to give equal
opportunity, the State respondents ought to have given a
notice to all the candidates that the OM dated 27-12-2006
would apply to the then onging selection process and all
those candidates, including the petitioners, belonging to
OBC category who could not get themselves sponsored
as OBC candidates, could have been given an opportunity
to do so. In other words, in case certain seats were to be
reserved for the OBC, the State respondents must have
ensured that all the candidates belonging to OBC category
had got themselves sponsored by the Employment Officer.
It appears that no such excercise had been done by
the State respondents at all in the present case and no
opportunity was granted to them. Denial of such opportunity
to the petitioners has attracted the provisions of Article 16
of the Constitution of India. Failing to do that, the actions
of the State respondents are unreasonable, arbitrary
and illegal as being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The part of the selection process, as
indicated above, i.e., from the stage where the error had
crept in, is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be quashed and
in other words, the recommendation of the Review DPC,
Notification dated 04-09-2011 and the Government order
dated 09-12-2011 are liable to be quashed.
[11] That since this court having held in the preceding
para that the selection of as many as 242 candidates as
Primary Teachers against the seats reserved for the OBC
category, without the same being mentioned in the Notice
dated 12-09-2006, is bad and liable to be quashed, no
28 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

order is required to be passed in this writ petition being
W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 and accordingly, the writ petition
stands disposed of.”
9. The learned Judge in the judgment dated 06.10.2015 noted that for
the written test conducted on 22.12.2006, the answer scripts were
destroyed on 15.5.2008. The Court however opined that the Board
of Secondary Education did not preserve the answer scripts because
of paucity of space and also because of the practice followed by the
Board for weeding out answer scripts within a fix time frame. 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. This omission was however
overlooked which definitely was disappointing for those who failed to
qualify in the written test. Since things can’t be undone, 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.
10. As can be seen, the High Court condoned the allegation made by
the writ petitioner(s) in Writ Petition (C) No.815 of 2011 about the
selection being vitiated by publication of names of the selected
candidates in the local newspaper, well before the official declaration
of result. The learned judge concluded that this by itself will not
warrant interference with the selection process. With such findings,
the Writ Petition (C) No.815 of 2011 was partly allowed and the
recommendation of the Review DPC, the notification dated 04.09.2011
and the related Government Order, were set aside with direction to
the State-respondents to constitute a Review DPC to submit fresh
recommendation strictly in accordance with the Notification dated
12.09.2006. The recommendations were directed to confine to only
the unreserved, SC and ST categories. The candidates shortlisted
in the OBC category were directed to be excluded altogether from
the fresh select list.
11. The Writ Petition (C) No.620 of 2011 filed by the appellant
Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi was disposed of on 29.03.2016 with
the declaration that her case is covered by the judgment and order
dated 6.10.2015 in the W.P (C) No.815 of 2011 and W.P (C) No.127
of 2012. This judgment of the High Court is under challenge in the
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15482 of 2016.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 29

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

12. When the challenge to the High Court judgment dated 06.10.2015
came to be considered by this Court, an affidavit dated 11.03.2016
came to be filed on behalf of the State of Manipur, by Mr. H. Daleep
Singh, Commissioner (Education/S). The said affidavit being of some
relevance, is extracted herein below:-
“An Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No.4
I, H. Deleep Singh, IAS, now serving as Commissioner
(Education/S) Government of Manipur, have gone through
the contents of the I.A. No. 2 of 2016 and I am acquainted
with the facts of the case and having been authorized by
the other State Respondents, I am competent to swear this
affidavit and accordingly, I swear this affidavit on solemn
oath and affirm as hereunder.
1. That, with reference to para Nos. I and II of the above
referred I.A., the answering deponent has no comment
to offer as the same are the matter of records.
2. That, with reference to para Nos. Ill and IV of the
above referred I.A., the answering deponent begs to
submit that the Respondent No. 6 to 1428 are the
selected candidates for appointment to the post of
Primary Teachers and they have been serving as
Primary Teachers for the last about 5 years in different
Schools under the Department of Education (S),
Government of Manipur. On considering the length
of service rendered by the Respondent Nos. 6 to
1428, the Government of Manipur is agreeable to
accommodate the Writ petitioners against the existing
vacancies if the Hon’ble Supreme Court is pleased
to protect the appointment of the Respondent Nos. 6
to 1428 and at the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court may be pleased to pass an order restraining
the unsuccessful candidates who had chosen not to
challenge selection process for the last about 5 years
to raise any claim in future in order to make the end
of litigation on the same issue.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is,
therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be
30 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

pleased enough to dispose of the above referred I.A. and
the connected SLP No. 32728 of 2015 in the lines stated
in para No.2 of the present affidavit for the ends of justice.”
13. This Court considered the averments of the Commissioner in the
above affidavit and disposed of the challenge to the High Court’s
order dated 6.10.2015. The Supreme Court specifically referred to
the affidavit (dated 11.3.2016) filed by the State of Manipur and after
extracting the contents therein, recorded the following in its order
dated 16.03.2016:-
“In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to record that
no further claim at the instance of any other unsuccessful
candidate on the basis of the present order and undertaking
given by the Government shall be entertained by the High
Court.
Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in SLP(C) No. 32728/2015 prayed that the
respondent-State be directed to issue the appointment
orders within a reasonable period of time as per the
undertaking of the State referred to above.
In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the
State to issue the appointment orders in favour of the writ
petitioners (before the High Court) within a within a period
of eight weeks from today.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
14. When this Court disposed of the SLP (Civil) No. 32728 of 2015
and Special Leave Petition (Civil) arising out of CC No. 4129 of
2016, the Court was not informed that other petitions of aggrieved
candidates were also pending in Courts. The Bench passed the order
on 16.3.2016 oblivious of the fact that multiple petitions challenging
the selection process were pending in the High Court. This Court
being unaware about the pendency of other petitions filed by other
aspirants, had no occasion to address the concern raised in those
petitions and thereby observed that further claim at the instance of
any other unsuccessful candidates on the basis of the present order
and undertaking given by the Government, shall not be entertained
by the High Court.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 31

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

15. In the affidavit dated 11.03.2016 filed by Mr. H. Daleep Singh,
Commissioner (Education/S), it was stated that the respondent Nos.
6 to 1428 in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32728
of 2015, are the selected candidates and they have been serving
as primary school teachers. It was also averred in the affidavit that
the Government of Manipur is agreeable to accommodate the writ
petitioners against the existing vacancies. The Supreme Court in the
order dated 16.03.2016 barred appointment of those who had chosen
not to challenge the selection process for last about 5 years. Such
impression in the Commissioner’s affidavit was not only incorrect
factually but the same also gave an impression to this Court that
no other petitions were pending in the Courts. Therefore, the right
of those aspirants in the pending cases was overlooked and not
addressed by this Court in its order dated 16.03.2016.
16. As can be gathered from the judgment dated 06.10.2015, the
Manipur High Court set aside the recommendation for appointment
to 242 posts carved out for the OBC category candidates. The said
pronouncement was not disturbed by the Supreme Court. In fact
this Court did not really adjudicate the merits of the challenge to the
High Court’s judgment or had occasion to address the appointment
claims of those, whose names may appear in the revised select list,
in terms of the High Court’s judgment dated 06.10.2015.
17. We have considered the nature of the recruitment process challenged
in this proceeding. The inevitable conclusion from the foregoing
discussion is that the selection list should be redrawn, in terms of
High court’s Judgment dated 06.10.2015. Let us now look at the
three categories of candidates claiming selection in the redrawn
final list. The first category would be those who have qualified the
interview and are already included in the list filed before this Court,
the second category would be those who have qualified the interview
but are not included in said list and the third category would consist
of candidates who have not qualified the interview as such but are
admitted as OBC candidates.
18. The selection of the OBC category candidates was found to be
unmerited by the High Court. As can be appreciated the notification
dated 12.09.2006 for appointment of 1423 primary teachers notified
the State’s reservation policy in the following manner-
32 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Primary Teacher
Gen. Category 910
ST 442
SC 29
Phy. Handicapped 42
1423
However, the review DPC noted that by way of the subsequent
notification (dated 27.12.2006), the benefit of reservation has been
extended to OBC category in the State of Manipur, following the
200-point formula.
19. Some of the selectees (after the revised exercise) may already be
serving amongst the OBC category candidates by virtue of their open
category merit. They would naturally be accommodated accordingly
as per the revised exercise. Some of the selectees (after the revised
exercise), could be amongst the appellants/petitioners in these
pending cases, who would also be entitled to benefit of selection.
Since the appointment to the 242 posts in the OBC category was
interfered by the High Court, those posts would now be available
for making appointment after the select list is redrawn, in terms of
the High Court’s judgment dated 06.10.2015. Since the appellants/
petitioners had filed petitions or were agitating their claims for
appointment, around the same time as those who secured relief
in the WP (C) No.815 of 2011, these claimants in our opinion, also
deserve similar consideration.
20. Next, we have to consider those who are not before the Court but
are in the category of job seekers, who responded to the notification
dated 12.09.2006, succeeded in the written test and also appeared
in the interview segment. When the select list is being revised in
terms of High Court’s order dated 6.10.2015, new names are bound
to figure in the revised select list, as per the respective performance
of the candidates, in the recruitment test. The question is whether all
aspirants whose names find place in the revised select list, pursuant
to the course correction process, will secure appointment against
the notified 1423 posts of Primary Teachers, irrespective of whether
they were litigating for appointment. Should this Court deny relief
to them by considering that there is an element of acquiescence
by those, who did not move Court? For answer, we may benefit by
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 33

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

referring to the ratio in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind
Kumar Srivastava and Others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 where
the following was said:
“22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading
of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants
as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending
that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination
and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters
more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved
by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the
normal rule would be that merely because other similarly
situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they
are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized
exceptions in the form of latches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the
same and woke up after long delay only because of the
reason that their counterparts who had approached the
court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment
rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be
extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters
and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would
be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those
cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly
situated persons, whether they approached the court or
not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast
upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to
all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur
when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon
34 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the
like. On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was
in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment
shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an
intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be
impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the
judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said
judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their
petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.”
21. The principles laid down in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava
(supra) are referred by this court in Shoeline vs. Commissioner of
Service Tax & Ors.” reported as (2017) 16 SCC 104 to observe that
when there is a declaration of law by court, the judgment can be
treated as judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by
treating those similarly situated, similarly.
22. Therefore, 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. 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. One reason for taking such a view
is the prolonged recruitment process commencing from 12.09.2006
culminating in the official declaration of result on 04.09.2011,
interspersed with multiple litigations by the aggrieved candidates.
23. 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.
24. That apart, the High Court’s judgment dated 6.10.2015 as earlier
stated, must be construed as judgment in rem with intention to give
benefit to all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they
were before the Court or not. On the other hand, this Court’s judgment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 35

Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors.

rendered on 16.03.2016 is confined only to those covered by the
order and should be considered to be a judgment in personam. For
this reason also, the benefit of the High Court’s judgment dated
6.10.2015 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.
25. It is also projected that many more vacancies of primary teachers
have since become available. As the recruitment process was initiated
on 12.9.2006, vacancies are bound to occur by efflux of time but
to order appointment against the later vacancies (beyond the 1423
posts notified on 12.9.2006) will mean, infringing the rights of those
who have since become eligible to apply for consideration, for the
subsequent vacancies. Therefore, the beneficiaries of this judgment
subject to their respective merit position in the revised select list,
should in our opinion be accommodated only against the notified 1423
posts. The appointment to the 214 OBC category candidates was set
aside by the High Court on 6.10.2015 and the said decision was left
undisturbed by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 16.03.2016
and as such these vacancies will be available to accommodate most
of the deserving selectees.
26. Mr. V. Giri, the learned Senior Counsel representing the State of
Manipur in the above context informs the Court that the Primary
Teachers who were appointed on 09.12.2011 are serving for over 13
years and some of them might have to make way for the selectees.
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, the learned senior counsel in his turn submits
that the clients he represents were appointed on substantive basis
by the Government on 9.12.2011. Despite their long service, a few
of them may not find place in the revised select list for adjustment
against the 1423 notified vacancies. The submission is that since
the cases before the High Court and this Court had continued for
over a decade in one form or the other, the appointment of the long
serving teachers should be protected.
27. On the above contention of Mr. Giri supported by Mr. Das, we need
to observe that appointment is being ordered for those whose names
would figure in the revised select list, strictly in order of merit against
the 1423 vacancies notified on 12.9.2006. 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
36 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
28. In conclusion, the judgment rendered by the High Court on 6.10.2015
in the W.P (C) No.8153 of 2011 and W.P(C) No.127 of 2012 are
upheld. In consequence, the appeals/writ petitions filed by the
aspirant teachers stand disposed of and those filed by the State
of Manipur stand dismissed. The State authorities must draw up
the revised select list in terms of the High Court’s judgment within
4 weeks from today. 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. 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 is ordered accordingly.
29. Pending application(s), if any, including impleadment/intervention
application(s) stand closed.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. of 2024 (ARISING OUT OF
DIARY NO. 20462 OF 2021)
1. Delay condoned.
2. In view of the today’s order passed in Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP (Civil) No. 15482 of 2016, the Special Leave Petition stands
dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

Result of the Case: M
atters disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain