{"file_name": "2024_10_18_36_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18 : 2024 INSC 733\n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi \nv. \nThe State of Manipur & Ors. \n\n(Civil Appeal No. 10682 of 2024)\n\n19 September 2024\n\n[Hrishikesh Roy,* Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nIssue arose whether all aspirants whose names find place in the \nrevised  select  list,  pursuant  to  the  course  correction  process, \nwould  secure  appointment  against  the  notified  1423  posts  of \nPrimary Teachers, irrespective of whether they were litigating for \nappointment.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nService law – Appointment/recruitment – Recruitment process \nfor 1423 posts of Primary Teachers – Written examination held \nand interviews were pending, meanwhile local daily published \nthe  result  of  the  selection  process  when  official  results \nwere  yet  to  be  declared  –  Enquiry  Committee  constituted  – \nGovernment  notified  1051  Primary  Teachers  to  be  engaged \non  contract  basis  –  Later  clarified  that  said  appointments \nmade was temporary arrangement – Thereafter, official result \nof the selection notified and 1423 candidates selected for the \nposts – Appellant and others challenged the selection – High \nCourt  condoned  the  allegation  about  publication  of  names \nof  selected  candidates  in  local  newspaper  –  State  directed \nto constitute Review DPC to submit fresh recommendation – \nRecommendations directed to confine to only unreserved, SC \nand ST categories and candidates shortlisted in OBC category \nto be excluded from the fresh select list – Challenge to:\n\nHeld: When there is a declaration of law by court, the judgment \ncan  be  treated  as  judgment  in  rem  and  require  equities  to  be \nbalanced by treating those similarly situated – Thus, as this Court \nis directing appointments strictly in accordance with merit of the \ncandidates in the recruitment test, as per the revised list, parity relief \nshould be considered for all similarly situated persons – Differential \n\n* Author\n\n\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n19\n\ntreatment for those who did not approach the Court earlier may \nnot  be  warranted  and  would  amount  to  denial  of  opportunity  u/\nArts.14 and 16 – Selected candidates are put in limbo waiting for \nemployment for last several years – This Court is quite capable \nof hearing the selectees, possibly incapacitated to approach the \nCourt  by  reasons  beyond  their  control  –  High  Court’s  judgment \nto be construed as judgment in rem with intention to give benefit \nto all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they were \nbefore the Court or not – Whereas, this Court’s judgment is confined \nonly  to  those  covered  by  the  order  and  should  be  considered \nto  be  judgment  in  personam  –  Beneficiaries  of  this  judgment \nsubject to their respective merit position in the revised select list, \nshould be accommodated only against the notified 1423 posts –  \nAppointment  to  the  OBC  category  candidates  was  set  aside  by \nthe High Court and as such these vacancies would be available \nto accommodate most of the deserving selectees – Appointment \nordered  for  those  whose  names  would  figure  in  the  revised \nselect  list,  strictly  in  order  of  merit  against  the  1423  vacancies \nnotified – Concerned appointees have been serving for over 13 \nyears  and  disruption  of  their  service  may  lead  to  unimaginable \nhardships,  thus,  left  to  the  Government’s  discretion  to  take  a \ndecision  for  those  who  are  serving  and  whose  names  may  not \nfigure in the revised select list, pursuant to the ordered exercise –  \nJudgment  by  the  High  Court  upheld  –  State  authorities  to  draw \nup the revised select list in terms of the High Court’s judgment – \nAppointment orders for those who figure in the revised select list \nto be issued. [Paras 21-25, 27, 28]\n\nService law – Appointment / recruitment – Recruitment process \nfor  posts  of  Primary  Teachers  –  Written  test  conducted  in \n2006, and the answer scripts destroyed in 2008 – Allegations \nof selection being vitiated:\n\nHeld:  When  recruitment  for  public  posts  is  being  made  by  the \nState, preservation of the answer scripts till reasonable time after \nthe final declaration of result is the prudent course to adopt – This \nomission  was  overlooked  which  definitely  was  disappointing  for \nthose who failed to qualify in the written test – Since things can’t \nbe  undone,  it  is  expected  all  concerned  to  be  mindful  of  their \nresponsibility in future recruitments, to preserve the answer scripts \ntill  the  selection  process  is  successfully  completed,  to  obviate \nsimilar such allegation of wrong doings. [Para 9]\n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f20 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nUttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others \n[2014] 12 SCR 193 : [2015] 1 SCC 347; Shoeline v. Commissioner \nof Service Tax & Ors. [2017] 8 SCR 582 : [2017] 16 SCC 104 – \nreferred to.\n\nList of Keywords\n\nRevised  select  list;  Appointment;  Posts  of  Primary  Teachers; \nAcquiescence; Recruitment process; Enquiry Committee; Answer \nscripts for written test destroyed; Practice of weeding out; Treating \nthose similarly situated, similarly; Denial of opportunity; Prolonged \nrecruitment process; Multiple litigations; Judgment in rem; Judgment \nin personam; Recruitment for public posts; Preservation of answer \nscripts; Allegation of wrong doings.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10682 of 2024\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2016 of the High Court \nof Manipur at Imphal in WPC No. 620 of 2011\n\nWith\n\nCivil Appeal  Nos.  10683,  10684,  10685  and  10686  of  2024,  Writ \nPetition  (Civil)  No.  817  of  2016  and  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.  22  of \n2017,  Civil Appeal  Nos.  10687-10688  and  10689-10690  of  2024, \nWrit Petition (Civil) Nos. 1355 and 1476 of 2020 and Special Leave \nPetition (Civil) No. 22118 of 2024\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nTushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, V. Giri, \nK. Parameshwar, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sanjay Hegde, Anupam Lal Das, \nN  Jotendro  Singh,  Dr.  Joseph Aristotle,  Sr Advs.,  F.  I.  Choudhury, \nDavid Choudhury, Somiran Sharma, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, \nAmit, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Ms. Vani Vyas, Ms. Shivani Vij, Prakhar \nSingh, Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan,  Ms. Rajshri A  Dubey, \nH.B.  Dubey, Amit  P.  Shahi,  Shashi  Bhushan  Nagar,  Rahul  Sethi, \nMs. Sona Khan, Sumant A Khan, Mayank Sapra, Ms. Lalima Das, \nPratik R. Bombarde, Mohit Bidhuri, Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Jitendra \nKumar, Kirti Anand, Abhishek Kumar, Raj Kumar Mehta, Elangbam \nPremjit Singh, Niraj Bobby Paonam, Ms. Karishma Maria, Yash S. \nVijay,  Ms.  Pooja  B.  Mehta, Abhisheck  Chauhan,  Harshad  Sunder, \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n21\n\nSumant Akram  Khan, Amit  Kumar, Anshuman  Singh,  Shah  Rukh \nAli, Ankit Tiwari, Ms. Tatini Basu, Bharat J Joshi, Kumar Shashank, \nAhanthem  Henry, Ahanthem  Rohen  Singh,  Mohan  Singh, Aniket \nRajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Kumar Mihir, D. Abhinav Rao, \nDavid Ahongsangbam, Sayed Murtaza Ahmed, Rahul Kumar, Rajeev \nL Mahunta, Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, K \nSita Rama Rao, Shakti K Pattanaik, Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Sandeep \nKapoor,  M.P.  Parthiban,  R.  Sudhakaran,  Bilal  Mansoor,  Shreyas \nKaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K, Mohit Biduri, Divakar Kumar, \nSatya Kam Sharma, Garv Bajaj, Advs. for the appearing parties.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nOrder\n\nHrishikesh Roy, J.\n\n1.  Delay condoned. Leave granted.\n\n2.  Heard Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned \nsenior counsel appearing for the appellants. The State of Manipur \nis represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and \nMr.  V.  Giri  and  Mr.  K.  Parameshwar,  learned  senior  counsel. Also \nheard  Mr. Anupam  Lal  Das,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for \nthe already appointed candidates.\n\n3.  These matters pertain to the process of recruitment of, inter-alia, 1423 \nposts of Primary Teachers in the state of Manipur. The recruitment \nprocess commenced with the notification dated 12.09.2006 issued by \nthe Employment Officer, Imphal West which required the aspirants to \nhave their names sponsored through the Employment Exchange. The \nsame notice also notified vacancies of 203 Primary Hindi Teachers \nand 46 Hindi Graduate Teachers, all in the Directorate of Education \nin Government of Manipur. At the outset, it is made clear that in this \norder, we are dealing with the case of 1423 Primary Teachers only.\n\n4.  For  the  purpose  of  this  order,  the  records  of  Civil Appeal  arising \nout of SLP (Civil) No. 15482 of 2016 together with the convenience \ncompilation filed in the W.P (C) No.817 of 2016 are taken into account \nto narrate the salient circumstances of the case. \n\n5.  On  22.12.2006,  the  Board  of  Secondary  Education,  Manipur \n(hereinafter referred to as, “the Board”) conducted a written test and \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f22 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe result of the test was declared on 16.04.2007 by the Secretary \nof the Board indicating that 5322 candidates were successful in the \nwritten  examination.  The  interviews  for  the  short-listed  candidates \nwere held from 06.02.2009 and continued till August, 2009. At that \nstage a local daily in Manipur on 26.06.2010, published the result of \nthe selection process when official results were yet to be declared \nfor the subject recruitment. The said newspaper publication led to an \nEnquiry Committee being constituted by the Government of Manipur \nto  determine  whether  any  illegality  has  been  committed  by  the \nRecruitment Committee (referred to as, “the DPC” by the authorities \nand  courts)  in  the  selection  process  pursuant  to  notification  dated \n12.09.2006.\n\n6.  Thereafter, on 07.03.2011, the Director (Education), Government of \nManipur notified that 1051 Primary Teachers would be engaged on \ncontract basis on remuneration of Rs.7600 per month. The breakup \nof  the  list  of  1051  appointees  was  (Gen.-512,  OBC–177,  ST–322, \nSC–21 and PH–19). Since most of the names in the notification dated \n7.3.2011 were amongst the names published in the local newspaper \non 26.06.2010, the leakage of the select list received the attention \nof  the  Manipur  Legislative Assembly  when  it  was  clarified  by  the \nChief Minister of Manipur before the House that the appointments \nmade  through  the  notification  dated  07.03.2011  was  a  temporary \narrangement,  since  the  academic  session  is  to  commence  from \nApril, 2011.\n\n7.  As the official result of the selection process was not declared despite \nthe process having commenced on 12.09.2006, some of the aggrieved \ncandidates moved the High Court and pursuant to the order passed \nby  the  High  Court  on  27.07.2011,  the  result  of  the  selection  was \nnotified on 04.09.2011 by the Director of Education, Government of \nManipur indicating that 1423 candidates are selected for the 1423 \nposts  of  Primary Teachers,  in  pursuant  to  the  recruitment  process \nwhich commenced on 12.09.2006. \n\n8.  The appellant - Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi and others moved the High \nCourt challenging the selection process. Besides other petitions, the \nchallenge was also made, inter-alia, through the W.P (C) No.815 of \n2011 and W.P(C) No.127 of 2012. These writ petitions were taken up \nfor consideration and the learned Judge of the High Court through \nthe common judgment dated 6.10.2015, concluded as follows:-\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n23\n\n“[9]  In  the  present  case,  the  selection  process  can  be \ndivided  into  two  parts  -  one,  the  part  relating  to  the \nwritten  examination  being  conducted  by  the  Board  and \nthe second, the rest of the selection process till the end. \nThe first part is the responsibility of the Board and its role \nwas limited to the conduct of written examination only and \nthe moment the result thereof was declared, its role came \nto  an  end  and  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  rest  of  the \nselection process. There is no material on record to show \nthat  the  Board  was  instructed  by  the  State  Government \nnot  to  destroy  the  answer  scripts  till  the  completion  of \nthe selection process. As has been stated in its affidavit \nwhich is not controverted by the petitioners, the Board in \nits  normal  course  disposes  of  answer  scripts  after  three \nmonths  from  the  date  of  declaration  of  result  thereof.  In \nthe absence of any instruction from the State Government, \nthe Board was not supposed to and could not be expected \nto  keep  the  answer  scripts  un-destroyed  or  preserved \nfor indefinite period when it was not sure as to when the \nselection process would be completed by the DPC. In the \npresent case, one year after which the Board destroyed the \nanswer scripts, is reasonable time for keeping the answer \nscripts un-destroyed or preserved. It is understandable if \nthe Board was entrusted to complete the entire selection \nprocess but it was not so in the present case. Therefore, \nkeeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances, there \nis no reason as to why this court ought to interfere with \nthe  written  examination  being  conducted  by  the  Board, \nwhen there was no grievance from any of the unsuccessful \ncandidates against the Board except only the fact that the \nanswer  scripts  were  destroyed  before  the  completion  of \nthe selection process which was not in its control and the \nreasons as to why the answer scripts were to be destroyed, \nhave been narrated above. As regards the interview also, \nthere  appears  to  be  no  allegation/complain  from  any  of \nthe  unsuccessful  candidates  raising  objection  against \nthe DPC. The petitioners have not stated in their petition \nanything about the irregularities, manipulation, arbitrariness \ncommitted  by  the  DPC  in  the  viva-voce  test.  When  the \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f24 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nselect list came to be published in the newspaper, the public \nsuspected the genuineness of it and therefore, it attracted \nthe attention of the Cabinet which directed to constitute a \nCommittee to look into it. At that point of time also, there \nis no material on record to show that any one demanded \nthat  the  viva-voce  be  repeated  in  the  interest  of  public. \nThe fact that only some of the petitioners approached the \nHon’ble  High  Court  praying  that  the  State  respondents \nbe directed to make the official declaration of the result, \nshows that they were not aggrieved by the viva-voce being \nconducted  by  the  DPC  and  they  wanted  only  the  result \nto  be  declared  by  the  State  respondents. Accordingly, \non  the  recommendation  of  the  Review  DPC,  the  result \nof  the  selection  was  declared  on  04-09-2011.  Thus,  it \ncan be seen that there is nothing wrong in the selection \nprocess  upto  the  stage  of  viva  voce  test  and  therefore, \nno order can be passed by this court quashing the entire \nselection  process,  as  prayed  for  by  the  petitioners,  only \non the ground that the answer scripts had been destroyed \nbefore the completion of the selection process. \n\n[10] As  regards  the  second  issue,  the  contention  of  the \nlearned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners  that  in  the \ndeclaration of result, some candidates were shown to have \nbeen selected against the seats allegedly reserved for the \nOBC  category  which  was  totally  contrary  to  the  Notice \ndated  12-09-2006,  merits  consideration  by  this  court.  In \nthe said Notice dated 12-09-2006, nothing is mentioned \nabout any seat being reserved for the OBC category and \nit  could  not  be  done  also,  at  that  point  of  time,  for  the \nsimple  reason  that  admittedly,  the  Office  Memorandum \nprescribing  reservation  of  seats  for  the  OBC  category \ncame  to  be  issued  only  on  27-12-2006  after  the  Notice \ndated 12-09-2006 having been issued by the Employment \nOfficer and even after the written examination having been \nheld by the Board. Moreover, this OM dated 27-12-2006 \ndoes not indicate that it would apply retrospectively. There \nis  no  material  on  record  to  show  that  after  the  said  OM \ndated  27-12-2006  having  been  issued,  a  decision  was \ntaken by the State respondents to make an amendment \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n25\n\nin  the  breakup  of  seats,  as  detailed  in  the  said  notice, \nallotted amongst the categories by adding OBC category \ntherein  and  a  notice  thereof  was  issued  informing  the \ncandidates about such amendment. From the perusal of \nthe proceedings of the Review DPC, it appears that it had \nproceeded on an erroneous assumption that seats were \nreserved  for  the  candidates  belonging  to  OBC  and  the \nDPC  had  not  referred  to  any  order  issued  by  the  State \nrespondents, subsequent to the issuance of the said OM, \nthat  the  OM  would  apply  to  the  then  ongoing  selection \nprocess  after  due  notice  being  given  to  the  candidates. \nThe  Review  DPC,  in  its  proceeding,  has  merely  stated \nthat it has followed the 200 point reservation roster which \ncame to be introduced only after the written examination \nand the viva-voce test were over. \n\n…….       ……...         ………        ……..        ……        ….\n\nAs  is  evident  from  the  above  decision  of  the  Hon’ble \nSupreme Court, an advertisement shall be issued in matters \nof public employment. The purpose of requiring the issuance \nof an advertisement is to give wide publicity to the eligible \ncandidates as regards the terms and conditions including \nthe  criteria  in  respect  of  the  details  of  selection.  Any \nchange in the terms and conditions shall be made known \nto  all  the  candidates  so  that  they  could  act  accordingly. \nAs mandated under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, \nequal opportunity shall be given to all in matters of public \nemployment. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing \nfor the petitioners has submitted that although almost all \nthe  petitioners  belong  to  OBC  category,  they  did  not  get \nan  opportunity  to  get  their  names  sponsored  as  OBC \ncandidates.  There  is  no  statement  in  the  writ  petition  in \nsupport of his submission but when he made the submission \nduring  the  course  of  hearing,  the  same  was  not  denied \nby any of the counsels appearing for the respondents. It \nmay  also  be  noted  at  this  juncture  that  the  grievance  of \nthe petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 is that in spite \nof her name being sponsored as OBC candidate, she had \nbeen  treated  as  unreserved  candidate  and  accordingly, \nher  name  was  not  included  in  the  impugned  list  of  OBC \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f26 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ncandidates,  though  she  secured  more  marks  than  many \nof  the  candidates  shown  in  the  said  OBC  list. Thus,  it  is \nnot clear as to how the candidates were sponsored by the \nEmployment  Officer. At  the  time  of  getting  his/her  name \nsponsored, was the concerned person required to indicate \nwhether he/she belongs to OBC category because by then, \nthe OM dated 27-12-2006 had not yet been issued at all? \nOr  is  it  the  case  that  the  candidates  were  sponsored  by \nthe Employment Officer based on the information furnished \nby  the  person  concered  at  the  time  of  registration  of  his \nname in the employment exchange and if that be so, why \nwas the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 denied the \nbenefit  of  being  OBC  candidate.  On  a  query  put  to  the \nlearned Government Advocate by this court in this regard, \nhe was unable to give a concrete answer saying that the \nGovernment file was silent about it. No additional affidavit in \ncompliance with the order dated 10-09-2015 passed by this \ncourt, has been filed by the State respondents in respect \nof similar queries. In the present case, in the Notice dated \n12-09-2006, it is specifically provided as under:\n\n1)\n\nPrimary Teacher\n\nGen. Category\n\nST\n\nSC\n\nPhy. Handicapped\n\n910\n\n442\n\n29\n\n42\n\n1423\n\n…….             …….              …….             ……            …….\n\nIt is nowhere mentioned in the said notice that certain seats \nare reserved for the OBC category and on the contrary, \nwhen the result of the selection was declared, the names \nof as many as 242 candidates were shown to have been \nselected against the seats reserved for the OBC category. \nTo contend that the criteria cannot be changed after the \nprocess for selection has commenced, the learned counsel \nappearing  for  the  petitioners  has  placed  reliance  on  the \ndecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan \nMohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors, reported in \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n27\n\nAIR 2008 SC 1657 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court \nhas held that once the advertisement had been issued on \nthe basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the \neffect would be that the selection process should continue \non  the  basis  of  the  criteria  which  was  laid  down  and  it \ncannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made \nsubsequently. The Review DPC had committed error while \nrecommending  the  candidates  belong  to  OBC  category \nas  if  there  was  reservation  for  them  as  per  the  Notice \ndated 12-09-2006 and the State respondents had blindly \naccepted the same. In fairness and in order to give equal \nopportunity, the State respondents ought to have given a \nnotice to all the candidates that the OM dated 27-12-2006 \nwould apply to the then onging selection process and all \nthose  candidates,  including  the  petitioners,  belonging  to \nOBC category who could not get themselves sponsored \nas OBC candidates, could have been given an opportunity \nto do so. In other words, in case certain seats were to be \nreserved for the OBC, the State respondents must have \nensured that all the candidates belonging to OBC category \nhad got themselves sponsored by the Employment Officer. \nIt  appears  that  no  such  excercise  had  been  done  by \nthe  State  respondents  at  all  in  the  present  case  and  no \nopportunity was granted to them. Denial of such opportunity \nto the petitioners has attracted the provisions of Article 16 \nof the Constitution of India. Failing to do that, the actions \nof  the  State  respondents  are  unreasonable,  arbitrary \nand  illegal  as  being  violative  of Article  14  and  16  of  the \nConstitution of India. The part of the selection process, as \nindicated above, i.e., from the stage where the error had \ncrept in, is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be quashed and \nin other words, the recommendation of the Review DPC, \nNotification dated 04-09-2011 and the Government order \ndated 09-12-2011 are liable to be quashed.\n\n[11]  That  since  this  court  having  held  in  the  preceding \npara that the selection of as many as 242 candidates as \nPrimary Teachers against the seats reserved for the OBC \ncategory, without the same being mentioned in the Notice \ndated  12-09-2006,  is  bad  and  liable  to  be  quashed,  no \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f28 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\norder  is  required  to  be  passed  in  this  writ  petition  being \nW.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 and accordingly, the writ petition \nstands disposed of.”\n\n9.  The learned Judge in the judgment dated 06.10.2015 noted that for \nthe  written  test  conducted  on  22.12.2006,  the  answer  scripts  were \ndestroyed on 15.5.2008. The Court however opined that the Board \nof Secondary Education did not preserve the answer scripts because \nof paucity of space and also because of the practice followed by the \nBoard for weeding out answer scripts within a fix time frame. When \nrecruitment for public posts is being made by the State, the preservation \nof  the  answer  scripts  till  reasonable  time  after  the  final  declaration \nof result is the prudent course to adopt. This omission was however \noverlooked which definitely was disappointing for those who failed to \nqualify in the written test. Since things can’t be undone, we expect all \nconcerned to be mindful of their responsibility in future recruitments, \nto preserve the answer scripts till the selection process is successfully \ncompleted, to obviate similar such allegation of wrong doings.\n\n10.  As can be seen, the High Court condoned the allegation made by \nthe  writ  petitioner(s)  in  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.815  of  2011  about  the \nselection  being  vitiated  by  publication  of  names  of  the  selected \ncandidates in the local newspaper, well before the official declaration \nof  result.  The  learned  judge  concluded  that  this  by  itself  will  not \nwarrant interference with the selection process. With such findings, \nthe  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.815  of  2011  was  partly  allowed  and  the \nrecommendation of the Review DPC, the notification dated 04.09.2011 \nand the related Government Order, were set aside with direction to \nthe State-respondents to constitute a Review DPC to submit fresh \nrecommendation  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  Notification  dated \n12.09.2006. The recommendations were directed to confine to only \nthe unreserved, SC and ST categories. The candidates shortlisted \nin the OBC category were directed to be excluded altogether from \nthe fresh select list. \n\n11.  The  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.620  of  2011  filed  by  the  appellant \nKhunjamayum  Bimoti  Devi  was  disposed  of  on  29.03.2016  with \nthe declaration that her case is covered by the judgment and order \ndated 6.10.2015 in the W.P (C) No.815 of 2011 and W.P (C) No.127 \nof 2012. This judgment of the High Court is under challenge in the \nCivil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15482 of 2016.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n29\n\n12.  When the challenge to the High Court judgment dated 06.10.2015 \ncame to be considered by this Court, an affidavit dated 11.03.2016 \ncame to be filed on behalf of the State of Manipur, by Mr. H. Daleep \nSingh, Commissioner (Education/S). The said affidavit being of some \nrelevance, is extracted herein below:-\n\n“An Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No.4\n\nI,  H.  Deleep  Singh,  IAS,  now  serving  as  Commissioner \n(Education/S) Government of Manipur, have gone through \nthe contents of the I.A. No. 2 of 2016 and I am acquainted \nwith the facts of the case and having been authorized by \nthe other State Respondents, I am competent to swear this \naffidavit and accordingly, I swear this affidavit on solemn \noath and affirm as hereunder. \n\n1.  That, with reference to para Nos. I and II of the above \nreferred I.A., the answering deponent has no comment \nto offer as the same are the matter of records. \n\n2.  That,  with  reference  to  para  Nos.  Ill  and  IV  of  the \nabove referred I.A., the answering deponent begs to \nsubmit  that  the  Respondent  No.  6  to  1428  are  the \nselected  candidates  for  appointment  to  the  post  of \nPrimary  Teachers  and  they  have  been  serving  as \nPrimary Teachers for the last about 5 years in different \nSchools  under  the  Department  of  Education  (S), \nGovernment of Manipur. On considering the length \nof  service  rendered  by  the  Respondent  Nos.  6  to \n1428,  the  Government  of  Manipur  is  agreeable  to \naccommodate the Writ petitioners against the existing \nvacancies if the Hon’ble Supreme Court is pleased \nto protect the appointment of the Respondent Nos. 6 \nto 1428 and at the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme \nCourt may be pleased to pass an order restraining \nthe unsuccessful candidates who had chosen not to \nchallenge selection process for the last about 5 years \nto raise any claim in future in order to make the end \nof litigation on the same issue. \n\nIn  the  light  of  the  above  facts  and  circumstances,  it  is, \ntherefore, prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f30 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\npleased enough to dispose of the above referred I.A. and \nthe connected SLP No. 32728 of 2015 in the lines stated \nin para No.2 of the present affidavit for the ends of justice.”\n\n13.  This  Court  considered  the  averments  of  the  Commissioner  in  the \nabove  affidavit  and  disposed  of  the  challenge  to  the  High  Court’s \norder dated 6.10.2015. The Supreme Court specifically referred to \nthe affidavit (dated 11.3.2016) filed by the State of Manipur and after \nextracting  the  contents  therein,  recorded  the  following  in  its  order \ndated 16.03.2016:- \n\n“In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to record that \nno further claim at the instance of any other unsuccessful \ncandidate on the basis of the present order and undertaking \ngiven by the Government shall be entertained by the High \nCourt. \n\nShri  Dushyant  Dave,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the \npetitioner  in  SLP(C)  No.  32728/2015  prayed  that  the \nrespondent-State  be  directed  to  issue  the  appointment \norders  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time  as  per  the \nundertaking of the State referred to above. \n\nIn the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the \nState to issue the appointment orders in favour of the writ \npetitioners (before the High Court) within a within a period \nof eight weeks from today. \n\nPending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”\n\n14.  When  this  Court  disposed  of  the  SLP  (Civil)  No.  32728  of  2015 \nand  Special  Leave  Petition  (Civil)  arising  out  of  CC  No.  4129  of \n2016, the Court was not informed that other petitions of aggrieved \ncandidates were also pending in Courts. The Bench passed the order \non 16.3.2016 oblivious of the fact that multiple petitions challenging \nthe  selection  process  were  pending  in  the  High  Court.  This  Court \nbeing unaware about the pendency of other petitions filed by other \naspirants, had no occasion to address the concern raised in those \npetitions and thereby observed that further claim at the instance of \nany other unsuccessful candidates on the basis of the present order \nand undertaking given by the Government, shall not be entertained \nby the High Court.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n31\n\n15. \n\nIn  the  affidavit  dated  11.03.2016  filed  by  Mr.  H.  Daleep  Singh, \nCommissioner (Education/S), it was stated that the respondent Nos. \n6  to  1428  in  the  Civil Appeal  arising  out  of  SLP  (Civil)  No.  32728 \nof  2015,  are  the  selected  candidates  and  they  have  been  serving \nas primary school teachers. It was also averred in the affidavit that \nthe Government of Manipur is agreeable to accommodate the writ \npetitioners against the existing vacancies. The Supreme Court in the \norder dated 16.03.2016 barred appointment of those who had chosen \nnot to challenge the selection process for last about 5 years. Such \nimpression  in  the  Commissioner’s  affidavit  was  not  only  incorrect \nfactually  but  the  same  also  gave  an  impression  to  this  Court  that \nno other petitions were pending in the Courts. Therefore, the right \nof  those  aspirants  in  the  pending  cases  was  overlooked  and  not \naddressed by this Court in its order dated 16.03.2016.\n\n16.  As  can  be  gathered  from  the  judgment  dated  06.10.2015,  the \nManipur High Court set aside the recommendation for appointment \nto 242 posts carved out for the OBC category candidates. The said \npronouncement  was  not  disturbed  by  the  Supreme  Court.  In  fact \nthis Court did not really adjudicate the merits of the challenge to the \nHigh Court’s judgment or had occasion to address the appointment \nclaims of those, whose names may appear in the revised select list, \nin terms of the High Court’s judgment dated 06.10.2015.\n\n17.  We have considered the nature of the recruitment process challenged \nin  this  proceeding.  The  inevitable  conclusion  from  the  foregoing \ndiscussion  is that the selection list should  be redrawn,  in  terms  of \nHigh  court’s  Judgment  dated  06.10.2015.  Let  us  now  look  at  the \nthree  categories  of  candidates  claiming  selection  in  the  redrawn \nfinal list. The first category would be those who have qualified the \ninterview and are already included in the list filed before this Court, \nthe second category would be those who have qualified the interview \nbut are not included in said list and the third category would consist \nof candidates who have not qualified the interview as such but are \nadmitted as OBC candidates. \n\n18.  The  selection  of  the  OBC  category  candidates  was  found  to  be \nunmerited by the High Court. As can be appreciated the notification \ndated 12.09.2006 for appointment of 1423 primary teachers notified \nthe State’s reservation policy in the following manner- \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f32 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nPrimary Teacher\n\nGen. Category\n\nST\n\nSC\n\nPhy. Handicapped\n\n910\n\n442\n\n29\n\n42\n\n1423\n\nHowever,  the  review  DPC  noted  that  by  way  of  the  subsequent \nnotification (dated 27.12.2006), the benefit of reservation has been \nextended  to  OBC  category  in  the  State  of  Manipur,  following  the \n200-point formula. \n\n19.  Some of the selectees (after the revised exercise) may already be \nserving amongst the OBC category candidates by virtue of their open \ncategory merit. They would naturally be accommodated accordingly \nas per the revised exercise. Some of the selectees (after the revised \nexercise),  could  be  amongst  the  appellants/petitioners  in  these \npending  cases,  who  would  also  be  entitled  to  benefit  of  selection. \nSince  the  appointment  to  the  242  posts  in  the  OBC  category  was \ninterfered  by  the  High  Court,  those  posts  would  now  be  available \nfor making appointment after the select list is redrawn, in terms of \nthe High Court’s judgment dated 06.10.2015. Since the appellants/\npetitioners  had  filed  petitions  or  were  agitating  their  claims  for \nappointment,  around  the  same  time  as  those  who  secured  relief \nin the WP (C) No.815 of 2011, these claimants in our opinion, also \ndeserve similar consideration. \n\n20.  Next, we have to consider those who are not before the Court but \nare in the category of job seekers, who responded to the notification \ndated 12.09.2006, succeeded in the written test and also appeared \nin  the  interview  segment.  When  the  select  list  is  being  revised  in \nterms of High Court’s order dated 6.10.2015, new names are bound \nto figure in the revised select list, as per the respective performance \nof the candidates, in the recruitment test. The question is whether all \naspirants whose names find place in the revised select list, pursuant \nto  the  course  correction  process,  will  secure  appointment  against \nthe notified 1423 posts of Primary Teachers, irrespective of whether \nthey  were  litigating  for  appointment.  Should  this  Court  deny  relief \nto  them  by  considering  that  there  is  an  element  of  acquiescence \nby those, who did not move Court? For answer, we may benefit by \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n33\n\nreferring to the ratio in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind \nKumar Srivastava and Others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 where \nthe following was said: \n\n“22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading \nof the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants \nas well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.\n\n22.1.  The  normal  rule  is  that  when  a  particular  set  of \nemployees is given relief by the court, all other identically \nsituated  persons  need  to  be  treated  alike  by  extending \nthat benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination \nand would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of \nIndia. This principle needs to be applied in service matters \nmore  emphatically  as  the  service  jurisprudence  evolved \nby this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly \nsituated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the \nnormal rule would be that merely because other similarly \nsituated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they \nare not to be treated differently.\n\n22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized \nexceptions  in  the  form  of  latches  and  delays  as  well  as \nacquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the \nwrongful  action  in  their  cases  and  acquiesced  into  the \nsame and woke up after long delay only because of the \nreason  that  their  counterparts  who  had  approached  the \ncourt earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such \nemployees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment \nrendered  in  the  case  of  similarly  situated  persons  be \nextended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters \nand laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence,  would \nbe a valid ground to dismiss their claim. \n\n22.3.  However,  this  exception  may  not  apply  in  those \ncases where the judgment pronounced by the court was \njudgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly \nsituated  persons,  whether  they  approached  the  court  or \nnot.  With  such  a  pronouncement  the  obligation  is  cast \nupon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to \nall similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur \nwhen  the  subject-matter  of  the  decision  touches  upon \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f34 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the \nlike. On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was \nin  personam  holding  that  benefit  of  the  said  judgment \nshall accrue to the parties before the court and such an \nintention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be \nimpliedly  found  out  from  the  tenor  and  language  of  the \njudgment,  those  who  want  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  said \njudgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their \npetition does not suffer from either laches and delays or \nacquiescence.”\n\n21.  The  principles  laid  down  in  the  case  of  Arvind  Kumar  Srivastava \n(supra) are referred by this court in Shoeline vs. Commissioner of \nService Tax & Ors.” reported as (2017) 16 SCC 104 to observe that \nwhen  there  is  a  declaration  of  law  by  court,  the  judgment  can  be \ntreated as judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by \ntreating those similarly situated, similarly. \n\n22.  Therefore,  as  this  Court  is  directing  appointments  strictly  in \naccordance with merit of the candidates in the recruitment test, as \nper  the  revised  list,  we  are  of  the  view  that  parity  relief  should  be \nconsidered for all similarly situated persons. A differential treatment for \nthose who did not approach the Court earlier may not be warranted \nin the facts of the present case, by treating them to be fence sitters \nand would amount to denial of opportunity under Article 14 and Article \n16 of the Constitution of India. One reason for taking such a view \nis the prolonged recruitment process commencing from 12.09.2006 \nculminating  in  the  official  declaration  of  result  on  04.09.2011, \ninterspersed with multiple litigations by the aggrieved candidates. \n\n23.  Also, one cannot ignore that the job seekers who participated in the \nrecruitment test following the Board’s notification dated 22.12.2006 \nand  are  selected,  are  put  in  limbo  waiting  for  employment  for  last \nseveral years. So far those who are not yet appointed, the door of \njustice must be opened as this Court is quite capable of hearing the \nsilent  knocks  of  the  selectees,  possibly  incapacitated  to  approach \nthe Court by reasons beyond their control.\n\n24.  That  apart,  the  High  Court’s  judgment  dated  6.10.2015  as  earlier \nstated, must be construed as judgment in rem with intention to give \nbenefit to all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they \nwere before the Court or not. On the other hand, this Court’s judgment \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n35\n\n25. \n\nrendered  on  16.03.2016  is  confined  only  to  those  covered  by  the \norder and should be considered to be a judgment in personam. For \nthis  reason  also,  the  benefit  of  the  High  Court’s  judgment  dated \n6.10.2015  should  be  made  available  by  the  State Authorities  to \neveryone as per their respective merit position, in the revised select \nlist, against the notified 1423 posts of Primary Teachers. \n\nIt is also projected that many more vacancies of primary teachers \nhave since become available. As the recruitment process was initiated \non  12.9.2006,  vacancies  are  bound  to  occur  by  efflux  of  time  but \nto order appointment against the later vacancies (beyond the 1423 \nposts notified on 12.9.2006) will mean, infringing the rights of those \nwho have since become eligible to apply for consideration, for the \nsubsequent vacancies. Therefore, the beneficiaries of this judgment \nsubject  to  their  respective  merit  position  in  the  revised  select  list, \nshould in our opinion be accommodated only against the notified 1423 \nposts. The appointment to the 214 OBC category candidates was set \naside by the High Court on 6.10.2015 and the said decision was left \nundisturbed by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 16.03.2016 \nand as such these vacancies will be available to accommodate most \nof the deserving selectees. \n\n26.  Mr.  V.  Giri,  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  representing  the  State  of \nManipur  in  the  above  context  informs  the  Court  that  the  Primary \nTeachers who were appointed on 09.12.2011 are serving for over 13 \nyears and some of them might have to make way for the selectees. \nMr. Anupam Lal Das, the learned senior counsel in his turn submits \nthat the clients he represents were appointed on substantive basis \nby the Government on 9.12.2011. Despite their long service, a few \nof them may not find place in the revised select list for adjustment \nagainst  the  1423  notified  vacancies.  The  submission  is  that  since \nthe  cases  before  the  High  Court  and  this  Court  had  continued  for \nover a decade in one form or the other, the appointment of the long \nserving teachers should be protected. \n\n27.  On the above contention of Mr. Giri supported by Mr. Das, we need \nto observe that appointment is being ordered for those whose names \nwould figure in the revised select list, strictly in order of merit against \nthe  1423  vacancies  notified  on  12.9.2006.  We  do  appreciate  that \nthe concerned appointees have been serving for over 13 years and \ndisruption of their service may lead to unimaginable hardships for this \ngroup of people. It is therefore left to the Government’s discretion to \n\nKhunjamayum Bimoti Devi v. The State of Manipur & Ors. \f36 \n\n28. \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ntake a decision for those who are serving and whose names may not \nfigure in the revised select list, in pursuant to the ordered exercise. \n\nIn conclusion, the judgment rendered by the High Court on 6.10.2015 \nin  the  W.P  (C)  No.8153  of  2011  and  W.P(C)  No.127  of  2012  are \nupheld.  In  consequence,  the  appeals/writ  petitions  filed  by  the \naspirant  teachers  stand  disposed  of  and  those  filed  by  the  State \nof  Manipur  stand  dismissed.  The  State  authorities  must  draw  up \nthe revised select list in terms of the High Court’s judgment within \n4  weeks  from  today. The  appointment  orders  for  those  who  figure \nin  the  revised  select  list  are  ordered  to  be  issued,  within  4  weeks \nof the publication of the select list. By virtue of such appointments, \nthe fresh appointees shall have no claim towards arrears salary. But \nthey shall be granted benefit of notional appointment w.e.f. 9.12.2011 \nwhen  the  substantive  appointments  were  given  to  those  who  are \nserving but this notional  benefit is ordered only for the purpose of \nsuperannuation benefits. It is ordered accordingly.\n\n29.  Pending  application(s),  if  any,  including  impleadment/intervention \n\napplication(s) stand closed.\n\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. of 2024 (ARISING OUT OF \nDIARY NO. 20462 OF 2021)\n\n1.  Delay condoned.\n\n2. \n\nIn  view  of  the  today’s  order  passed  in  Civil Appeal  arising  out  of \nSLP  (Civil)  No.  15482  of  2016,  the  Special  Leave  Petition  stands \ndismissed.\n\n3.  Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.\n\nResult of the Case:  Matters disposed of.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f"}