Supreme Court Confirms Manipur HC's Decision to Cancel Selection of 242 Primary Teachers

In the case of Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi vs. The State of Manipur & Ors., the Supreme Court recently upheld the Manipur High Court's decision to cancel the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category, citing procedural irregularities.

The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, directed the State to create a new selection list in line with the High Court's ruling, restricting appointments to the originally advertised 1,423 vacancies.

The key issue was the legality of the OBC reservation, which was retroactively applied through a notification issued after the recruitment process had begun. The petitioners argued that this post-hoc change violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the original recruitment notice made no mention of OBC reservations.

In the case of Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi vs. The State of Manipur & Ors., the Supreme Court recently upheld a decision by the Manipur High Court that invalidated the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural errors.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti ruled that the State must create a new selection list, adhering to the High Court's ruling, which limited the appointments to the original 1,423 vacancies. The recruitment process, which began in 2006, included written tests and interviews. In 2010, an unofficial list was leaked in a local newspaper, raising concerns about irregularities. The official results were later announced in 2011, but several legal challenges argued that the OBC reservations were applied retroactively without adequate notice, rendering the selection of 242 OBC candidates invalid.

The High Court found the retroactive application of OBC reservations unlawful, as it denied proper notice to all eligible OBC candidates. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that altering the rules mid-process would compromise the fairness of the recruitment, denying equal opportunity to other eligible candidates.

The Court also acknowledged the candidates who participated in interviews but were not appointed and had not approached the Court. It noted that these candidates, who have waited years for employment, deserve consideration.

The Supreme Court's order dismissed the appeals from the State of Manipur and directed the authorities to prepare a revised selection list in line with the High Court's judgment within four weeks. The newly appointed candidates will not receive back pay but will be granted notional appointment benefits from December 9, 2011, for superannuation purposes.