Case Title:
KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.
Date of Order:
19th September 2024
Parties:
KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVI: APPELLANT(S)
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.: RESPONDENT(S)
Subject:
The issue is to the recruitment of 1,423 Primary Teachers in Manipur, which was compromised by irregularities including the destruction of answer scripts, improper reservations for OBCs, and leaks of results. These concerns have resulted in many legal challenges pertaining to the integrity and openness of the selection process.
Facts
The recruiting procedure began with a notice dated September 12, 2006, released by the Employment Officer of Imphal West. Candidates were needed to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The recruitment was for 1,423 positions of Primary Teachers, in addition to 203 Primary Hindi Teachers and 46 Hindi Graduate Teachers. This research will concentrate only on the recruitment of 1,423 Primary Teachers.
The Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, administered a written examination on December 22, 2006. The test results were announced on April 16, 2007, revealing that 5,322 applicants had successfully passed the examination.
Interviews for selected applicants occurred from February 6, 2009, until August 2009. Prior to the formal announcement of the results, a local newspaper in Manipur disclosed the names of the shortlisted candidates on June 26, 2010.
The disclosure prompted the Government of Manipur to establish an investigation to examine any irregularities by the Recruitment Committee, referred to as the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
On March 7, 2011, the Director of Education for the Government of Manipur issued a notice to engage 1,051 Primary Teachers on a contractual basis. The distribution included 512 applicants from the General category, 177 from OBC, 322 from ST, 21 from SC, and 19 from the PH category.
Numerous names in this notice were also included on the list that was disclosed in the local media. The Chief Minister of Manipur elucidated that the appointments were provisional, since the academic session was scheduled to commence in April 2011.
In the absence of an official results statement, some discontented candidates petitioned the High Court. On July 27, 2011, the High Court mandated the State to announce the results, culminating in the formal notice of chosen candidates on September 4, 2011.
A total of 1,423 individuals were announced as chosen. The appellant, Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi, along with other petitioners, later contested this selection procedure, alleging several irregularities.
Argument's of Petitioner
The petitioners, spearheaded by Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi, said that the recruiting process was plagued by significant anomalies, hence tainting the whole selection. They said that the Board administered the written test; nevertheless, the answer scripts were obliterated by the Board one year after the results were announced, in May 2008.
The petitioners argued that this destruction undermined the transparency of the recruiting process and obstructed their capacity to contest the accuracy of the assessment. The petitioners expressed their concerns regarding the potential publication of the results in the local newspaper prior to the official announcement.
This revelation cast doubt on the integrity of the selection process and generated accusations of manipulation. The petitioners said that the untimely release of results suggested bias and inequity, seeking court intervention to examine and invalidate the recruiting procedure.
A significant issue presented by the petitioners pertained to the reservation policy. The first announcement on September 12, 2006, did not reference reservations for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
In the announced results, 242 applicants were shown as chosen for seats allocated for OBCs. The petitioners contended that the Office Memorandum (OM) establishing OBC reservations was promulgated only on December 27, 2006, subsequent to the notification and the administration of the written test.
The retroactive application of the OM was unwarranted, since applicants were not apprised of such objections at the commencement of the recruiting process. They said that amending the recruiting conditions throughout the process contravened the ideals of equality and transparency established in Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioners contended that, while they qualified for quota under the OBC category, they were precluded from applying under that category due to a lack of information on such reservations at the commencement of the recruitment process.
This resulted in the exclusion of worthy individuals from selection owing to capricious judgments made by the authorities.
Argument's of Respondent
The Solicitor General of the State of Manipur argued that the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, had been following a standard administrative procedure by obliterating the response protocols. Response scripts were disposed of within a specific time frame following the announcement of results by the Board, as a result of spatial constraints.
The State said that there was no directive from the Government to retain the response scripts beyond this period, and hence, the Board operated within its authority.
The State contended that the early release of the findings in the local newspaper, although regrettable, did not influence the overall selection process. They said that the published list corresponded with the final official list and that no substantial evidence had been provided to indicate manipulation or bias.
The State emphasized that the petitioners did not provide specific allegations of misconduct during the interview process nor give concrete evidence demonstrating that the DPC acted arbitrarily.
The State said that the implementation of OBC reservations via the OM dated December 27, 2006, aligned with its developing reservation policy. The Review DPC, responsible for completing the selection, adhered to the later adopted 200-point reservation roster.
The State contended that this measure was executed in good faith to extend reservation advantages to the OBC group, asserting that there was no malicious intent in the retroactive implementation of the reservation.
The State said that the appointments were made based on the most reliable information available and were intended to guarantee that the educational system had an adequate number of instructors to begin the academic session.
Any delay in recruiting or annulment of appointments would have negatively affected students' education; hence, the measures made were in the broader public interest.
Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy, painstakingly reviewed both sides' claims. The Court agreed with the petitioners that the Board of Secondary Education's destruction of answer scripts was an oversight that required addressing.
The Court noted that, although the Board ascribed the disposal of the answer scripts to space restrictions, a more prudent strategy would have been to keep them until the end of the whole selection process, including appointments.
This would have ensured more transparency and accountability, particularly given the scope of the recruitment and the large number of applications.
The Court underscored that openness in recruiting is essential for guaranteeing equity, especially in public employment. The Board of Secondary Education compromised the integrity of the recruiting process by deleting the response scripts.
Nevertheless, the Court recognized that the obliteration of the response letters was irreversible. The Court anticipated that, rather than annulling the written test, authorities would ensure the preservation of answer scripts until the completion of the full selection process to prevent similar charges of misconduct in future recruiting endeavors.
The Court noted that the premature release of the select list in a local newspaper prior to the formal announcement was improper. The Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this anomaly compromised the integrity of the selection process or caused unfairness to the petitioners.
The Court observed that the petitioners did not provide any specific examples of misconduct during the interview process or irregularities by the DPC, with the exception of the disclosure of the results.
Reservations for the OBC category were the primary focus of the Court's analysis. The Court deemed the petitioners' claims valid, noting that the implementation of OBC reservations post-initiation of the recruiting process was capricious and contravened the principles of equal opportunity.
The Court determined that any change in the selection criteria, including the reservation policy, must be promptly disclosed to all applicants to provide equal opportunity for competition. Retrospectively applying the OM of December 27, 2006, to the current recruiting process without adequate notification to the applicants constituted a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court referred to the decision in Madan Mohan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2008 SC 1657), which established that the criteria of a recruitment advertisement cannot be modified after it has been published in accordance with the current regulations.
The Court emphasized that the Review DPC had inadvertently implemented the OBC reservation without a formal modification to the original notice, and that the State had acted capriciously in endorsing the Review DPC's recommendation.
Consequent to these findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to annul the selection of 242 applicants under the OBC category, since it was not included in the first recruitment announcement.
The Court ordered the State to revise the select list, limiting it to the unreserved, SC, and ST categories in accordance with the original announcement. The Court mandated the preparation of the new choose list within four weeks and the subsequent issuance of appointment orders.
The Court also granted limited relief to those who had already been nominated and were acting as teachers.
