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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.