KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVI versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 19-09-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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]
2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.