SC upholds HC direction setting aside selection of 242 Primary Teachers

NEW DELHI, Oct 12
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court's decision which annulled the selection of 242 candidates for Primary Teacher positions in the OBC category due to procedural flaws.
The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti held that the State should draw up a fresh selection list following the High Court's judgment limiting appointments to the originally stated 1,423 vacancies.
The recruitment for 1,423 Primary Teachers in Man-ipur started in 2006, invol- ving written tests and interviews. However, the release of an unofficial selection list in a local newspaper in 2010 sparked widespread claims of irregularities. Although an official result was announced in 2011, several petitions contested the selection process, arguing that reservations for OBC candidates were applied retro- actively without proper notice, thereby invalidating the selection of the 242 OBC candidates.
The main issue was the legality of the OBC reservation, which was applied retroactively through a notification issued after the recruitment process had commenced. The petitioners argued that this change infringed upon their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the original recruitment notice did not include any reference to OBC reservations.
The High Court set aside the selection made on 242 seats of OBC finding the retroactive application of the OBC reservation as illegal because proper opportunity was not served to all the candidates belonging to the OBC category to apply for the said posts.
Approving the High Court's decision, the order pronounced by Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that changing the rules of the selection process mid-way would undermine the fairness of the selection process as it would deny equality of opportunity to other candidates eligible to be recruited in the OBC category. The Court also took notice of the candidates who appeared in the interview but weren't yet appointed and haven't appeared before the Court adjudicating the issue. LiveLaw