Upholding Equality: Supreme Court Reaffirms Fair Recruitment Practices in Manilal vs. State of Rajasthan

5 days ago

4 min read

AUTHOR: KANISHKA GAUR

INTRODUCTION

Discriminatory treatment refers to the unfair or unequal treatment of an individual or group based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or any other protected attribute. This type of treatment can manifest in various ways, such as exclusion, harassment, denial of opportunities, or biased decision-making in areas like employment, education, healthcare, housing, and public services. Discriminatory treatment is often illegal and goes against principles of equality and fairness.

The case Manilal vs. State of Rajasthan addresses the issue of discriminatory treatment in public recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade III in the Scheduled Area under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and other related rules.

FACTS:

On September 11, 2017, the State of Rajasthan issued an advertisement for recruiting Teachers Grade III, Level II in the Scheduled Area and specified the minimum educational qualifications under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

The appellant, Manilal, applied for the post but was rejected on the grounds of not meeting the minimum marks criteria in his graduation—44.58%. According to the criteria, the cut-off required was 45% for the reserved category and 50% for general categories for candidates admitted to B.Ed. courses after a specific date.

Aggrieved by the rejection, Manilal filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed. After that, he filed a Special Appeal which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on April 27, 2022.

The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued a notification on November 13, 2019, clarifying that minimum graduation marks would not apply to those who had taken admission in B.Ed. courses before July 29, 2011. This clarification was crucial to the case, as it was a response to the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P..

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES:

Arguments presented by the appellant (Manilal):

The appellant's counsel, Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, argued that Manilal had taken admission in the B.Ed. course on October 23, 2009. According to the NCTE’s revised notification of November 13, 2019, which specified that the minimum percentage requirement would not be applicable to candidates who had enrolled before June 29, 2011, the appellant was eligible.
It was contended that denying appointment to Manilal while allowing similarly placed candidates like Rakesh Gaur (who also took admission before the stipulated cut-off date and was granted relief) was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The appellant’s counsel further argued that the High Court erroneously relied on the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor vs. State of Rajasthan, where the candidate joined after October 20, 2010, compared to Manilal. Instead, the High Court should have relied on the judgments in Ankul Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan and Rakesh Gaur vs. State of Rajasthan, which were directly applicable.

Arguments presented by the respondent (State of Rajasthan):

The State's counsel, Mr. Milind Kumar, maintained that the appellant's application was rightly rejected since he did not meet the minimum percentage requirement of 45% in his graduation, as specified in the advertisement and rules. The appellant had 44.58%, which was below the required threshold.
The respondents argued that the Division Bench of the High Court had correctly relied on Dinesh Chandra Damor vs. State of Rajasthan, and the rejection of the appellant's application was consistent with the norms and standards set forth by the NCTE.
The respondents emphasised that while the NCTE notification allowed for exemptions, it was not binding on the State’s discretion in setting criteria for public employment, particularly when such criteria were uniformly applied across all candidates.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT:

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered a judgement favouring the appellant, Manilal. The Court made several significant observations:

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred by relying on the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor instead of relying on the cases of Ankul Singhal and Rakesh Gaur, which were more applicable, as they involved candidates who took admissions under the same academic conditions as Manilal.
The Court underscored that treating similarly placed candidates differently, especially those admitted in the same academic session (2009-10), would result in an unreasonable classification. It was held that the reasoning in Ankul Singhal applied equally to Manilal, and denying him the same relief was discriminatory.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement and directed the respondent authorities to treat Manilal’s appointment, pursuant to the interim order of October 23, 2021, as a regular appointment. The Court allowed fitment of pay and other consequential benefits but denied back wages except for the period actually worked.

ANALYSIS:

The judgement shows that the law should be applied equally to everyone in similar situations. This prevents unfair treatment and protects the constitutional right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The case highlights how important it is for organisations like the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to provide clear guidelines that apply to past situations. This ensures that people are not unfairly affected by changes in rules or criteria that happen later.

The Supreme Court emphasised the need to follow the correct past decisions (precedents) to maintain consistency in judgments. Not following the correct precedents can lead to wrong decisions and unfair outcomes, as seen in this case.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court's judgement in Manilal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. highlights the importance of applying recruitment rules fairly and the need for consistent legal interpretations by courts. It not only corrects a possible injustice in this specific case but also sets a clear rule that will help guide future cases about eligibility and recruitment in government jobs.