Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
Background
Rajasthan teachers were appointed after an earlier Supreme Court ruling struck down residence-based bonus marks but confined corrective appointment relief to specified litigants. The State later terminated appointments that it considered outside that relief, and the affected teachers challenged their removal. Some argued that their long service or comparative merit justified retention.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court refused to enlarge the earlier ruling's relief to later litigants or regularise appointments merely because the teachers had served for about a decade. It nevertheless set aside Danveer Singh's termination because his own earlier favourable order belonged to the relevant litigation and had not been appealed. For terminated teacher-appellants it permitted a one-time upper-age relaxation in the next recruitment, subject to an undertaking that a fresh appointment would end if the pending fraudulent-appointment criminal case resulted in guilt and imprisonment. The Court left fraud allegations for the criminal courts and otherwise disposed of the appeals without costs.
Lesson Learnt
A court victory limited to particular litigants cannot automatically be used to claim an appointment by everyone with a similar grievance. Long service does not by itself cure an appointment outside the ruling, although a court may grant carefully conditioned relief for a future selection.