Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran recently quashed the termination of four Class IV employees of the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship in Uttar Pradesh, holding that their removal in 2008 for being appointed beyond the notified vacancies was unjustified. The Court found that such appointments were permissible under the applicable recruitment rules, which allowed filling additional vacancies within a reasonable period. It directed that employees below the age of superannuation be reinstated in existing or supernumerary posts, while those who have crossed 60 years be granted minimum pension benefits, limiting the relief to the appellants alone.

The dispute concerned the termination of four Class IV employees appointed in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants were appointed in 2001 as orderlies and peons pursuant to an advertisement issued on 18 October 2000, which specified twelve vacancies with the condition that the number of posts “may increase or decrease.” Their services were terminated in 2008 on the ground that six appointments had been made in excess of the advertised vacancies, four of which related to the appellants.

Also Read: Hindu Succession Act Doesn’t Apply to Scheduled Tribes: Supreme Court Sets Aside Himachal Pradesh High Court’s Direction on Daughters’ Inheritance in Tribal Areas

The High Court of Allahabad, both its Single and Division Benches, upheld the termination, finding that the appointments exceeded the notified number of vacancies. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that their appointments were valid under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, which allowed a waiting list of reasonable dimension to fill vacancies arising in the same or immediately succeeding recruitment year. Reliance was placed on Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 2 SCC 734, wherein such interpretation had been accepted.

The respondent District Judge maintained that only twelve vacancies existed on the advertisement date and that any appointments beyond that limit were invalid. The State, through its counter affidavit, noted that subsequent advertisements were issued in 2008 and 2015, which reflected that several vacancies had arisen during the intervening period. The case materials included the advertisement, select list, appointment letters, and relevant records.

The Division Bench observed that the advertisement “specifically indicated that there could be an increase or decrease of vacancies,” thereby showing the appointing authority’s intention to maintain a waiting list to fill future vacancies. The Court stated that “this is in consonance with the interpretation of Rule 12 as has been arrived at in Naseem Ahmad.”

It recorded that “Rule 12 permits a waiting list of candidates to be maintained for each judgeship for the post of process servers, orderlies and office peons and farashes.” Referring to paragraph 23 of Naseem Ahmad, the Court quoted: “The expression ‘reasonable dimension’ used in Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules signifies that the wait list should be a moderate one containing that number of candidates which is adequate to meet the vacancies which might be available within a reasonable period in the year of recruitment or the year succeeding thereto.”

The Bench noted that “the situation is almost identical here, and so is Rule 12 squarely applicable.” It stated that vacancies had clearly arisen between 2000 and 2008 while the appellants were serving, as confirmed by the State’s own affidavit. The Court further recorded: “We are definite that the very same situation arose in Naseem Ahmad and the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench erred in not accepting the said contention, especially having ignored the clear recital of the notification that the vacancies could be increased or decreased.”

The Court observed: “We cannot but find the termination to be unjustified. However, the fact remains that the appellants have been out of employment for almost 17 years. We also see from the select list that the date of birth of 2nd and 4th appellants indicate the said appellants having passed the age of 60, while the others have little more time to superannuate, if the age of superannuation is 60. In the above circumstances especially when the appellants have not taken any efforts to pinpoint the substantive vacancies to which they were appointed and the appointment itself having been made temporarily, we issue the following directions; reckoning the fact that all the appellants have worked for eight years:”

“The appellants if not having completed the age of superannuation shall be accommodated in the existing vacancies of Class IV in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar. If there are no vacancies existing, they shall be appointed in a supernumerary post, which shall be adjusted against the future vacancies or shall seize on their retirement, whichever occurs earlier.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape FIR Under Section 64 BNS, Holding That a Consensual Relationship With Woman Met on Bumble Does Not Constitute a Criminal Offence

“If any of the appellants have crossed the age of superannuation, they shall be entitled to minimum pension dehors the fact that they have completed only 8 years in employment and not entitled to an appointment as of now.”

“Those appellants who are appointed shall be continued without any seniority but reckoning the period already spent in service also for determining pensionable service and in any event shall be granted pension at the minimum.”

“The appellants shall not be entitled to treat the intervening period of 17 years in which they have not worked, for any purpose, neither as notional service nor even for computing pensionable service.”

“The above directions shall apply only to the four appellants herein. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions making it clear that the directions issued are in the peculiar circumstances of this case and shall not be a precedent.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR; Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.; Mr. Deepak Rana, Adv.; Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Adv.; Mr. Joginder Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Prabhat Pichauri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv.; Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14980 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran