The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that appointments made from a waitlist to vacancies that arise after an advertisement are permissible, provided the advertisement explicitly states that the number of notified posts may increase or decrease. In a major relief to four Class IV employees of the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship in Uttar Pradesh, the Court set aside their termination, which was effected after eight years of service on the grounds that their appointments exceeded the initially advertised vacancies.
A bench comprising CJI B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found the termination to be unjustified and issued directions for the reinstatement of the employees who have not yet reached the age of superannuation, along with granting minimum pension to those who have.
Background of the Case
The four appellants, Sanjay Kumar Mishra and others, were appointed to Class IV posts in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar following a recruitment process that began with an advertisement on October 18, 2000. The advertisement notified twelve vacant posts but contained a specific rider that “the number of posts may be increased or decreased.”
The appellants were appointed on various dates in 2001 from the select list. However, on May 5, 2008, after approximately eight years of service, their employment was terminated. The sole ground for termination was that their appointments were among six made in excess of the twelve vacancies originally notified.
The employees challenged their termination before the Allahabad High Court. However, both a learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court found the termination to be justified, reasoning that the appointments were made beyond the number of vacancies advertised. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the employees filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellants, Senior Advocate Sh. M.C. Dhingra argued that the termination was illegal. He emphasized that the advertisement itself contemplated a change in the number of vacancies. He placed reliance on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 2 SCC 734, where it was held that Rule 12 of the relevant rules permits recruitment from a waitlist to fill vacancies that arise in excess of those advertised, if done within a reasonable period.
Representing the respondent, the District Judge of Ambedkar Nagar, Advocate Sh. Yashvardhan contended that as of the date of the advertisement, only twelve vacancies were available, and therefore, any appointments beyond that number could not be justified.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The judgment, authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, found the circumstances of the present case to be “almost identical” to those in the Naseem Ahmad case. The bench observed that the rider in the advertisement was a clear indication of the appointing authority’s intent. “The said recital in the advertisement would clearly indicate that the Appointing Authority intended that a wait list be maintained so as to fill up the vacancies arising in excess of those notified, which was permissible as per the rules,” the Court stated.
The bench referred to the interpretation of a waitlist of “reasonable dimension” from the Naseem Ahmad judgment, quoting:
“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 and this list should be in reasonable proportion to the notified vacancies.”
The Court noted the respondent’s submission that the next advertisement after the one in 2000 was issued only in 2008, notifying 29 vacancies. This, the bench reasoned, confirmed that vacancies had indeed arisen between 2000 and 2008 when the appellants were employed.
Finding fault with the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court held, “We are definite that the very same situation arose in Naseem Ahmed 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 from twelve, as notified.”
Concluding its analysis, the bench declared, “We cannot but find the termination to be unjustified.”
The Final Decision
While setting aside the termination, the Court took into account that the appellants have been out of employment for nearly 17 years and that some may have crossed the age of superannuation. Issuing directions specific to the “peculiar circumstances of this case,” the Court ordered the following:
- Appellants who have not reached the age of superannuation shall be accommodated in existing Class IV vacancies in the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship. If no vacancies are available, they shall be appointed to supernumerary posts, which will be adjusted against future vacancies.
- Appellants who have crossed the age of superannuation shall be entitled to a minimum pension, notwithstanding that they completed only 8 years of service.
- Reinstated appellants will not be granted seniority, but their previous eight years of service will be reckoned for determining pensionable service.
- The intervening period of 17 years, during which the appellants were not employed, shall not be counted for any purpose, including notional service or pension calculation.
The Court clarified that these directions would apply only to the four appellants in this case and “shall not be a precedent.” The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
