The Supreme Court held that appointments made in excess of originally advertised vacancies are permissible under the rules if filled from a valid waiting list within a reasonable period, typically the recruitment year or the succeeding year. Terminations based solely on the “excess vacancy” ground were found unjustified when such appointments align with the recruitment rule’s intent and the advertisement’s stipulation that vacancy numbers were subject to change.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved four appellants who were appointed to Class IV posts in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 2001 against an advertisement that notified twelve vacancies but included a rider that the number of posts could increase or decrease. In 2008, their services were terminated on the sole ground that their appointments were made against six positions that were in excess of the twelve vacancies originally advertised. The appellants challenged their termination, arguing that the waiting list from which they were appointed could legally be used to fill additional vacancies arising within a reasonable period, as per the applicable rules and a precedent set by the Supreme Court. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the termination, finding the appointments impermissible for exceeding the advertised number. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the advertisement’s specific rider and the interpretation of the relevant recruitment rule, which allowed for a wait list of “reasonable dimension” to fill vacancies arising in the year of recruitment or immediately thereafter.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the termination of the four appellants from their Class IV posts in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar on 05.05.2008. Challenging this termination, the appellants filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed their petitions, upholding the termination as justified since the appointments exceeded the number of vacancies originally advertised. The appellants then preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the same High Court, which affirmed the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024), which was granted leave, converting it into Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2025. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court, and issued specific directions for relief to the appellants.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court to Re-examine If Ayurveda, Homeopathy Doctors Should Retire at Same Age as MBBS Doctors
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court found the termination of the appellants unjustified. The Court emphasized that the original advertisement explicitly stated the number of vacancies was subject to increase or decrease, a rider that aligned with the interpretation of the governing Rule 12 as established in the Naseem Ahmad precedent. This rule permits maintaining a waiting list of “reasonable dimension” to fill vacancies arising not only in the recruitment year but also in the immediately succeeding year. The Court noted that the subsequent advertisements in 2008 and 2015, which notified many more vacancies, proved that additional posts had indeed arisen within a reasonable period after the 2000 advertisement. Therefore, the appointments made from the validly prepared select list were lawful. The High Court erred in ignoring the advertisement’s specific rider and the legal principle that appointments can be made to vacancies that arise post-advertisement, within the framework of the rules.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, holding the terminations to be unjustified. However, considering the appellants had been out of employment for nearly 17 years, the Court issued specific, limited directions tailored to their circumstances. It ordered that those appellants who had not yet reached the age of superannuation be accommodated in existing Class IV vacancies in the same judgeship, or in supernumerary posts to be adjusted against future vacancies. For appellants who had already crossed the retirement age, the Court directed they be granted minimum pension, de hors the requirement of minimum qualifying service. For those reinstated, their past eight years of service was to be counted for pensionable service, but the intervening 17-year period of unemployment was not to be counted for any service benefits. The Court explicitly stated these directions were issued in the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.