Termination Of Class IV Appointees For Excess Vacancies Is Set Aside; Court Directs Re‑Employment Or Minimum Pension In Limited Relief

A bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against the termination of four Class IV appointees in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, who were removed in 2008 on the ground that their appointments were made in excess of vacancies advertised.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and found the terminations to be unjustified, while framing limited and case‑specific reliefs recognising the long interregnum since separation. The Court held that the advertisement which showed twelve vacancies but carried a rider that the number "may be increased or decreased" authorised maintenance of a waiting list and justified subsequent appointments under Rule 12 as interpreted in Naseem Ahmad v. State of U.P. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also recorded that "We cannot but find the termination to be unjustified."

Background The appellants were appointed to Class IV vacancies in the Ambedkar Nagar judgeship and were terminated on 05.05.2008 on the ground that more appointments had been made than the twelve posts advertised. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had upheld the terminations on that basis. The appellants contended before this Court that the advertisement of 18.10.2000 listed twelve vacancies but contained a rider that vacancies could be increased or decreased, and that Rule 12 permitted the maintenance and operation of a waiting list to meet vacancies arising in the same recruitment year or the succeeding year. Reliance was placed on this Court’s decision in Naseem Ahmad, where Rule 12 was interpreted to allow appointment from a waiting list to meet subsequent vacancies within a reasonable period.

The record showed that the appellants featured on the select list prepared from the advertisement, and that they were appointed on 12.02.2001 and 03.07.2001 and had worked for about eight years before termination. The State had relied on its pleadings that only twelve posts were notified as on the date of advertisement and that later advertisements in 2008 and 2015 separately notified additional vacancies. The Supreme Court found the advertisement’s rider and Rule 12 interpretation to be determinative and concluded that the appointments could not be impugned solely on the ground that they exceeded the initially advertised number of vacancies.

The Court nevertheless took note of the long lapse since termination—about 17 years—and of the appellants’ ages, observing that two appellants had already crossed the age of superannuation. The Court therefore issued the following directions specific to the four appellants: (i) those not yet retired shall be accommodated in existing Class IV vacancies in the Ambedkar Nagar judgeship or in a supernumerary post to be adjusted against future vacancies or to cease on retirement; (ii) appellants who had crossed the age of superannuation shall be entitled to minimum pension despite completing only eight years of service; (iii) those re‑appointed shall not be given seniority but shall have their prior service reckoned for pensionable service and shall be granted pension at the minimum; and (iv) the intervening period of non‑employment of 17 years shall not be treated as notional service for any purpose. The Court clarified that "the directions issued are in the peculiar circumstances of this case and shall not be a precedent." The appeal was disposed of with these directions; pending applications stood disposed.

Case No.: C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024 Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sh. M. C. Dhingra, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Sh. Yashvardhan, Advocate; (appearance also by the Learned Government Advocate)