Advertisement Indicated That There Could Be Increase Or Decrease Of Vacancies: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Ambedkar Nagar Class IV Court Staff

The appellants, who were terminated from their jobs in the year 2008, had approached the Apex Court.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “As we noticed, the advertisement specifically indicated that there could be an increase or decrease of vacancies, which as on the date of advertisement was also indicated as twelve posts. 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. As has been pointed out from the counter affidavit after the advertisement of 2000, the next advertisement was only in 2008 and then in 2015. Definitely vacancies arose within the said period, and this is the reason why the appellants were appointed on various dates subsequent to the appointment to the twelve vacancies advertised.”

Senior Advocate M.C. Dhingra represented the Appellant while Advocate Yashvardhan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The four appellants who were appointed in Class IV vacancies in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar were terminated in the year 2008. The ground on which the termination was effected was that six appointments were made, in excess of vacancies notified, of which four were of the petitioners. The termination was effected in the year 2008 after which the appellants were out of employment. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad found the termination to be justified since the appointments were made beyond the number of vacancies advertised.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that as per the advertisement made by the District Judge of Ambedkar Nagar, the vacant posts were shown to be twelve, but with the rider that the number of posts may be increased or decreased. The Bench found this to be in consonance with the interpretation of Rule 12 as has been arrived at in Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011).

It was noticed that in the select list prepared based on the advertisement, the appellants herein were at serial No.8 and 9 of the general category, serial No.6 of the backward class and serial No.5 of the SC/ST. The appellants were appointed, and the first two appellants were given temporary promotions in the Ministerial Cadre. It was later, after 8 years, that the termination was effected on the ground of appointments having been made in excess of vacancies

Finding the termination to be unjustified, the Bench noted that the Division Bench ignored the clear recital of the notification that the vacancies could be increased or decreased from twelve, as notified. It was further noticed that two appellants had passed the age of 60, while the others had a little more time to superannuate, if the age of superannuation was 60.

Considering that the appellants had not taken any efforts to pinpoint the substantive vacancies to which they were appointed and the appointment itself was made temporarily, the Bench ordered that 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”, it added.

The Bench also ordered that if any of the appellants have crossed the age of superannuation, they shall be entitled to a minimum pension regardless of the fact that they have completed only 8 years in employment and are not entitled to an appointment as of now. “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”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (SLP (C) No.14980 of 2024)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate M.C. Dhingra, AOR Gaurav Dhingra, Advocates Shashank Singh, Deepak Rana, Raghvendra Shukla, Joginder Kumar, Prabhat Pichauri

Respondent: Advocate Yashvardhan, AOR Apoorv Shukla

Click here to read/download Judgment