Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012921-012921 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 21373/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Not a precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Rule 12 interpretation in Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2011) 2 SCC 734] |
| Type of Law | Service law – Judicial Service Rules |
| Questions of Law | Whether Rule 12 permits filling vacancies in excess of those notified through a wait list within a reasonable period? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that an advertisement rider allowing vacancies to “increase or decrease,” when read with Rule 12, permits maintaining a wait list of reasonable dimension correlated to notified and anticipated vacancies. Appointments from that list within the recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year are valid. Termination of such appointees after eight years—without fresh advertisement—is unjustified. Remedies include reinstatement or pensionary benefits, subject to superannuation age. Directions are confined to these facts and not to be cited as precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2011) 2 SCC 734] |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Four Class IV appointees in Ambedkar Nagar were terminated in 2008 for alleged excess appointments beyond twelve notified posts; the advertisement allowed vacancies to vary; appellants were appointed via wait list (2001–2008); High Court upheld terminations. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Rule 12’s “reasonable dimension,” combined with an advertisement rider permitting increase or decrease of vacancies, authorises filling future vacancies via a wait list within the recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year.
- Holds that termination of employees so appointed after eight years of service, without fresh advertisement, is unjustified.
- Confirms that temporary appointees below superannuation age are entitled to reinstatement (in existing or supernumerary posts) or minimum pension including their eight years of service.
- Emphasises that these directions apply only to the case’s peculiar circumstances and do not constitute a binding precedent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Noted that the 2000 advertisement for twelve Class IV posts included a rider that vacancies may be increased or decreased.
- Applied Rule 12 as interpreted in Naseem Ahmad, permitting a wait list of reasonable dimension correlated to actual and anticipated vacancies in the recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year.
- Found that appellants’ appointments via the wait list between 2001 and 2008 were permissible, given vacancies arose during that period and no fresh advertisement was issued.
- Held that the High Court erred by ignoring the rider and the principles in Naseem Ahmad; terminations after eight years were unjustified.
- Directed remedies of reinstatement or pensionary benefits for appellants, subject to superannuation constraints.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants)
- The advertisement’s rider and Rule 12 permit appointments beyond advertised vacancies within a reasonable period via a wait list.
- Their eight years of service under those rules were valid, making subsequent terminations unjustified.
Respondent (District Judge/State)
- As on the advertisement date, only twelve posts existed; appointments beyond those were invalid.
- Subsequent vacancies were to be filled only after fresh advertisements in 2008 and 2015, so the appellants’ appointments lacked authority.
Factual Background
In October 2000, Ambedkar Nagar’s District Judge advertised twelve Class IV vacancies, noting that the number of posts could increase or decrease. Appellants were placed on a wait list under Rule 12 and appointed between February and July 2001; two received temporary promotions. In May 2008, all four were terminated for allegedly exceeding the advertised vacancies. The Allahabad High Court upheld their terminations, leading to this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
The Court examined Rule 12 of the District Judges (Staff) Rules, which mandates maintaining a wait list “of reasonable dimension” to fill vacancies arising in the recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year. It reaffirmed that “reasonable dimension” requires proportionality to notified and anticipated vacancies to prevent arbitrariness. No constitutional provisions were invoked.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed