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 | Directions not to be treated as precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 2 SCC 734 |
| Type of Law | Service law – recruitment to Class IV posts under District Judgeship Rules |
| Questions of Law | Whether Rule 12 allows appointment from a waiting list to fill vacancies arising in excess of those advertised when the advertisement permits increase or decrease |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| 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 purported excess appointments over twelve advertised posts; they had been appointed between 2001–2001 under an advertisement permitting increase or decrease; the High Court upheld termination despite vacancies arising before the next advertisement in 2008 and 2015. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | The four appellants and the Respondent (per the Court’s non-precedential directions) |
| Follows | Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 2 SCC 734 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Rule 12’s “reasonable dimension” test confirms that a waiting list may be used to fill vacancies arising in the recruitment year or the year immediately succeeding it.
- An advertisement’s rider allowing that vacancies “may be increased or decreased” demonstrates intent to utilize a waiting list for post-advertisement vacancies.
- High Courts and tribunals must heed the established interpretation in Naseem Ahmad when assessing excess-vacancy terminations.
- Directions for retroactive accommodation of terminated employees are made in “peculiar circumstances” and expressly not to serve as binding precedent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Applicability of Rule 12
Rule 12 mandates maintenance of a waiting list “of reasonable dimension” for Class IV posts to address unanticipated vacancies. - Interpretation in Naseem Ahmad
“Reasonable dimension” means a list proportionate to vacancies in the recruitment year and the succeeding year. - Advertisement Rider
The 2000 advertisement explicitly allowed the number of posts to “increase or decrease,” evincing intent to draw from the waiting list for new vacancies. - Counter-Affidavit Admission
State’s own affidavit acknowledged 29 additional vacancies notified only in 2008 and 2015, confirming vacancies arose between. - Error of High Court
The High Court wrongly ignored both the rider in the advertisement and the binding precedent in Naseem Ahmad, leading to unjustified terminations.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The 2000 advertisement’s rider permits filling vacancies beyond the twelve advertised through the waiting list.
- Naseem Ahmad allows appointments in the recruitment year or the next.
- Termination after eight years of service is arbitrary and unjust.
Respondent
- As on the date of the advertisement only twelve vacancies existed; further appointments exceed notified strength and are invalid.
Factual Background
Four persons appointed in 2001 to Class IV posts in the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship were terminated in 2008 on the ground that only twelve vacancies had been advertised. The original advertisement (18.10.2000) specified twelve posts “subject to increase or decrease.” No recruitment occurred until 2008 and 2015, and the appellants had served uninterrupted for eight years before termination. They challenged the termination, invoking Rule 12 and the precedent in Naseem Ahmad.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 12 (District Judgeship Class IV Employees Rules):
- Requires a waiting list of candidates “of reasonable dimension,” correlated to notified and anticipated vacancies.
- Permits revision of the list as vacancies occur due to age, misconduct, or transfer of posts.
- Enables appointment from the waiting list within the recruitment year or immediately succeeding year.
- Advertisement Clause: A rider permitting the number of posts to “increase or decrease” is consistent with Rule 12 and signifies intent to maintain and use the waiting list for unanticipated vacancies.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Procedural Innovations
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed