Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the termination of four Class IV employees whose services had been discontinued in 2008 on the ground that they were appointed in excess of the vacancies originally notified. The Court held that the advertisement explicitly stated that the number of posts could increase or decrease, and that Rule 12 governing recruitment to Class IV posts permitted preparation of a wait list of reasonable dimensions to accommodate vacancies arising within the recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year.
The Court found the Allahabad High Court’s conclusion to be legally unsustainable because it failed to appreciate the principle recognised earlier by the Supreme Court that appointments made from a valid wait list in reasonable proximity to advertised vacancies are permissible. Given the unique facts — including the employees having completed eight years of service and being out of employment for 17 years — the Court directed that they be (i) reappointed in existing Class IV vacancies or supernumerary posts (if not yet superannuated), or (ii) granted minimum pension (if already superannuated). The Court clarified that these directions were issued in the peculiar circumstances of the case and shall not operate as precedent.
Facts
The appellants were appointed to Class IV posts in the District Judgeship pursuant to an advertisement that initially notified twelve vacancies. The advertisement also contained a crucial clause stating that the number of posts “may increase or decrease”, indicating the appointing authority’s intent to maintain a wait list to fill additional vacancies arising during the recruitment cycle.
Following the recruitment process, the appellants were appointed through select lists prepared between 2001 and 2002. Two of them were even granted temporary promotions in the ministerial cadre. However, after nearly eight years of service, in 2008 their appointments were abruptly terminated on the ground that they were appointed in excess of the twelve vacancies originally advertised.
The appellants challenged their termination before the Allahabad High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench upheld the termination on the premise that appointments beyond the notified vacancies were illegal. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court misapplied the law governing wait lists and misunderstood the scope of Rule 12 governing Class IV posts.
Issues
- Whether appointments made from a wait list beyond initially advertised vacancies were permissible under Rule 12 when the advertisement indicated that the number of vacancies may increase or decrease.
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that appointments beyond 12 vacancies were illegal despite additional vacancies having arisen during the relevant period.
- Whether termination after eight years of service, followed by a 17-year gap in employment, warranted equitable relief.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that although the advertisement mentioned twelve vacancies, it expressly indicated that this number could change, which provided the legal basis for accommodating candidates from the wait list as additional vacancies arose. They relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling interpreting Rule 12, which affirmed that a wait list may be used to fill vacancies that arise during the recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year, provided such list is of reasonable dimensions and reasonably correlated to anticipated vacancies.
The petitioners contended that several vacancies had indeed arisen between 2000 and 2008, as evidenced by subsequent advertisements in 2008 and 2015. Given the existence of such vacancies and their appointments having been made within the framework of Rule 12, the termination was unjustified. They emphasised their uninterrupted eight years of service, temporary promotions, and the absence of any misconduct. They therefore sought reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents countered that as on the date of advertisement, only twelve vacancies existed, and any appointments made beyond this number violated established recruitment norms. They argued that Rule 12, though permitting a wait list, did not entitle the appointing authority to exceed notified vacancies unless expressly justified through sanctioned posts. The respondents relied on the High Court’s reasoning that additional posts could not be presumed merely due to the existence of a wait list and that appointments made without sanctioned vacancies were illegal ab initio.
It was also submitted that a significant delay had occurred before the employees challenged their termination, and the employees had failed to identify the exact substantive vacancies to which they were appointed. According to the respondents, the High Court had correctly upheld the legality of the termination.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court conducted a close examination of Rule 12, which governs recruitment to Class IV posts such as process servers, orderlies, office peons, and farashes. Rule 12 permits preparation of a wait list of “reasonable dimensions”, intended to enable the appointing authority to fill vacancies arising in the year of recruitment or immediately thereafter.
The Court recalled its earlier interpretation of “reasonable dimensions,” clarifying that a wait list must be of moderate size and must be broadly correlated to existing and anticipated vacancies. The legal principle established earlier was that where additional vacancies arise within a reasonable timeframe, appointments from the wait list are permissible even if such vacancies were not part of the original advertisement.
Applying this to the present case, the Court noted that the advertisement itself anticipated fluctuation in the number of vacancies. The subsequent advertisements in 2008 (29 posts) and 2015 (2 posts) evidenced that vacancies had indeed arisen during the period when the appellants were serving. This factual context reinforced the legitimacy of their appointments.
Thus, the Court held that the High Court’s reliance on the static figure of twelve vacancies was misplaced and inconsistent with Rule 12 and binding precedent.
Precedent Analysis
Naseem Ahmed (2011) 2 SCC 734
This case was central to the Supreme Court’s reasoning. In that decision, the Court held that:
- A wait list must be maintained to fill vacancies arising within the recruitment year or the succeeding year.
- “Reasonable dimensions” means the wait list should correspond to anticipated vacancies, not merely the advertised number.
- Appointments from such a wait list are valid if vacancies arise due to administrative changes, transfers, or sanction of new posts.
The Court observed that the factual scenario in the present case was “almost identical” to that in Naseem Ahmed. Therefore, the earlier ruling directly governed the interpretation of Rule 12.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that:
- The advertisement explicitly allowed increase or decrease in vacancies.
- A long gap existed between the 2000 advertisement and the next one in 2008, during which numerous vacancies arose.
- The appellants were appointed against this backdrop and served for eight years without interruption.
- Termination after eight years, followed by 17 years of unemployment, was harsh given that the appointments were traceable to permissible recruitment practices.
The Court held the termination to be unjustified. However, given the lapse of 17 years, varying ages of appellants, and absence of precise correlation to specific vacancies, the Court fashioned an equitable remedy instead of full reinstatement with back wages.
It ordered that:
- Those still below the age of superannuation be reappointed in existing vacancies or supernumerary posts.
- Those who had already crossed superannuation age receive minimum pension.
- Period of unemployment (17 years) would not count toward pension or service.
- The relief was confined strictly to the four appellants and would not operate as precedent.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in disregarding Rule 12 and binding precedent. Although the appointments may have appeared irregular on the surface, they were legally justified within the recruitment framework. Given the humanitarian considerations, prolonged unemployment, and administrative circumstances, the Court ordered conditional reinstatement or minimum pension benefits.
The appeal was disposed of with tailored directions to balance legality, equity, and administrative practicality.
Implications
- The judgment reinforces the principle that wait lists are not rigidly tied to advertised vacancies but encompass anticipated ones.
- Administrative authorities must carefully draft advertisements and maintain wait lists aligned with Rule 12.
- Courts may fashion equitable remedies where long-standing terminations involve procedural misinterpretation rather than misconduct.
- The judgment, though not a precedent, highlights the importance of transparency and accuracy in vacancy notification processes.
