Supreme Court: Termination of Class IV Employees for Excess Appointments Unjustified

The appellants were appointed as Class IV employees in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, pursuant to an advertisement that notified 12 vacancies but expressly allowed for an increase or decrease in the number. In 2008, their services were terminated as six appointments were made in excess of the notified vacancies. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court upheld the termination, ruling that the appointments were illegal since they exceeded the advertised posts.

The appellants contended that the advertisement itself permitted variation in the number of vacancies and relied on Naseem Ahmad v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that Rule 12 of the relevant service rules allowed appointments from the waiting list to additional vacancies arising within the same or immediately succeeding recruitment year. The respondent State argued that only twelve vacancies existed as per the advertisement and that further appointments were irregular.

Central Issue: Whether appointments made beyond advertised vacancies, but within the scope of a waiting list under Rule 12, are valid and can justify the continuation of employees so appointed.

SC’s Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the appellants’ appointments were valid since the advertisement explicitly allowed variation in vacancies, and Rule 12 authorised use of a waiting list to fill posts arising within a reasonable time. Relying on Naseem Ahmad, the Court found that the High Court erred in disregarding the clear recital in the advertisement and the established legal interpretation of Rule 12.

The Court declared the termination unjustified but refrained from full reinstatement benefits due to a 17-year gap since termination. Appellants still below the age of superannuation are to be accommodated in existing Class IV vacancies or in supernumerary posts, adjustable against future vacancies or ending upon retirement. Appellants who have crossed the retirement age shall be granted a minimum pension, notwithstanding only eight years of service. Reappointed appellants will not gain seniority, but their past service will count for pension purposes.

The 17-year intervening period will not count toward service or pension computation. Directions apply only to the four appellants and are not to be treated as a precedent.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below