Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. of 2025
[@Special Leave Petition (C) No.14980 of 2024]
Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors.
…Appellants
Versus
District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)
…Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants, four in number, 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 on 05.05.2008 after
which the appellants were out of employment.
3. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court of Allahabad found the termination to be justified
Page 1 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
since the appointments were made beyond the number of
vacancies advertised.
4. Sh. M.C. Dhingra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants submitted that the vacancies advertised were
twelve, but with a rider that it could increase or decrease.
Reliance was placed on Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of
1
Uttar Pradesh and Another wherein Rule 12 was found to
provide for recruitment to Class IV posts from the wait list
prepared; interpreted as permitting appointment to the
vacancies arising in excess of that advertised, if it is done within
a reasonable period. This Court according to the appellants
found that appointments could be made in excess of vacancies
that were advertised, which vacancies arose in the same
recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year.
5. Sh.Yashvardhan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, however, took us to the judgment to assert that as
on the date of the advertisement there were only twelve
vacancies and any further appointments made cannot be
justified.
1
(2011) 2 SCC 734
Page 2 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
6. The advertisement made by the District Judge of
Ambedkar Nagar is produced as Annexure P1, wherein the
vacant posts are shown to be twelve, but with the rider that the
number of posts may be increased or decreased. This is in
consonance with the interpretation of Rule 12 as has been
1 1
arrived at in Naseem Ahmed . In Naseem Ahmed , there were
six vacancies advertised and a select list was prepared wherein
the general candidates and reserved candidates were shown
separately. After adjusting the roster, the appointments were
made and the appellants therein, who were in the wait list, were
appointed within one year. The additional vacancies arose
when an Additional District Judge was transferred from
Hamirpur to Mahoba, increasing the sanctioned strength of
Class IV employees by four more posts. In the several writ
petitions filed challenging the appointments made from the
wait list, this Court found that Rule 12 permits a waiting list of
candidates to be maintained for each judgeship for the post of
process servers, orderlies and office peons and farashes. The
rule provided that the waiting list should be of ‘reasonable
dimensions’ and was possible of revision from time to time,
removing the names of persons who would not be entitled to be
Page 3 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
appointed by reason of being over aged or having been found
guilty of any misconduct during continuance in a temporary or
officiating vacancy, when the vacancies actually occurred.
7. The word ‘reasonable dimension’ was interpreted in
paragraph 23, as extracted below:
“23. The expression “reasonable dimension” used in
Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules signifies that the wait list
should be a moderate one containing that number of
candidates which is adequate to meet the vacancies
which might be available within a reasonable period in
the year of recruitment or the year succeeding thereto
and this list should be in reasonable proportion to the
notified vacancies. To be more precise, this waiting list
should broadly be correlated to the number of
vacancies either available in the year of recruitment or
likely to become available in the succeeding year and
the proportion qua the existing and anticipated
vacancies. It is only in order to obviate the possibility of
the waiting list becoming vitiated on account of the vice
of arbitrariness or illegal discrimination that the
provision contains the Rule which specifically provides
for maintaining a waiting list of a reasonable
dimension.”
[ underlining by us for emphasis ]
Page 4 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
8. The situation is almost identical here, and so is Rule 12
squarely applicable. In the select list prepared based on the
advertisement of 18.10.2010, produced as Annexure P2, 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 vide appointment
letter dated 12.02.2001 and 03.07.2001 and two of them,
appellants 1 and 2 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.
9. Learned Government Advocate has specifically taken us
to paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, which referred to
the counter affidavit filed by the State. It is contended that the
State had asserted before Court that as on 18.10.2000, the date
of advertisement, there were only twelve posts, and the
subsequent advertisement was made on 06.06.2008 and later
on 14.09.2015; which subsequent advertisements 29 and 2
vacancies were notified respectively. So obviously 29
vacancies were between 2000 and 2008, when the appellants
were working in the judgeship.
Page 5 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
10. 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. We are definite that the very
1
same situation arose in Naseem Ahmed and the learned Single
Judge as also the Division Bench erred in not accepting the said
contention, especially having ignored the clear recital of the
notification that the vacancies could be increased or decreased
from twelve, as notified.
11. We cannot but find the termination to be unjustified.
However, the fact remains that the appellants have been out of
employment for almost 17 years. We also see from the select
Page 6 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
nd th
list that the date of birth of 2 and 4 appellants indicate the
said appellants having passed the age of 60, while the others
have little more time to superannuate, if the age of
superannuation is 60. In the above circumstances especially
when the appellants have not taken any efforts to pinpoint the
substantive vacancies to which they were appointed and the
appointment itself having been made temporarily, we issue the
following directions; reckoning the fact that all the appellants
have worked for eight years:
i) 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.
ii) If any of the appellants have crossed the age of
superannuation, they shall be entitled to minimum
pension dehors the fact that they have completed
only 8 years in employment and not entitled to an
appointment as of now.
iii) Those appellants who are appointed shall be
continued without any seniority but reckoning the
period already spent in service also for determining
Page 7 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
pensionable service and in any event shall be
granted pension at the minimum.
iv) 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.
v) The above directions shall apply only to the four
appellants herein.
12. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions
making it clear that the directions issued are in the peculiar
circumstances of this case and shall not be a precedent.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
………….………………… CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
October 17, 2025.
Page 8 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. of 2025
[@Special Leave Petition (C) No.14980 of 2024]
Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors.
…Appellants
Versus
District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)
…Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants, four in number, 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 on 05.05.2008 after
which the appellants were out of employment.
3. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court of Allahabad found the termination to be justified
Page 1 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
since the appointments were made beyond the number of
vacancies advertised.
4. Sh. M.C. Dhingra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants submitted that the vacancies advertised were
twelve, but with a rider that it could increase or decrease.
Reliance was placed on Naseem Ahmad and Others v. State of
1
Uttar Pradesh and Another wherein Rule 12 was found to
provide for recruitment to Class IV posts from the wait list
prepared; interpreted as permitting appointment to the
vacancies arising in excess of that advertised, if it is done within
a reasonable period. This Court according to the appellants
found that appointments could be made in excess of vacancies
that were advertised, which vacancies arose in the same
recruitment year or the immediately succeeding year.
5. Sh.Yashvardhan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, however, took us to the judgment to assert that as
on the date of the advertisement there were only twelve
vacancies and any further appointments made cannot be
justified.
1
(2011) 2 SCC 734
Page 2 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
6. The advertisement made by the District Judge of
Ambedkar Nagar is produced as Annexure P1, wherein the
vacant posts are shown to be twelve, but with the rider that the
number of posts may be increased or decreased. This is in
consonance with the interpretation of Rule 12 as has been
1 1
arrived at in Naseem Ahmed . In Naseem Ahmed , there were
six vacancies advertised and a select list was prepared wherein
the general candidates and reserved candidates were shown
separately. After adjusting the roster, the appointments were
made and the appellants therein, who were in the wait list, were
appointed within one year. The additional vacancies arose
when an Additional District Judge was transferred from
Hamirpur to Mahoba, increasing the sanctioned strength of
Class IV employees by four more posts. In the several writ
petitions filed challenging the appointments made from the
wait list, this Court found that Rule 12 permits a waiting list of
candidates to be maintained for each judgeship for the post of
process servers, orderlies and office peons and farashes. The
rule provided that the waiting list should be of ‘reasonable
dimensions’ and was possible of revision from time to time,
removing the names of persons who would not be entitled to be
Page 3 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
appointed by reason of being over aged or having been found
guilty of any misconduct during continuance in a temporary or
officiating vacancy, when the vacancies actually occurred.
7. The word ‘reasonable dimension’ was interpreted in
paragraph 23, as extracted below:
“23. The expression “reasonable dimension” used in
Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules signifies that the wait list
should be a moderate one containing that number of
candidates which is adequate to meet the vacancies
which might be available within a reasonable period in
the year of recruitment or the year succeeding thereto
and this list should be in reasonable proportion to the
notified vacancies. To be more precise, this waiting list
should broadly be correlated to the number of
vacancies either available in the year of recruitment or
likely to become available in the succeeding year and
the proportion qua the existing and anticipated
vacancies. It is only in order to obviate the possibility of
the waiting list becoming vitiated on account of the vice
of arbitrariness or illegal discrimination that the
provision contains the Rule which specifically provides
for maintaining a waiting list of a reasonable
dimension.”
[ underlining by us for emphasis ]
Page 4 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
8. The situation is almost identical here, and so is Rule 12
squarely applicable. In the select list prepared based on the
advertisement of 18.10.2010, produced as Annexure P2, 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 vide appointment
letter dated 12.02.2001 and 03.07.2001 and two of them,
appellants 1 and 2 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.
9. Learned Government Advocate has specifically taken us
to paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, which referred to
the counter affidavit filed by the State. It is contended that the
State had asserted before Court that as on 18.10.2000, the date
of advertisement, there were only twelve posts, and the
subsequent advertisement was made on 06.06.2008 and later
on 14.09.2015; which subsequent advertisements 29 and 2
vacancies were notified respectively. So obviously 29
vacancies were between 2000 and 2008, when the appellants
were working in the judgeship.
Page 5 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
10. 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. We are definite that the very
1
same situation arose in Naseem Ahmed and the learned Single
Judge as also the Division Bench erred in not accepting the said
contention, especially having ignored the clear recital of the
notification that the vacancies could be increased or decreased
from twelve, as notified.
11. We cannot but find the termination to be unjustified.
However, the fact remains that the appellants have been out of
employment for almost 17 years. We also see from the select
Page 6 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
nd th
list that the date of birth of 2 and 4 appellants indicate the
said appellants having passed the age of 60, while the others
have little more time to superannuate, if the age of
superannuation is 60. In the above circumstances especially
when the appellants have not taken any efforts to pinpoint the
substantive vacancies to which they were appointed and the
appointment itself having been made temporarily, we issue the
following directions; reckoning the fact that all the appellants
have worked for eight years:
i) 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.
ii) If any of the appellants have crossed the age of
superannuation, they shall be entitled to minimum
pension dehors the fact that they have completed
only 8 years in employment and not entitled to an
appointment as of now.
iii) Those appellants who are appointed shall be
continued without any seniority but reckoning the
period already spent in service also for determining
Page 7 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024
pensionable service and in any event shall be
granted pension at the minimum.
iv) 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.
v) The above directions shall apply only to the four
appellants herein.
12. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions
making it clear that the directions issued are in the peculiar
circumstances of this case and shall not be a precedent.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
………….………………… CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
October 17, 2025.
Page 8 of 8
C.A. @ SLP(C) No.14980 of 2024