Appointments made to posts during pending litigation are subject to its outcome, but appointees may qualify for surplus absorption.

The Petitioners were appointed as peons in Respondent No. 5 school in 2011 to posts vacated after the termination of two employees; their appointments were approved by the Education Officer in 2012.

The terminated employees successfully challenged their termination before the School Tribunal, and the High Court later upheld the Tribunal’s order.

After the employees were reinstated, the Education Officer issued a communication dated 1 August 2018 revoking approval of the Petitioners’ appointments, without notice or hearing; the Petitioners’ salaries were stopped from April 2018.

The Petitioners sought to set aside the revocation, be declared surplus and absorbed elsewhere, and obtain unpaid salaries.

Whether the Petitioners’ appointments to posts held by employees whose termination was under challenge could continue after those employees were reinstated, and whether the Petitioners should instead be considered surplus for absorption elsewhere.

Whether the Petitioners were entitled to unpaid salaries for the period they continued working after their salaries were stopped.

Whether the Education Officer could revoke approval of the Petitioners’ appointments without notice or a hearing, and in the absence of an express review power.

The Court applied the equitable principle of lis pendens by analogy: although Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not directly govern service matters, appointments made to posts affected by pending litigation are subject to the outcome of that litigation.

It relied on Parvinder Singh Bajaj v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) All India High Court Cases 3644; Smt. Rani Kushwaha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025:MPHC-GWL:21964; and Jhunilal Yadav v. State of M.P., 2014 SCC OnLine MP 3951, for the principle that a subsequent appointee to a vacancy created by an unlawful termination cannot prevent reinstatement of the former incumbent.

The Court also invoked restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in explaining the restoration of the reinstated employees to their former positions.

It noted that no review provision had been identified, but resolved the dispute on the basis that the Petitioners’ appointments were subject to the pending litigation’s outcome.

The Petitioners had been appointed to the posts occupied by the two employees while those employees’ challenges to their termination were pending.

Their appointments therefore could not defeat the employees’ eventual reinstatement, and the Petitioners had to give way on those posts.

However, the Court attributed the situation in part to the Management’s failure to disclose the Petitioners’ appointments in the earlier proceedings and considered that the Petitioners had been recruited through the prescribed process.

It accordingly held that, although they could not retain the posts occupied by the reinstated employees, they should be treated as surplus and considered for absorption.

Separately, if the school had continued to take their work, it could not leave them unpaid merely because government salary funding was being paid for the reinstated employees.

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were directed to pay the Petitioners’ unpaid salaries from April 2018 for the period they worked, with 6% interest, in four monthly instalments; failing payment, the amount was to be deducted from grants payable to those respondents. The Deputy Director was directed to record compliance.