17 October 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court dealt with the age-old case regarding the dismissal of four Class IV staff members of the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants, who were appointed in 2001 after a recruitment notice published in 2000, were removed from service in 2008 on the basis that their appointments exceeded the number of vacancies initially notified.

The Allahabad High Court, both the Single Judge and Division Bench, affirmed the dismissal on the rationale that no appointments were possible after the twelve mentioned in the advertisement. But the Supreme Court had a contrary opinion, as it laid emphasis on the fact that the advertisement itself had included a particular clause mentioning that the vacancies could either increase or decrease. This, the Court ruled, clearly showed the appointing authority's intention to keep a waiting list in order to fill future vacancies that may arise in the course of the recruitment process.

The Bench was influenced by Rule 12 of the applicable recruitment rules, which allows for the preparation of a waiting list of reasonable size for Class IV posts. This rule had earlier been interpreted in Naseem Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh to allow appointments against additional vacancies that arise within the same or the immediately succeeding recruitment year. The Court found the facts of the present case to be almost identical, noting that the next advertisement for similar posts was issued only in 2008, much after the disputed appointments were made.

With this context, the Supreme Court decided that the dismissal of the appellants was unjustified. The Court noted that the appellants had served for almost eight years prior to being dismissed and had been out of work for the past seventeen years. Being aware of both the irregularity of the dismissal and the practical impossibility of reinstating them after so long a period of time, the Court created an equitable remedy.

It directed the appellants who had not attained the age of superannuation to be housed in available or supernumerary Class IV vacancies within the District Judgeship. Those who had surpassed the age of retirement were entitled to the benefit of minimum pension, even though they had served for only eight years. The Court, however, made it clear that the period of unemployment in between could not be considered as service for any purpose, including the purpose of pension computation.

In granting relief to the appellants, the Court exercised great caution in restricting the operation of its directions to the case by stating that the order issued in the unique facts and circumstances of the case and should not be used as a precedent.

This ruling highlights the Supreme Court's continued attempt to reconcile legality with equity. By recognizing procedural irregularities but avoiding excessive hardship to veteran employees, the Court reaffirmed that fairness and proportionality have to be the guidelines for administrative action, especially where lower-grade government servants are concerned whose very livelihood is at stake in such appointments.