Back
2021 Supreme(SC) 678
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Wahab Uddin and Others – Appellants
Versus
Km. Meenakshi Gahlot and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6477 of 2021
Decided On : 13-11-2021
For the Appellant(s) :Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Krishna Kumar, Mansi Gupta, Nandini Gupta, Vipin Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Ashutosh Garg, Preetika Dwivedi, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There cannot be appointment of two persons on one sanctioned post.
(2) Illegal appointments cannot be protected in name of long continuance in service.
Headnote:
Service Law – Termination – Illegal appointment – Appellants have gained illegally and they were continued in service pursuant to interim order of High Court – Once appellants continued on the post pursuant to interim order passed by High Court and their appointment is subsequently held to be bad in law and not only that their continuation in service is also held to be bad in law, thereafter they cannot be permitted to submit that as they worked for a long time their services should be protected, though their appointments are not legally tenable – Once their appointments are held to be illegal and it is held that they have no right to continue on the post to be occupied by other eligible candidates, necessary consequences shall follow – Once Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are to be accommodated and/or appointed who were selected after due process and appointment of appellants were on leave vacancies with a specific condition in appointment order that their appointment shall be terminated once regular employees resume their duties, necessary consequences shall follow and services of appellants are to be terminated and/or put to an end – There cannot be appointment of two persons on one sanctioned post – Otherwise, there will be financial burden on State of two persons on one sanctioned post – Under the circumstances prayer of appellants to continue them in services and to pay them pensionary benefits also cannot be granted – Appellants are not entitled to any relief – Appeal dismissed. [Rule 14(3) of Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947] (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.638 of 2012, Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal and has confirmed judgment and order passed by Single Judge by which Single Judge has allowed writ petition preferred by Respondent No.4 herein and quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellants herein, original Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 whose appointments have been quashed by High Court.
Findings of Court:
Appellants are benefitted by continuing in the service after 1988 though their services were required to be put to an end after the fresh selection in the year 1988 and after the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed after following due process and procedure as per Rules, 1947.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide order dated 23.01.2020 passed in Special Appeal No. 638 of 2012 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 4 herein and quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellants herein, the original Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 whose appointments have been quashed by the High Court have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
2.1 In the judgeship of Moradabad in the year 1987, a competitive examination was held for filling up the post of English and Hindi Stenographers. The appellants herein initially participated for the post of English Stenographers. Select list of English Stenographers (containing the names of the appellants herein) and Hindi Stenographers was prepared on 14.07.1987. However, since there were no vacancies in the judgeship for the post of English Stenographers, no appointments were given to the candidates in the select list of English Stenographers (including the appellants herein). As per Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 1947’) select list was to remain valid for one year and the said select list dated 14.07.1987 came to an end on 13.07.1988. At the same time, Hindi Stenographers were given appointment as per the select list. However, since there were some leave vacancies of temporary nature in the post of Hindi Stenographers, the appellants were appointed on temporary basis against those leave vacancies, for a period of one month from 14.10.1987 to 15.11.1987. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in their respective appointment letters it was specifically stated that their appointments shall be terminated once the regular employees resume their duties.
That thereafter fresh examination was conducted for the post of Hindi Stenographers on 24.09.1988. Pursuant thereto Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein were appointed on the substantive post of Hindi Stenographers as per merit and the select list. Therefore, as such Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein were appointed. As the appellants herein were appointed on leave vacancies of a temporary nature, their services were required to be terminated once the regular employees resume their duties. However, representations were made by the appellants to the District Judge, Moradabad. The District Judge, Moradabad forwarded his comments on the same to the Deputy Registrar, High Court. The Deputy Registrar, High Court vide administrative order dated 22.05.1990 to District Judge, Moradabad directed that the approved list of ex-stenos and Hindi stenos dated 14.07.1987 be prepared and their names be arranged in the order of merit. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the communication dated 22.05.1990, it was specifically mentioned that the appointment of the appellants was temporary and on leave vacancies. It appears that thereafter a typing/speed test was conducted for the appellants for the post of Hindi Stenographers. The Officer-In-charge proceeded and conducted Hindi typing test of appellants and one more candidate on 29.05.1990. In the said examination all the three appellants were found not qualified as per Rule 5(c) of the Rules, 1947 and their typing test was found less than the prescribed. Thus, the appellants failed in the speed test for the post of Hindi Stenographers. Despite the above without communicating to the High Court that the appellants have failed the speed test, the District Judge, Moradabad terminated the services of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein who were selected after due process and in compliance of the Rules of 1947 and appointed the appellants on
