Explore the detailed legal analysis and court decision surrounding a dispute over appointments and terminations. The case involves a complex situation where the High Court analyzed the validity of appointments made against leave vacancies and the subsequent termination of services. Dive into the legal intricacies of this case to understand the court’s reasoning and decision-making process.
Facts
- The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appeal challenging the termination of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the appointment of the appellants.
- The Division Bench confirmed the decision of the Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition by Respondent No.4 and set aside the appointment of the appellants.
- The original Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, whose appointments were revoked by the High Court, filed the present appeal against the judgment.
- The Special Appeal against the Single Judge’s order was also dismissed by the Division Bench.
- The Single Judge nullified the appointment of the appellants and revoked the termination orders of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
- The appellants were appointed on temporary basis against leave vacancies for a specific period
- They were required to undergo a typing/speed test for the post of Hindi Stenographers
- The appellants failed the speed test for the post of Hindi Stenographers
- Their services were to be terminated once regular employees resumed their duties
- The Deputy Registrar directed the District Judge to prepare an approved list of ex-stenos and Hindi stenos based on merit
- All three appellants were found not qualified as per the rules due to their typing test results
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix
Arguments
- Appellants were never appointed to the post of Hindi Stenographers after following due selection procedures.
- The District Judge terminated the services of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who were appointed after due process and in compliance with the Rules of 1947, to appoint the appellants against the post held by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
- The appointment of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was approved based on a selection list dated 29.11.1988 but they were given appointments only in the year 2012, after a lapse of more than 24 years.
- The High Court quashed the appointment of the appellants and terminated the services of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
- The appellants worked for almost 29 years, and their appointments were approved by the High Court in a previous order dated 22.05.1990.
- The appellants were initially appointed on leave vacancies, and the High Court erred in relying on Rule 14(3) of the Rules, 1947 to set aside their appointments.
- The appellants’ appointments were on temporary basis against leave vacancies for a specific period.
- The High Court upheld the appointment of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who were appointed following a proper selection procedure on substantive sanctioned posts.
- Dr. Ashutosh Garg, learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench by adopting the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the High Court.
- The arguments of both parties were heard at length.
- The appellants initially participated in the selection process for the post of English Stenographers in the year 1987.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Concurrent Sentences in Drug Trafficking Cases
Analysis
- Appellants were appointed on temporary basis on leave vacancies for one month
- Select list for the post of English Stenographers dated 14.07.1987 expired on 13.07.1988
- Fresh examination for Hindi Stenographers conducted on 24.09.1988
- High Court quashed the appointments of appellants and terminated their services as they were illegal
- Appellants continued in service due to interim order of High Court but their appointments were held illegal
- Services of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who were selected through due process, were upheld by High Court
- High Court quashed appointment of appellants and termination of services of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
- Appellants failed speed test for Hindi Stenographers post in 1990
- Appellants were never appointed after due selection procedure as compared to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
- Appointments based on select list dated 14.07.1987 were not valid in 1990
- Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 suffered between 1992-2012 despite being selected through proper procedure
Also Read: Legal Jurisdiction and Award Finality in Arbitration Dispute
Decision
- The present appeal fails and is dismissed.
- Pensionary benefits cannot be granted to the appellants.
- No costs are ordered.
- Appellants are not entitled to any relief.
- Continuing service after 1988 benefitted the appellants.
- Services were required to end after fresh selection in 1988 as per Rules, 1947.
Case Title: WAHAB UDDIN Vs. KM. MEENAKSHI GAHLOT (2021 INSC 726)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006477-006477 / 2021
