LexNASEEM AHMAD & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 822 NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. V. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 10459 of 2010) DECEMBER 10, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Service laws: Utfar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1995 - r. 12 - Waiting list - Interpretation of - Advertisement for appointment of Class IV posts of Process Server, Orderly, Peon and Farrash in District 0 Judgeship - Vacancies notified - Applications by appellants - Preparation of select list - Appointment of appellants within one year of their selection by select list - Subsequent order by District Judge, cancelling select list/wait list and treating the appointment of appellants as ad hoc - Order upheld by E High Court - Thereafter, termination of services - Held: Not correct - r. 12 did not provide any time limit in regard to the operation of waiting list - Wait list gets exhausted only when all duly selected candidates are given appointments in. the light of r. 12 - Until wait list is not exhausted, a fresh list could not be prepared under r. 12 - Order by District Judge provided F that only the appointments made after one year were ad hoc - Appellants being appointed within one year of their selection by select list, the services cannot be termed as ad hoc and are to be treated as regular service - Process initiated by Government for advertising fresh posts and cancelling the wait G list by making it as ad hoc, is against the Rules - Thus, appellants deem to continue in service from the date of initial appointment. H 822 NASEEM AHMAD & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 823 r. 12 - Waiting list - Expression 'reasonable dimension' A - Meaning of - Explained. 8 Applications were invited for appointment to Class IV posts of Process Servers, Orderlies, Peons and Farrashes in District Judgeship, Mahoba. The total sanctioned strength of Class IV employees was 31. The selections were to be made for the purposes of preparation of a wait list. The appellants applied for the posts. On 19.09~2000, a select list was prepared and the appellants were placed at S. Nos. 9, 10 and 11. In 2001, 4 C more posts were created in the Judgeship of Mahoba. On 13.08.2001, the appellants were issued appointment letters for the newly created posts. Meanwhile the sanctioned strength of Class IV employees was increased. On 19.09.2003, the District Judge cancelled the select list/wait list fo rthwith and the appointments of the D appellants were treated as ad hoc, in terms of the G.Os. and the order of the High Court, that the panel made of Class IV employees is valid for a period of one year, thus, the appointments made after 19.09.2001 are ad hoc. The appellants filed a writ petition against the order passed by the District Judge, Mahoba. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The special appeal was also dismissed. In pursuant thereto, the appellants were terminated from service. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court E F HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that that since the appellants were appointed after a period of one year from the date of their selection as per select list dated G 19.09.2000, in terms of Government Order as well as Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1995, their appointment cannot be sustained since the wait list stood exhausted on the appointments being made against the available vacancies H 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A on the date of advertisement i.e., 6 + 1, and therefore, they have no right to claim any appointment. [Para 9] [832-E- F] 1.2 The material placed as well as the details available 8 in the order of the Single Judge of the High Court clearly shows that on 20.09.2000, the District Judge appointed six persons on these available six vacancies on the thirty five sanctioned posts (31 at Mahoba and 4 at Charkhari) in the Judgeship. 'PN' at S.No. 7 was left out and was given appointment as SC candidate on 23.12.2000. 'MD' C at S.No. 8 of the list drawn according to roster was given appointment on 13.02.2001. The candidates at S.Nos. 9 to 12, namely, the appellants and one 'RP' were given appointments as against four vacancies at the outlying court at Charkhari. [Para 9] [832-F-H; 833-A-C] D 1.3 The select list of the appellants was dated 19.09.2000 whereas they were appoint
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.