WAHAB UDDIN & ORS. versus KM. MEENAKSHI GAHLOT & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 13-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 291
291
WAHAB UDDIN & ORS.
v.
KM. MEENAKSHI GAHLOT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6477 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 13, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment – Claim for appointment cannot
be made on the basis of expired select list.
Service Law: Appointment on leave vacancies – Appointment
letter stated that the appointment of appellants would be terminated
once the regular employee resumes their duties – Held: Once the
regular employees resume their duties, the services of appellants
are to be terminated and/or put to an end – High Court was right in
setting aside appointment of appellants.
Service Law: Termination from services – Respondent no. 1
to 3 were selected after due process and in accordance with the
Rules, 1947 – High Court was right in setting aside their termination
order – Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules,
1947.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Initially the appellants participated in the selection
process for the post of English Stenographers in the year 1987.
They never applied for the post of Hindi Stenographers in the
year 1987. Since there were no vacancies of English
Stenographers in the District Court, Moradabad no appointments
were made and appellants were not appointed on the post of
English Stenographers of which they applied. However, they were
placed on the select list on 14.07.1987.  As per Rule 14(3) of the
Rules, 1947 the validity of the select list was for one year and
therefore, the said select list dated 14.07.1987 came to an end
on 13.07.1988. Thereafter the appellants could not have claimed
any appointment on the basis of the expired select list. However,
there were some leave vacancies of temporary nature in the post
of Hindi Stenographers and therefore, the appellants were
appointed purely on temporary basis on the said leave vacancies,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
for a period of one month from 14.10.1987 to 15.11.1987. In the
appointment letter itself, it was stated that their appointment shall
be terminated once the regular employees resume their duties.
It is not in dispute that thereafter a fresh examination was
conducted for the post of Hindi Stenographers on 24.09.1988 and
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed. However, thereafter
though the services of the appellants were required to be
terminated on the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being selected for the
post of Hindi Stenographers, pursuant to the communication dated
22.05.1990 by the Deputy Registrar, High Court by which it was
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, and though the appellants failed to clear the
speed test for the post of Hindi Stenographers as required as per
Rule 5(c) of the Rules, 1947, the District Judge, Moradabad
appointed the appellants and terminated the services of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The appointment of the appellants and
the termination of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been rightly
quashed and set aside by the High Court, firstly on the ground
that in the year 1990, no direction could have been issued to
make the appointment on the basis of the select list dated
14.07.1987 as the select list dated 14.07.1987 expired and came
to an end on 13.07.1988; secondly, the appellants failed to clear/
pass the speed test for the post of Hindi Stenographers; thirdly,
the appellants were never appointed after following due procedure
of selection, against which the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were
selected and appointed pursuant to the fresh examination which
was conducted for the post of Hindi Stenographers on 24.09.1988
and thereafter they were appointed after following due procedure
of selection and that the appointment of the appellants in the
year 1987 was against the leave vacancies and in the appointment
order itself it was specifically mentioned that their appointment
shall be terminated once the regular employees resume their
duties. [Para 9][297-C-H; 298-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6477 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.638 of 2012.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
293
Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Rahul Kr.
Chaudhary, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Ashutosh Garg, Baban Kr. Sharma, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivere

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.