In a relief that came after nearly two decades, the Supreme Court on Friday set aside the termination of four Class IV employees from the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The bench, led by Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, held that the appointments-made in 2001 but terminated in 2008 for allegedly exceeding notified vacancies-were in fact permissible under service rules.
“The advertisement itself stated that the number of posts could increase or decrease,” the bench observed, emphasizing that the rule allowed a reasonable waiting list to fill posts that might arise shortly after recruitment.
Background
The case dates back to 2000, when the Ambedkar Nagar District Court advertised 12 vacancies for Class IV positions-office peons, orderlies, and process servers. The notification mentioned that the number of posts could vary. Following the recruitment process, 16 candidates were appointed, including the four appellants.
For eight years, the employees served without complaint. However, in May 2008, their appointments were abruptly terminated on the ground that they had been made “in excess of notified vacancies.” Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the termination, prompting the workers to approach the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate M.C. Dhingra, appearing for the appellants, argued that Rule 12 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules permitted such appointments from the waiting list if vacancies arose within a reasonable time. He cited Naseem Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011), where the Court had interpreted “reasonable dimension” of a waiting list to include future vacancies within the same or next recruitment year.
Court’s Observations
Justice Chandran noted that the Ambedkar Nagar advertisement mirrored the wording considered in Naseem Ahmad, and thus, the same interpretation should apply. The Court pointed out that subsequent advertisements for Class IV posts were issued only in 2008 and 2015 clearly showing that vacancies arose in the intervening years.
“The very recital that vacancies could increase or decrease shows the intent to maintain a waiting list,” the bench said. It added that terminating employees after eight years of service, especially when they were appointed within the recruitment rules, was unjustified.
The Court also took note of the appellants’ long unemployment-17 years since their removal and considered their advanced ages. Two of them had already crossed 60.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ordered that appellants who are below the retirement age be reappointed in existing Class IV posts at Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship. If no posts are available, they will be placed in supernumerary (temporary) positions until retirement.
Those who have already crossed the retirement age will receive minimum pension benefits, even though they completed only eight years of service.
However, the bench clarified that this relief was granted purely in light of the peculiar circumstances and “shall not be treated as a precedent.” It also ruled that the 17-year gap between termination and reinstatement would not count toward pensionable service.
With that, the appeal was disposed of.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)
Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025