Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Illegal Appointments: Wahab Uddin vs. Km. Meenakshi Gahlot (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2021

Citation: [Not Available in the Source]

Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can an appointment to a government job be considered valid if it is based on an expired select list and the candidate does not meet the required qualifications? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a service law dispute. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in quashing the appointments of the appellants, who were appointed against the rules, and reinstating the original candidates who were duly selected. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures in government appointments. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 1987, a competitive examination was conducted in the judgeship of Moradabad to fill positions for English and Hindi Stenographers. The appellants initially applied for English Stenographer posts. A select list was prepared on July 14, 1987, which included the appellants. However, due to a lack of vacancies for English Stenographers, no appointments were made from this list. According to Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, this list was valid for only one year, expiring on July 13, 1988.

While Hindi Stenographers were appointed from their respective select list, the appellants were temporarily appointed against leave vacancies for Hindi Stenographers from October 14, 1987, to November 15, 1987. Their appointment letters clearly stated that their services would be terminated once regular employees returned.

Subsequently, a fresh examination was held on September 24, 1988, for Hindi Stenographer positions, leading to the appointment of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Despite this, the appellants made representations to the District Judge, Moradabad, who then forwarded them to the High Court. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court, on May 22, 1990, directed that a merit list be prepared from the 1987 select list. A typing test was conducted on May 29, 1990, where all three appellants failed to meet the required speed as per Rule 5(c) of the Rules, 1947.

Despite failing the speed test, the District Judge, Moradabad, terminated the services of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and appointed the appellants on June 5, 1990. This action was challenged by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before the High Court, which ruled in their favor, setting aside the appellants’ appointments and reinstating Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision on January 23, 2020, leading to the current appeal by the appellants before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially heard the writ petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, challenging the appointment of the appellants and the termination of their services. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the appointment of the appellants and reinstating Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The appellants then filed a special appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was also dismissed, affirming the decision of the Single Judge. This led to the appellants filing the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. Specifically, Rule 14(3) of the Rules, 1947 states that a select list is valid for one year from the date of its preparation. The relevant provision is as follows:

“Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 select list was to remain valid for one year”

Additionally, Rule 5(c) of the Rules, 1947, mandates that candidates must pass a speed test to qualify for the post of Hindi Stenographer.

“Rule 5(c) of the Rules, 1947 and their typing test was found less than the prescribed.”

These rules are crucial for understanding the validity of the appointments made in this case.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their appointments should not be quashed because they have worked for nearly 29 years, especially after the High Court of Allahabad approved their appointments on May 22, 1990, and appointment letters were issued on June 5, 1990.
• They contended that Rule 14(3) of the Rules, 1947, should not apply to the merit list under Rule 11, but only to reserved category candidates under Rule 12.
• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in considering their initial appointments against leave vacancies in 1987, as they have continuously worked for over 30 years.
• They also argued that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed in 2012, 24 years after the select list of November 29, 1988, and had become age-barred at 50 years old.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellants initially applied for English Stenographer posts and were placed on a select list valid for only one year, which expired on July 13, 1988, as per Rule 14(3) of the Rules, 1947.
• They stated that the appellants were temporarily appointed against leave vacancies in 1987, with a clear condition that their services would be terminated when regular employees resumed their duties.
• The respondents emphasized that fresh examinations were conducted in 1988, and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were duly appointed.
• They pointed out that the appellants failed the speed test for Hindi Stenographers, as required by the Rules, 1947, but this fact was not communicated to the High Court.
• The respondents argued that the District Judge, Moradabad, wrongly terminated the services of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and appointed the appellants, despite the appellants’ failure to qualify.
• The respondents submitted that there cannot be two persons working on one sanctioned post.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the appointments of the appellants were valid, considering that they were based on an expired select list and their failure to clear the speed test for Hindi Stenographers.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the appointments of the appellants and reinstating the original candidates (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) who were duly selected.
3. Whether the appellants should be continued in service considering the fact that they have worked for a long time.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it heavily relied on the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. The following is a summary of the legal provisions and their significance:

• Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947: This rule specifies that a select list is valid for one year. The court emphasized that the select list of July 14, 1987, expired on July 13, 1988, making any appointments based on it after this date invalid.
• Rule 5(c) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947: This rule mandates that candidates must pass a speed test to qualify for the post of Hindi Stenographer. The court noted that the appellants failed this test, making them ineligible for appointment.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The Court emphasized the following points:

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947: The Court strictly applied this rule, stating that the select list of 1987 had expired on July 13, 1988, and no appointments could be made based on it after that date.
• Rule 5(c) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947: The Court noted that the appellants failed the speed test for the post of Hindi Stenographer and thus, were not eligible for appointment.

The Court emphasized that the appellants’ appointments were illegal from the outset and that their continued service, even for a long period, could not validate their illegal appointments. The Court also highlighted that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were duly selected and their services were terminated illegally by the District Judge, Moradabad.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Adherence to Rules: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established rules and procedures for government appointments. The select list had expired, and the appellants had failed the required speed test.
• Legality of Appointments: The Court found that the appellants’ appointments were illegal from the beginning, as they were based on an expired select list and they did not meet the qualification criteria.
• Merit and Due Process: The Court highlighted that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were selected through a due process and their services were terminated illegally.
• No Validation by Long Service: The Court clarified that long service could not validate an illegal appointment. The appellants’ continued service was a result of an illegal appointment and an interim order from the High Court.
• Sanctity of Sanctioned Post: The court noted that there cannot be two persons working on one sanctioned post.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal framework and the established rules rather than the factual aspects of the case. The court emphasized the importance of following the rules and procedures for government appointments.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Government appointments must strictly adhere to the rules and procedures.
• An expired select list cannot be the basis for a valid appointment.
• Failure to meet the required qualifications invalidates an appointment.
• Long service does not validate an illegal appointment.
• There cannot be two persons working on one sanctioned post.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of due process and adherence to rules in government appointments. It clarifies that illegal appointments cannot be validated by long service and that merit must prevail.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but the implication of the judgment is that the appellants’ services are terminated, and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are to be accommodated on the sanctioned posts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that appointments based on an expired select list and without fulfilling the required qualifications are invalid. The judgment reinforces the principle that long service cannot validate an illegal appointment. This case does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms existing ones, emphasizing the importance of following due process in government appointments. This case also clarifies that there cannot be two persons working on one sanctioned post.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wahab Uddin vs. Km. Meenakshi Gahlot upholds the importance of following due process in government appointments. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that appointments based on expired select lists and without meeting the required qualifications are invalid. The judgment reinforces that long service cannot validate an illegal appointment and that merit must prevail. The Court also clarified that there cannot be two persons working on one sanctioned post.