There Can't Be Two Appointments To One Sanctioned Post; Otherwise Financial Burden On State : Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna dismissed a petition filed by the appellants, three Stenographers in the judgeship of Moradabad, whose appointments had been initially quashed by the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court and later affirmed by the Division Bench.

Factual Background

The matter goes as far back as 1987 when in the judgeship of Moradabad a competitive examination was conducted for the post of English and Hindi Stenographers. The appellants participated for the post of English Stenographers and got selected for the same as per the list prepared on 14.07.1987.

However, there were no vacancies for the English Stenographers and the refore, no appointments ensued. As per Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 ("Rules"), which requires the list to remain valid for one year, the concerned list came to an end on 13.07.1988. In the meanwhile, there were some leave vacancies in the post of Hindi Stenographers and the appellants were temporarily appointed to fill up these vacancies for a period from 14.10.1987 to 15.11.1987 with a specific condition that they would be terminated once the regular employees resume their duties.

Eventually, fresh examinations for the post of Hindi Stenographers were conducted and fresh appointments were made. Therefore, it was time for the appellants, who were appointed in leave vacancy posts to be terminated. A representation was made by the appellants to the District Judge, Moradabad, who then forwarded his comments to the Deputy Registrar, High Court. Vide order dated 22.05.1990, the District Judge was directed that a list of ex-stenos, who were approved on 14.07.1987 be prepared and their names be arranged in the order of merit. In the meanwhile, a typing/speed test was conducted for the post of Hindu Stenographers, but the appellants could not qualify as per Rule 5(c).

On 05.06.1990, without any further intimation of the result of the speed test to the Deputy Registrar, High Court, the District Judge, Moradabad terminated the service of the new appointees (Respondent No. 1 to 3 herein) and appointed the appellants instead, which was subsequently were challenged before the Single Judge, who therein quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellants.

Contentions raised by the appellants

The appellants argued that their appointments were approved by the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 22.05.1990 and accordingly, appointment letters were issued by the District Judge, Moradabad. They also averred that the one year rule under Rule 14(3) does not apply to the recruitment list on merit under Rule 11, but only to the reserved category candidates under Rule 12. Referring to the judgment of the High Court, the appellants submitted that it had erred in not considering that the appellants had continuously worked for the judgeship of Moradabad for more than 30 years. Contending that the appointment of Respondents No. 1 to 3 had become age barred, the appellants argued that the said appointments were made by the interim order of the High Court, almost 24 years after the actual selection list was prepared on 29.11.1988.

Contentions raised by the Allahabad High Court

The appellants were never appointed to the post of Hindi Stenographers after following due selection procedure. The Respondent No. 1 to 3 were rightfully appointed on the substantive sanctioned posts. Since the appellants' appointment was temporary in nature, once selected the Respondent No.1 to 3 were to take up the posts.

The Respondent No. 1 to 3 adopted the submissions made by the Allahabad High Court.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the applicants had never applied for the post of Hindi Stenographers. The initial application of the appellants were only for the post of English Stenographer. On perusal of the appointment letters of the appellants, the Court observed that the appellants were appointed temporarily against leave vacancies in the post of Hindi Stenographers, and were to be terminated once the regular employees resumed duties. The Court pointed out that instead of being terminated, the appellants had remained in service and had indeed unjustly benefitted.

The Supreme Court accepted the three grounds enunciated by the High Court for quashing and setting aside appointment of the appellants:

4. In the year 1990 no appointments could have been made based on the selection list of 14.07.1987 as the same had expired on 13.07.1988;
5. The appellants did not pass the speed test for Hindi Stenographers;
6. Unlike the Respondents No. 1 to 3, the appellants were never appointed to the post of Hindi Stenographers following due selection process.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the submission made by the appellants that the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 to 3 was effective in 2012 by the interim order of the Division Bench was incorrect as in 1988 itself the said respondents were appointed after following the selection procedure. However, they were unjustly terminated in 1990 when the appellants were appointed.

The submission of the appellant that they had worked for almost 30 years was not acceptable to the Apex Court, given the fact that they had illegally continued service pursuant to the interim order of the High Court, which accommodated Respondent No. 1 to 3 in the same post. The Supreme Court further noted that post 2012 both the appellants and the Respondent No. 1 to 3 were working on the post of Hindi Stenographers, which is impermissible. The Court observed -

"There cannot be appointment of two persons on one sanctioned post. Otherwise there will be a financial burden on the State of two persons on one sanctioned post. Under the circumstances the prayer of the appellants to continue them in services and to pay them pensionary benefits etc. also cannot be granted. Appellants are not entitled to any relief."

[Case title: Wahab Uddin And Ors. v. Km. Meenakshi Gahlot And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6477 of 2021]

Citation : LL 2021 SC 651

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment