Termination for Appointment Beyond Advertised Vacancies Unjustified Where Advertisement Permitted Increase: Supreme Court Reinstates Class IV Employees After 17 Years

“We cannot but find the termination to be unjustified…” — On October 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.), Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 14980 of 2024, held that termination of Class IV employees appointed beyond the initially advertised number of vacancies was legally untenable, where the advertisement itself had a clear stipulation that the number of vacancies was subject to increase or decrease. Quashing the termination of four such employees, the Court directed their reappointment or pension benefits, depending on their age.

This decision, while confined to the peculiar facts of the case, affirms the principle that recruitments from waitlists may be valid even for vacancies arising beyond the advertised posts, provided the appointments are within a reasonable time and the recruitment rules permit such augmentation.

“Waitlists Must Be of Reasonable Dimension to Meet Future Vacancies” — SC Reiterates Principle from Naseem Ahmad

Referring to the precedent in Naseem Ahmad & Ors. v. State of U.P., (2011) 2 SCC 734, the Court emphasized that Rule 12, governing Class IV appointments, allowed the preparation of a waitlist of “reasonable dimension” to absorb additional vacancies arising in the same or succeeding recruitment year.

Quoting directly from Naseem Ahmad, the Court reiterated:

“This waiting list should broadly be correlated to the number of vacancies either available in the year of recruitment or likely to become available in the succeeding year... in reasonable proportion to the notified vacancies.”

Applying this interpretation, the Court held that the appellants — though appointed against posts in excess of the 12 notified vacancies — were validly appointed since the advertisement itself clearly indicated that the number of posts was subject to change and subsequent vacancies had in fact arisen.

Background: Appointments Made in 2001, Termination in 2008, and 17 Years of Legal Limbo

The appellants were appointed as Class IV employees in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar in 2001, against an advertisement that notified 12 vacancies “subject to increase or decrease.” Two of the appellants were even granted temporary promotions. However, in 2008 — after eight years of service — their appointments were terminated on the ground that only 12 posts had been advertised, and they were appointed in excess.

The High Court of Allahabad upheld the termination, but the appellants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the appointments were valid under Rule 12 and covered by the legal interpretation in Naseem Ahmad.

The State countered that only 12 vacancies existed as on the date of advertisement and that later appointments were not justified.

Supreme Court's Observations: “The Termination Was Unjustified”

The Supreme Court categorically rejected the High Court’s reasoning and found that the appointments were in line with the applicable rules and precedent:

“The advertisement specifically indicated that there could be an increase or decrease of vacancies... the Appointing Authority intended that a wait list be maintained... which was permissible as per the rules.”

The Court noted that after the 2000 advertisement, the next recruitment notifications came only in 2008 and 2015, during which period 29 vacancies arose — validating the need and legality of appointments from a waitlist.

“We are definite that the very same situation arose in Naseem Ahmad and the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench erred in not accepting the said contention...”

Relief Granted: Reappointment or Pension Based on Age

Taking into account the 17-year delay, the age of the appellants, and the absence of evidence on specific substantive vacancies at the time of appointment, the Court passed equitable directions:

“The appellants if not having completed the age of superannuation shall be accommodated in the existing vacancies... or in a supernumerary post.”

For those who had crossed the age of superannuation, the Court ordered:

“They shall be entitled to minimum pension dehors the fact that they have completed only 8 years in employment.”

The Court clarified that those reappointed would have no claim to seniority but their previous service would count toward pensionable service, excluding the 17-year gap, which would not be counted even notionally.

“The appellants shall not be entitled to treat the intervening period of 17 years... for any purpose, neither as notional service nor even for computing pensionable service.”

A Judgment of Equity and Rule-Conscious Interpretation

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinstates the principle that recruitments based on waitlists can extend beyond advertised vacancies when permitted by rule and justified by arising vacancies. The ruling not only corrects a procedural injustice meted out over 17 years but also lays down a measured approach to balancing rule compliance with equitable considerations.

The judgment, however, is expressly limited to the unique facts of the case:

“The directions issued are in the peculiar circumstances of this case and shall not be a precedent.”

Date of Decision: October 17, 2025