Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rana Pratap Singh, was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk on 21.12.1990 after a selection process conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee under the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. His appointment was made following a vacancy created by the promotion of Shiv Kumar Rai to Assistant Accountant. However, on 11.11.1992, the promotion of Shiv Kumar Rai was cancelled, and consequently, the appellant's appointment was terminated. Shiv Kumar Rai challenged his reversion in a writ petition, which was stayed by the High Court on 27.11.1992. The appellant also filed a writ petition challenging his termination, but it was dismissed on 04.12.1992, as he was unaware of the stay order in Shiv Kumar Rai's case. Subsequently, due to the interim order in Shiv Kumar Rai's case, the appellant was reappointed on 01.01.1993, initially until 27.02.1993, but the termination order dated 27.02.1993 was stayed by the High Court on 29.04.1993. Shiv Kumar Rai continued as Assistant Accountant until his retirement on 29.02.2008, and his writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 15.09.2001. The appellant continued to work as Junior Accounts Clerk, received promotional increments, and was confirmed on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk w.e.f. 22.12.1993 and as Assistant Accountant w.e.f. 22.12.2007. The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on 02.02.2012, and the Division Bench dismissed his special appeal on 06.02.2018, holding that the dismissal of Shiv Kumar Rai's petition revived the vacancy. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's appointment was valid, his termination was based on a reversion that was stayed, and his long service and confirmation entitled him to retain the post.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Validity - Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 - Appointment made by duly constituted Selection Committee after calling names from Employment Exchange - Held that the appointment was valid and not challenged by anyone (Paras 7-8). B) Service Law - Termination - Reversion of Predecessor - Effect of Interim Order - Termination order dated 11.11.1992 was consequential to reversion of Shiv Kumar Rai - Since reversion was stayed by High Court on 27.11.1992, the termination of appellant had no meaning - Held that dismissal of appellant's first writ petition on 04.12.1992 did not prejudice his claim (Paras 9-10). C) Service Law - Dismissal of Writ Petition as Infructuous - Effect - Shiv Kumar Rai's writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to efflux of time, not on merits - He continued as Assistant Accountant till retirement - Held that dismissal of his petition does not revive the vacancy of Junior Accounts Clerk (Paras 12, 15). D) Service Law - Confirmation - Long Service - Appellant served for 27 years, received promotional pay scales, and was confirmed on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk w.e.f. 22.12.1993 and Assistant Accountant w.e.f. 22.12.2007 - Held that such long service and confirmation cannot be ignored (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant's appointment based on the reversion of his predecessor was valid, and whether the appellant's long-continued service and subsequent confirmation entitle him to retain the post.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench, and held that the appellant is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Appointment validity
- Termination due to reversion of predecessor
- Effect of dismissal of writ petition as infructuous
- Confirmation of service
- Legitimate expectation
- Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules
- 1985
