Summary
The Court upheld the invalidation of appointments of temporary leave-vacancy stenographers who displaced duly selected Hindi stenographers. The appellants’ English-stenographer select list had expired, they failed the required Hindi speed test, and they had not undergone the prescribed selection. Decades of continuation under interim orders did not justify protection of their unlawful appointments or an additional claim to pensionary benefits while regular selectees occupied the same sanctioned posts.
Issues
- Whether temporary leave-vacancy appointees could retain posts against duly selected candidates on the strength of an expired select list, an administrative communication and prolonged service.
Held
- The appellants’ select list for English stenographers had expired after one year. Their temporary appointments against Hindi-stenographer leave vacancies expressly contemplated termination on return of regular employees. The subsequent administrative communication could not justify appointments from the expired list, especially when the appellants failed the requisite Hindi speed test. (¶¶ 2.1, 9)
- The competing candidates had been selected and appointed through the fresh 1988 process; their later accommodation in 2012 did not mean that their initial appointments occurred only then. Their displacement to accommodate the appellants was rightly set aside. (¶ 9)
- Long service attributable to interim orders did not cure these illegal appointments. With the duly selected candidates entitled to the posts, continued appointment of two persons against one sanctioned post was impermissible. The appellants’ requests for service protection and pensionary benefits were rejected on these facts. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal dismissed; invalidation of the appellants’ appointments and quashing of the regular selectees’ termination upheld. No costs.