Summary
The Court protected a clerk’s continuation where termination had followed another employee’s reversion, but that employee never returned to the post and retired in the promoted position. The clerk’s selection complied with the statutory process; his subsequent return was reinstatement rather than a fresh time-limited appointment. Dismissal of the other employee’s case as infructuous did not erase the vacancy on these facts.
Issues
- Whether the clerk’s initial appointment was contrary to the recruitment rules.
- Whether the consequential termination or purported fixed-term reappointment ended his entitlement.
- Whether dismissal of the other employee’s writ petition as infructuous extinguished the vacancy.
Provisions considered
- Rule 22, Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985The appointment followed a statutory selection committee and names supplied by the Employment Exchange; the record did not justify treating the selection as outside the rules. (¶¶ 19, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Held
- The selection committee was constituted under the statutory rules and considered Employment Exchange nominees, including the appellant. Neither another candidate nor the appointing authority had instituted a challenge to the appointment; the Single Judge’s contrary procedural observations were unsupported. (¶¶ 19, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Stay of the other employee’s reversion rendered the appellant’s consequential termination inoperative. The later order, though styled reappointment, reinstated him under his original appointment; its date restriction reflected the initial interim order’s duration and did not independently terminate his rights when the stay continued. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36)
- The other employee’s petition was dismissed as infructuous without merits adjudication, and he remained in the promoted post until retirement. Ignoring those facts and subsequent events to extinguish the appellant’s vacancy was excessively technical. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41)
- The concealment allegation failed: the earlier hearing was contested and the Department itself continued, confirmed and promoted the appellant. His long continuation and service in the higher post were material circumstances. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition and the Division Bench judgment were set aside, sustaining the appellant’s claim to continue on the facts considered.