Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court last week remarked that there cannot be appointment of two persons on one sanctioned post.

"Otherwise, there will be financial burden on the State of two persons on one sanctioned post.", added the top court.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna made these observations in a plea challenging the order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which had upheld the setting aside of appointment of the appellants - participants of a competitive examination for the post of English Stenographers held in the judgeship of Moradabad for the posts of English and Hindi Stenographers.

A select list of English Stenographers (containing the names of the appellants) and Hindi Stenographers was prepared in July 1987. However, since there were no vacancies in the judgeship for the post of English Stenographers then, no appointments were given to the candidates in the select list.

As per Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, the select list was to remain valid for one year and the said select list came to an end in July 1988. 

Since there were some leave vacancies of temporary nature in the post of Hindi Stenographers, the appellants were appointed on temporary basis against those leave vacancies, for a period of one month from October 14, 1987 to November 15, 1987.

Thereafter when fresh examinations were conducted the next year for the post of Hindi Stenographers, the appellants filed representations for their appointment. 

After a typing/speed test was conducted for the appellants for the post of Hindi Stenographers, it was found that the appellants were not qualified as per Rule 5(c) of the Rules, 1947 and their typing speed was found less than the prescribed.

Despite this, the District Judge, Moradabad terminated the services of the Respondents who were selected after due process in 1990 and in compliance of the Rules of 1947, and appointed the appellants.

This appointment was challenged and set aside by the High Court accordingly.

It was noted by the Court in the appeal that initially the appellants participated in the selection process for the post of English Stenographers and they had never applied for the post of Hindi Stenographers.

The Bench held that the appointment of the appellants was rightly quashed and set aside by the High Court, on the following grounds:

1. That in the year 1990 no direction could have been issued to make the appointment on the basis of the select list dated July 1987 as that select list expired;
2. The appellants failed to clear/pass the speed test for the post of Hindi Stenographers;
3. The appellants were never appointed after following due procedure of selection and their appointment was against the leave vacancies which was to be terminated once the regular employees resume their duties.

"... their appointment is subsequently held to be bad in law and not only that their continuation in service is also held to be bad in law, thereafter they cannot be permitted to submit that as they worked for a long time their services should be protected, though their appointments are not legally tenable", remarked the bench.

The Court further held that unfortunately, it has so happened that the appellants as well as respondents were working on the same post, which was not permissible. 

The prayer of the appellants to continue them in services and to pay them pensionary benefits etc. thus, was not granted.

"Appellants are not entitled to any relief. In fact, they are benefitted by continuing in the service after 1988 though their services were required to be put to an end after the fresh selection in the year 1988 and after the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed after following due process and procedure as per Rules, 1947", concluded the Bench.

Cause Title: Wahab Uddin & Ors. v Km. Meenakshi Gahlot & Ors.