Supreme Court: Carry Forwarding Vacancies for a year or so amounts to Rejection for Extension of Term of Employment

Sakunjay Vyas

Published on: May, 6, 2022 at 14:48 IST

The Two Judge Bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court overturned an impugned Judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, where-in the High court allowed the respondent’s request for extension of the term of appointment as a Judicial Member, Central Administrative Tribunal by another term.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Carry forwarding vacancies for a year or so amount to rejection for the extension of the term of employment.

The Contentions made by the appellant were:

1. That the High Court committed an error in holding that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for carrying forward the vacancies to the next year i.e. 2017, stood set aside by the judgment of the High Court dated 08.05.2019.
2. That using the additional data provided the Selection Committee decided that the vacancies which were to be filled up by the appointment of the respondent and Shri A.K. Bhardwaj should be carried forward to the next year i.e. 2017.
3. That the High Court, by a judgment dated 08.05.2019, only directed the competent authority to pass an order following Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules.
4. That a suitable order in terms of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India was passed.

The Contentions made by the respondent were:

1. That the recommendations made by the Selection Committee to extend the tenure of the respondent have to be complied with by the competent authority.

2. The request to carry forward the vacancies of 2016 to the next year which was approved by the Selection Committee, does not amount to a rejection of the respondent’s request for an extension of his tenure for another term.

3. That there was nothing adverse against the respondent in the High Court’s judgment, based on which the request for extension could be rejected.

The Apex Court stated that the Selection Committee recorded that the ACC had returned the proposal for extension of the tenure of the respondent after taking a decision not to fill up the vacancies by extending the term of the respondent and Shri A.K. Bhardwaj.

That the recommendation of the selection committee to carry forward the vacancies and in our opinion the carry forwarding of vacancies for a year or so would amount to a rejection of the request to extend the term.

“we are not in agreement with the contention of the respondent that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to carry forward the 2016 vacancies to year 2017 does not amount to rejection of the request of the respondent for extension of his term as Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal.”, the court said. 

The Apex Court stated that the High Court committed an error in holding that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee to carry forward the vacancies to the year 2017 was set aside by the High Court, in its earlier order.

That the direction of the High Court was that the ACC should pass an order following Rule 9(4) of the 2011 Rules according to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and approved by the Chief Justice of India.

That Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2017 cannot be understood as the recommendation of the Selection Committee being set aside.

The Apex Court further stated that the ACC did not take any decision contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee which was approved by the Chief Justice of India.

That the ACC only followed the directions issued to it by the High Court and that its decision is neither in contradiction with the selection committee nor with the directions issued by the High Court.

“Pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court on 08.05.2019, the order passed on 11.10.2019 by the ACC is neither contrary to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee nor in violation of the directions issued by the High Court.”, The Court said.

As a result, the Apex Court overturned an impugned Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow, by stating that the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.