Job Security: No Termination After 8 Years of Service, Supreme Court’s Historic Verdict! New Hope for West Bengal Teachers

Job Security: Terminating an employee after 8 years of uninterrupted service is “unjustified.” The Supreme Court of India recently delivered this landmark judgment in a case from Uttar Pradesh. On October 17, 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed this historic order. The verdict was given in the case of four Class IV employees of the district judiciary in Uttar Pradesh, which has sparked new hope among employees across the country, especially in states like West Bengal where recruitment-related complexities are ongoing.

What was the Background of the Case?

The case began in 2000. On October 18 of that year, an advertisement was published for 12 Class IV posts in the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship of Uttar Pradesh. That advertisement contained a crucial condition: “The number of vacancies may increase or decrease.”

The appellants (Sanjay Kumar Mishra and others) were appointed in February and July 2001. They worked for 8 years. However, after 8 years, they were terminated on the grounds that they had been appointed against “excess” posts, beyond the 12 advertised vacancies.

From the High Court to the Supreme Court

The employees first approached the Allahabad High Court against this termination. However, both the Single Bench and later the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the termination decision. Following this, the employees appealed to the Supreme Court. They remained out of service for 17 long years.

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Observations

The Supreme Court completely overturned the High Court’s verdict and sided with the employees. The apex court’s bench highlighted several crucial observations that are policy-wise very important for employee recruitment:

• Validity of the Wait List: The court noted that the mention of “posts may increase” in the advertisement implied that the appointing authority intended to maintain a waitlist, which is completely permissible under the rules.
• Vacancies Genuinely Existed: The court, after examining the facts, found that the next advertisement after 2000 was issued in 2008 (for 29 posts). This proved that 29 new vacancies had indeed been created in the interim period (2000-2008).
• Appointment Not “Excess”: The appellants were appointed against those newly created vacancies. Therefore, these appointments cannot be termed “excess” or “illegal.”
• 8 Years of Service: Finally, the court explicitly stated that the decision to terminate the employees after 8 years of uninterrupted service was “completely unjustified” and cannot be sustained.

What Did the Court Order? (The Relief)

The Supreme Court ordered the immediate reinstatement of the appellants. The court noted that two of the appellants have already crossed 60 years (the age of superannuation).

• Those who have not yet retired must be immediately reinstated to the existing vacancies of Class IV posts in the Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship.
• If no vacancies currently exist, a “Supernumerary Post” must be created for them. This post will be adjusted against future vacancies or will cease upon their retirement.
• The employees will not be entitled to any back wages or seniority for the 17 years they were out of service.
• However, their previous 8 years of service and their current service will be counted for “pension at the minimum.”

Significance of this Verdict in the Context of West Bengal

Although this case is from Uttar Pradesh, its impact is far-reaching. In West Bengal, questions have often been raised about appointments to “excess” posts or procedural flaws in teacher and other employee recruitments. This verdict sets a strong legal precedent. It proves that after a long period of service, terminating employees merely due to procedural errors is neither humanely nor legally justifiable. This judgment will provide new strength to the legal battles of employees who have been working for a long time.