In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that job advertisements failing to specify the number of vacancies and reservation details are invalid and unlawful. The apex court quashed the entire recruitment process conducted by the Jharkhand government for Class-IV posts, calling it a “nullity in law” for violating constitutional principles of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling in the case of Amrit Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (Civil Appeal No. 13950-13951 of 2024). The Court held that the 2010 recruitment advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu was fundamentally flawed as it did not mention the total number of vacancies, reserved category seats, or even the selection criteria clearly.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2010 for Class-IV government employees in Jharkhand. Following a written examination held on November 5, 2017, a list of selected candidates was published. However, complaints of corruption and irregularities surfaced, leading to the termination of several appointees, including the petitioner, Amrit Yadav.
The Jharkhand High Court, in a 2018 judgment, ordered the preparation of a fresh selection panel based solely on written exam scores, excluding interview marks, which were arbitrarily introduced. The Division Bench upheld this decision in 2019, leading to the dismissal of previously appointed candidates. Aggrieved by their terminations, the affected individuals, including Yadav, approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues and Supreme Court’s Ruling
Was the 2010 advertisement and the recruitment process valid?
The Court ruled against the Jharkhand government, holding that the absence of vacancy details rendered the advertisement legally unsustainable.
Relying on its previous ruling in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2014) 14 SCC 50, the Bench emphasized that advertisements must specify the number of posts, qualifications, reservation details, and selection criteria.
Was the termination of previously appointed candidates justified?
The Court affirmed the validity of the termination orders, observing that the entire selection process was fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.
It held that appointments made in violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution are null and void.
Did the High Court err in ordering a fresh selection panel without hearing affected candidates?
The Court dismissed the natural justice argument, stating that when an appointment is illegal ab initio, there is no vested right to continue in service.
Citing Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463, it ruled that hearing terminated employees would have been futile, as their selection was unlawful.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court underscored the constitutional duty of the State to conduct transparent and merit-based public employment. The judgment reiterated:
“Any appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained.”
“A valid job advertisement must specify the number of vacancies and reservation details; failing to do so renders it void.”
“Those who enter public service through backdoor methods cannot claim fairness when removed through lawful means.”
Court’s Final Directions
The 2010 recruitment advertisement and all subsequent appointments were declared illegal and quashed.
The Jharkhand government was directed to issue a fresh recruitment notification within six months, ensuring full transparency and adherence to constitutional norms.
Candidates who became overage due to delays in the selection process would be given age relaxation in the new recruitment cycle.
