Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 10, 2025, said that public employment is a duty entrusted by the Constitution with the State, therefore, it becomes imperative that the rigours of Articles 14 and 16 are not ignored by the State as arbitrariness in such matters goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality.

"Though there is no fundamental right to claim reservation as Articles 16(4) and (4-A) of the Constitution are in the nature of enabling provisions only and do not mandate the State or its instrumentalities to provide reservation in every selection process but inspite thereof, the State’s decision to not provide reservation has to be based on some quantifiable data and valid reasoning," a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta said.

The court quashed the advertisement of July 29, 2010, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, Jharkhand for appointment of Class IV employees and all the consequential proceedings conducted in pursuance thereof for being violative of Articles 14 and 16 and judicial precedents of the court.

The bench said while no person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does not mean that the State can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

"The State is accountable to the public at large as well as the Constitution of India, which guarantees equal and fair treatment to each person. Public employment process thus, must always be fair, transparent, impartial and within the bounds of the Constitution of India. Every citizen has a fundamental right to be treated fairly and impartially, which is an appendage of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A violation of this guarantee is liable to judicial scrutiny as well as criticism," the bench said.

The court dismissed petitions including by Amrit Yadav, whose appointment got terminated, upon the Jharkhand High Court's orders to make a fresh selection list.

"Once the appointment process is declared to be a nullity in law, every action taken in furtherance of such appointment process is also illegal, and, therefore, the constitutional courts have jurisdiction to set aside such appointments wholly and ab-initio. This power of the Court is not curtailed even in a situation where a third-party right has been created in those who have been offered appointment or have even joined the service," the bench said.

The court relied upon State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn. (1994) to emphasise that a beneficiary of a back-door procedure cannot claim proper treatment as per law when they come to the receiving end.

It said the appellant-employee, who had been appointed under the advertisement, did not have any right on the subject posts once it was concluded that the advertisement was itself void and was declared illegal and unconstitutional. The candidates’ right to continue on such posts is contingent upon the legality of the advertisement and the recruitment process conducted in pursuance thereof, the bench said.

Examining the validity of the advertisement, the court said, such publications, which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection, are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency.

It is a trite law that a valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment must include the total number of seats, the ratio of reserved and unreserved seats, minimum qualification for the posts and procedural clarity with respect to the type and manner of selection stages, i.e., written, oral examination and interviews, the bench pointed out.

Relying upon Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand (2020), the bench said, "It is imperative that the State must specifically mention in the advertisement the total number of reserved and unreserved seats. However, if the State does not intend to provide reservation, in view of the quantifiable data indicating adequacy of representation, this aspect must also be specifically mentioned in the advertisement".

The advertisement issued was completely silent on the aspect of the total number of posts and the number of reserved quota and general quota posts, the bench said.

"We are of the view that if the State chooses not to provide reservation, that decision must also be conveyed through the advertisement along with the lists of inclusions," the court said.

In the case of State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi, (2020), it was observed that any appointment made in violation of the statutory rules as well as the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity in law, the bench pointed out.

"In the wake of the judicial precedents, we are of the view that the entire recruitment process initiated for the subject posts, in furtherance of the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, is in violation of both the legal precedents and settled law. Therefore, we hold that the advertisement was not a valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment and is thus, a nullity in law," the bench said.

The court opined that the high court was justified in ordering preparation of a fresh panel of selected candidates on the basis of the marks secured in the written examination, conducted on November 5, 2017. This decision has been upheld by the division dench in the first impugned order of November 7, 2019 which has now attained finality as no further challenge thereto was laid by either the respondent-State or the appellant-employee at that time, it noted.

A single judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant-employee and other similarly situated candidates against their termination order, the top court highlighted.

Thus, the bench said, "No error whatsoever was committed by the division bench in dismissing the appeal as it had clearly stated that the appellants therein failed to lay challenge to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the first impugned order dated 7th November, 2019. The Division Bench in a fresh round of litigation could not have reviewed the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench in relation to the same controversy".

The court said it is trite law that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula, and it is imperative to understand that there are certain exceptions to their applicability.

"In our view, since the very selection and appointment of the appellant-employee was a nullity in the eyes of law, the Single Judge committed no error in directing the respondent-State to prepare fresh panel of selected candidates without hearing the candidates who were likely to get affected," the bench said.

The court held that if the subject appointments were ab-initio nullity in the eyes of law, it was not incumbent on the single judge to pass the order after hearing all the parties that were likely to be affected by such decision, i.e., the candidates who were already appointed on the subject posts including the appellant-employee.

"There was no need to comply with the principles of natural justice as that would be nothing, but an exercise in futility and the appellant employee thus, cannot be allowed to claim prejudice from the fact that he was neither impleaded nor heard before the issuance of a direction affecting his service," the bench said.

The court quashed all the appointments made following the high court's 2018 order and directed the Jharkhand government to issue fresh advertisement, compliant with the constitutional mandate and in accordance with the extant rules and the observations made.

The bench directed the state government to issue fresh notification in terms of the direction within six months and specifically provide suitable age relaxation in order to accommodate all such aspirants, who would have in the supervening period and during the pendency of the present litigation crossed the age limit for selection on the subject posts.

Case Title: Amrit Yadav Vs The State of Jharkhand And Ors