The Supreme Court also upheld the decision made by the Jharkhand High Court to terminate several candidates who had been appointed through the faulty recruitment process. The Court ruled that the candidates’ terminations did not require a hearing, as the appointments themselves were unconstitutional from the start.
NEW DELHI: On February 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared the 2010 recruitment process conducted by the Jharkhand government for Class-IV employees to be “illegal” and “unconstitutional“. The Court quashed the entire recruitment process, ordering the state government to issue new advertisements for these positions within six months.
The Supreme Court pointed out several flaws in the recruitment process that led to its decision. These included the failure to mention the number of available positions, not specifying the applicable reservation rules, and the sudden inclusion of an interview round, which was not originally part of the advertised recruitment process.
The Court concluded that such actions were in violation of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta, who were part of the bench, emphasized that the entire recruitment process had been conducted in violation of constitutional principles, leading to its invalidation.
The Supreme Court also upheld the decision made by the Jharkhand High Court to terminate several candidates who had been appointed through the faulty recruitment process. The Court ruled that the candidates’ terminations did not require a hearing, as the appointments themselves were unconstitutional from the start.
The judges stated, “When the appointment of the candidates is a nullity in law making them disentitled to hold the posts, the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when the same would be nothing short of an exercise in futility,” citing the Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463.
The Court observed that if the appointment process is found to be a nullity under the law, then it has the power to set aside such appointments entirely. This holds true even if candidates have already joined the service.
“Thus, it is clear that 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.”
This means that even if candidates have worked for years or are already in the service, the unlawful appointments can still be cancelled by the Court.
The Court further clarified that those who benefited from an unconstitutional recruitment process cannot claim legal rights to continue in their positions.
The appellants in this case, who had been appointed under the faulty advertisement issued on July 29, 2010, have no legal right to the posts, as the advertisement itself was declared void and unconstitutional.
The Court highlighted that, “the appellant-employee, who had been appointed under the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, does not have any right on the subject posts once it is concluded that the advertisement is itself void and is 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.”
In its final remarks, the Supreme Court emphasized of fairness and transparency in public employment processes. The Court reminded the state authorities that public employment is a duty entrusted to them by the Constitution of India. It is crucial that the principles of fairness, equality, and transparency are adhered to in all matters related to public employment.
The Court observed, “At this juncture, before parting, we deem it fit to note that public employment is a duty entrusted by the Constitution of India with the State. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the rigours of Articles 14 and 16 are not ignored by the State in relation to the matter concerning public employment. Arbitrariness in public employment goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality. 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.”
On February 10, the Supreme Court refused to grant relief to him and other similarly placed candidates, citing fundamental flaws in the recruitment process.
The Bench noted that the 2010 recruitment advertisement failed to specify the number of vacancies and the reservation policy, which should have been clearly stated.
The Court held that appointments made through such an unconstitutional process could not be upheld, regardless of the candidates’ years of service or the absence of a hearing before their termination.
Additionally, the Court set aside the High Court’s 2018 order directing the preparation of a fresh merit list based on the 2010 recruitment exam results.
It further directed the State to issue new advertisements for the positions within six months.
Case Name: Amrit Yadav v State of Jharkhand & Ors
