Introduction
Date of the Judgment: February 10, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 176
Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Was the recruitment process for Class IV employees in Palamu, Jharkhand, fair and transparent? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving appointments made based on an advertisement from 2010. The core issue revolved around whether the advertisement complied with constitutional mandates and established legal principles. Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta, in a unanimous decision, addressed the legality of the appointment process and its impact on the involved employees.
Case Background
On July 29, 2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, issued an advertisement seeking applications for Class IV employees. The advertisement outlined basic qualifications, including being 8th grade pass and proficient in cycling. An examination was conducted on November 5, 2017. Following this, a press release on November 9, 2017, announced counseling for candidates. Appointment letters were then issued on March 9, 2018. However, an FIR was filed alleging corruption in the examination process.
Aggrieved by the selection list, some non-selected candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court, which were allowed on September 12, 2018. The High Court directed the state to prepare a fresh merit list based solely on the written examination marks, excluding interview marks. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench on November 7, 2019. Consequently, the appointed employees were relieved of their duties on December 7, 2020.
The terminated employees then filed writ petitions seeking reinstatement, which were dismissed on March 9, 2022. The Single Judge held that the state had changed the rules by introducing an interview round after the selection process had begun. This decision was further upheld by a Division Bench on November 24, 2022, leading the affected employees to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 29, 2010 | Advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, for Class IV employees. |
| November 5, 2017 | Examination conducted for the advertised posts. |
| November 9, 2017 | Press release announcing counseling for selected candidates. |
| March 9, 2018 | Appointment letters issued to successful candidates. |
| September 12, 2018 | High Court directs the state to prepare a fresh merit list excluding interview marks. |
| November 7, 2019 | Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 12th September, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge. |
| December 7, 2020 | Appointed employees relieved of their duties. |
| March 9, 2022 | Writ petitions filed by terminated employees seeking reinstatement dismissed. |
| November 24, 2022 | Division Bench upholds the dismissal of the writ petitions. |
| February 10, 2025 | Supreme Court judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The initial writ petitions filed by non-selected candidates challenged the selection process, alleging that the state had unfairly awarded marks in the interview round. The High Court ruled in their favor, directing the preparation of a fresh merit list based solely on the written examination. This decision was appealed by the state but was upheld by the Division Bench.
Subsequently, the terminated employees filed writ petitions seeking reinstatement, arguing that their termination was unjust. However, the Single Judge dismissed these petitions, citing that the state had the right to correct the flawed selection process. This dismissal was then upheld by the Division Bench, which stated that the decision to prepare a fresh panel had already attained finality.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which ensure equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The Court also considers the requirements of a valid advertisement for public employment, drawing from previous judgments. The relevant provisions include:
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law.
- Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Ensures equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
- Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India: Enable the State to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
The Court emphasizes that any appointment made in violation of these articles would be a nullity in law, referencing the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the appellant-employee
- Valid Appointment: The appellant-employee argued that their appointment was valid and based purely on merit, as per Memorandum No. 399 dated March 9, 2018. They claimed there were no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation on their part.
- Satisfactory Service: The appellant-employee contended that they had served the respondent-State satisfactorily for two and a half years and had completed their probation period.
- Age Factor: The appellant-employee highlighted that they had become over-age for other Government jobs, appealing for a sympathetic view to set aside the termination order dated December 7, 2020.
- Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant-employee argued that the Division Bench erred in directing the respondent-State to prepare a fresh panel of selected candidates without impleading the affected persons, violating the principles of natural justice.
- Lack of Locus Standi: The appellant-employee asserted that the non-selected candidates who filed the writ petitions had voluntarily refrained from appearing in the counseling process and thus lacked the standing to challenge the recruitment process.
Arguments on behalf of the respondent-State
- Validity of Impugned Judgments: The respondent-State contended that the impugned judgments did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
- Compliance with High Court Direction: The respondent-State argued that the fresh panel of selected candidates was prepared in compliance with the High Court’s direction vide order dated September 12, 2018.
- Appointment Dehors the Law: The respondent-State asserted that once the appointment of the appellant-employee was found to be against the law, they could not claim a preferential right to continue in service over candidates who were higher in merit.
- Delay in Challenge: The respondent-State contended that the appellant-employee’s case suffered from gross and unexplained delay, as they were challenging the judgment of the Division Bench dated November 7, 2019, after a period of more than 3 years.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant-Employee’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent-State’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Appointment |
✓ Appointment based on merit ✓ No fraud or misrepresentation |
✓ Fresh panel prepared as per High Court direction ✓ Appellant’s appointment against the law |
| Service and Age |
✓ Satisfactory service for 2.5 years ✓ Completed probation ✓ Over-age for other jobs |
✓ Delay in challenging the judgment |
| Violation of Natural Justice |
✓ Affected persons not impleaded ✓ Non-selected candidates lacked locus standi |
✓ Impugned judgments are valid and legal |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010 issued by respondent No. 4 and appointment process carried out in pursuance thereof, was valid in the eyes of law?
- Whether the direction issued by the High Court vide order dated 12th September, 2018 was justified considering the fact that the candidates earlier appointed to the subject posts were neither impleaded as party nor were heard before the issuance of a direction that adversely affected their service?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010 | Invalid | The advertisement failed to mention the total number of posts and the number of reserved quota and general quota posts, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. |
| Justification of the High Court’s direction dated 12th September, 2018 | Justified | Since the selection and appointment of the appellant-employee was a nullity in the eyes of law, the High Court committed no error in directing the respondent-State to prepare a fresh panel of selected candidates without hearing the affected candidates. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How Considered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [(2014) 14 SCC 50] | Supreme Court of India | Requirements of a valid advertisement | Discussed in detail the requirements of a valid advertisement, emphasizing transparency and clarity in specifying the number of posts, qualifications, and selection process. |
| Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 3 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Reservation in public posts | Reiterated that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer a fundamental right to claim reservations but enable the State to provide reservations based on quantifiable data. |
| State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Appointments in violation of statutory rules | Observed that any appointment made in violation of statutory rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity in law. |
| Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE [(2015) 8 SCC 519] | Supreme Court of India | Principles of natural justice | Discussed the flexibility of the principles of natural justice and the exceptions to their applicability, emphasizing that the ultimate test is prejudice or fair hearing. |
| Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh [(2018) 15 SCC 463] | Supreme Court of India | Compliance with principles of natural justice | Held that when the appointment of candidates is a nullity in law, the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with. |
| M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav [(2007) 8 SCC 264] | Supreme Court of India | Power of cancellation of selection process | Clarified the principles to be followed in public appointments, emphasizing that appointments made without following appropriate procedures and in violation of mandatory provisions are illegal and can be set aside. |
| State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn. [(1994) 2 SCC 204] | Supreme Court of India | Back-door entries in public appointment | Dealt with back-door entries in public appointments, observing that those who come through the back door have to go through the same door. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Appellant-Employee | Respondent-State | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Appointment | Argued appointment was valid and based on merit. | Contended appointment was against the law. | The Court held that the initial advertisement and subsequent appointments were invalid due to violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. |
| Satisfactory Service and Age | Highlighted satisfactory service and being over-age for other jobs. | Argued delay in challenging the judgment. | The Court acknowledged the appellant’s situation but emphasized that the illegality of the appointment process could not be overlooked. |
| Violation of Natural Justice | Claimed violation of natural justice due to not being impleaded. | Maintained that the impugned judgments were valid. | The Court found that since the initial appointment was a nullity, the principles of natural justice did not need to be strictly followed. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [(2014) 14 SCC 50]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of transparency and clarity in advertisements for public employment.
- Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 3 SCC 1]: The Court cited this case to reiterate that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer a fundamental right to claim reservations but enable the State to provide reservations based on quantifiable data.
- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]: The Court referenced this case to underscore that any appointment made in violation of statutory rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity in law.
- Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE [(2015) 8 SCC 519]: The Court referred to this case to discuss the flexibility of the principles of natural justice and the exceptions to their applicability.
- Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh [(2018) 15 SCC 463]: The Court relied on this case to hold that when the appointment of candidates is a nullity in law, the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with.
- M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav [(2007) 8 SCC 264]: The Court cited this case to clarify the principles to be followed in public appointments, emphasizing that appointments made without following appropriate procedures are illegal.
- State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn. [(1994) 2 SCC 204]: The Court referred to this case to address back-door entries in public appointments, noting that those who come through the back door have to go through the same door.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the constitutional principles of equality and transparency in public employment. The Court emphasized that the advertisement dated July 29, 2010, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because it failed to specify the total number of posts and the number of reserved and unreserved posts. This lack of transparency was deemed a fundamental flaw that rendered the entire recruitment process invalid.
The Court also considered the principles of natural justice but concluded that they did not need to be strictly followed in this case because the initial appointments were a nullity. The Court reasoned that since the appointments were illegal from the outset, there was no need to provide an opportunity for a hearing to the affected candidates.
Sentiment Analysis Ranking of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Violations | 40% |
| Lack of Transparency | 30% |
| Nullity of Initial Appointments | 20% |
| Principles of Natural Justice | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
In this case, the court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%).
The Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
↓
Recruitment process is void ab initio
↓
Appointments made under the process are quashed
↓
No need to comply with the principles of natural justice
↓
Fresh advertisement to be issued with suitable age relaxation
The Court rejected any alternative interpretations that would have allowed the appointments to stand, emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and ensuring fairness and transparency in public employment. The final decision was reached by prioritizing the rule of law and the need to correct a fundamentally flawed recruitment process.
Reasons for the decision include:
- Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
- Lack of transparency in the advertisement
- Nullity of the initial appointments
- Need to ensure fairness and impartiality in public employment
“The advertisements which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency.”
“Any appointment made in violation of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained.”
“Public employment process thus, must always be fair, transparent, impartial and within the bounds of the Constitution of India.”
Key Takeaways
- Advertisements for public employment must clearly state the total number of posts and the number of reserved and unreserved posts.
- Appointments made in violation of constitutional principles and statutory rules are considered null and void.
- The principles of natural justice may not be strictly applied when the initial appointments are illegal from the outset.
- State governments must ensure fairness, transparency, and impartiality in all public employment processes.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The advertisement dated July 29, 2010, and all consequential proceedings are quashed for violating Articles 14 and 16.
- All appointments made in furtherance of the High Court’s direction dated September 12, 2018, are quashed.
- The respondent-State shall issue a fresh advertisement compliant with the constitutional mandate and extant Rules within six months.
- The fresh notification shall provide suitable age relaxation to accommodate aspirants who crossed the age limit during the pendency of the litigation.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that any advertisement for public employment that fails to clearly specify the total number of posts and the reservation details is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is thus invalid. This judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and adherence to constitutional principles in public employment processes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court quashed the appointments made under the 2010 advertisement, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to constitutional principles in public employment. The Court directed the State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh advertisement within six months, providing age relaxation to affected aspirants, thereby ensuring a fair and constitutional recruitment process.