When Appointment Advertisement Is Null & Void, Entire Process Can Be Nullified Without Hearing Appointed Candidates : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (February 10) declared the 2010 recruitment process for Class-IV employees conducted by the Jharkhand government to be illegal and unconstitutional, thereby quashing the entire process. The Court further directed the state government to issue fresh advertisements for the said positions within a period of six months.

Citing factors such as non-mentioning of the number of posts, not specifying the applicable reservation, and changing rule of game mid-way on including interview rounds (not originally mentioned in the advertisement), the Court found the entire recruitment process was done in contravention to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict upholding the termination of several candidates by the Jharkhand High Court without providing an opportunity to hear them. The Court stated that the appointments made through an unconstitutional process cannot be protected, even if candidates have worked for years and were not heard before their appointment cancellation.

"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," the Court observed relying on Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463.

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.

If appointment process is nullity, appointments can be set aside even if persons have joined 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.”

The Court observed that a beneficiary of a back-door procedure cannot claim proper treatment as per law when they come at the receiving end.

“In the present case, 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.”

State cannot act arbitrarily in public appointments

“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.”

Case Title: AMRIT YADAV VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Rajiv Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sandeep, Adv. Mr. Samindra Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Vickkey, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Paramhans Sahani, Adv. M/s. Brajesh Pandey & Associates, AOR Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Mr. Karma Dorjee, Adv. Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR