Advertisements For Public Employment Invalid If Number Of Posts Not Mentioned : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the advertisements inviting applications for public employment, which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection, are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency.

"The advertisements which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency," the Court observed relying on the judgment in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2014).

“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 Court further observed.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the termination of candidates selected through the Jharkhand High Court's 2010 recruitment drive for IV Class Employees, as the recruitment process did not specify the total number of available posts.

The Court set aside the entire recruitment exercise terming it illegal and unconstitutional as it also failed to make reservation provision in the advertisement.

“Thus, 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 court noted.

“In the present case, the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, issued by respondent No. 4 is completely silent on the aspect of total number of posts and the number of reserved quota and general quota posts. 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 afore-mentioned lists of inclusions. This Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 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 court added.

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

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Click here to read/download the judgment