Appointments Made Through an Unconstitutional Process Confer No Right to Continue: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Recruitment

Public Employment Must Be Transparent – State Cannot Act Arbitrarily in Hiring Processes - Supreme Court. In a significant decision the Supreme Court of India in Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. struck down the 2010 recruitment process for Class IV posts in Jharkhand, declaring it unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court found that the entire selection process lacked transparency, failed to specify crucial details such as the number of vacancies and reservations, and was fundamentally arbitrary.

"The State must ensure fairness and transparency in public employment. An opaque and arbitrary recruitment process cannot be allowed to stand," the Court observed, holding that the appointments made under the flawed process were void ab initio and conferred no vested right to continue in service.

Dismissing the appeal of terminated candidates who argued that they had already served for two and a half years, the Court ruled that appointments made without due process are illegal, regardless of tenure. However, acknowledging the prolonged litigation and its impact, the Court directed the Jharkhand government to conduct a fresh recruitment process within six months and grant age relaxation to previously eligible candidates.

A Flawed Recruitment Process: "Failure to Mention Vacancies and Reservation Makes the Process Arbitrary"

The case stemmed from an advertisement issued on July 29, 2010, by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, inviting applications for Class IV posts. However, the recruitment process suffered from severe irregularities, including:

No mention of the total number of vacancies and reservation quotas.

Introduction of an interview round, which was not specified in the original advertisement.

Allegations of corruption, leading to an FIR against the selection process.

Following the recruitment process, appointment letters were issued in March 2018. However, after challenges by non-selected candidates, the Jharkhand High Court ordered a fresh merit list, excluding interview marks. This resulted in the termination of appointments, leading the affected candidates to challenge the decision.

The Supreme Court noted that the advertisement failed to meet the basic requirements of a valid public employment notification. Citing Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the Court held:

"A public employment advertisement must specify the number of posts available, eligibility criteria, reservation details, and selection procedure. The absence of these details makes the recruitment process arbitrary and unconstitutional."

Rejecting the argument that some candidates had already worked for years and should be retained, the Court ruled that appointments made in violation of constitutional provisions cannot be regularized, regardless of tenure.

"A Beneficiary of an Invalid Process Cannot Claim a Right to Continue in Service" – Supreme Court Upholds Termination Orders

The appellants, who had been appointed through the flawed selection process, argued that they had been denied a fair hearing before being terminated and that their removal violated the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that principles of natural justice do not apply when the original appointment itself is void.

"When an appointment is void ab initio, affording an opportunity of hearing is an empty formality. A hearing cannot cure an unconstitutional appointment," the Court ruled, citing Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh.

Addressing concerns that the Jharkhand High Court had ordered the preparation of a fresh merit list without hearing the affected candidates, the Court reiterated that no hearing is required when appointments are made through an invalid process.

"If an appointment itself is unlawful, the right to be heard before termination does not arise. The principles of natural justice cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality," the judgment stated.

"Backdoor Entry into Public Employment Cannot Be Allowed – Those Who Enter Illegally Must Exit the Same Way"

Reaffirming the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the Supreme Court made it clear that public employment must be based on merit and due process, not arbitrary decisions or favoritism.

"Those who secure government jobs through backdoor methods cannot claim a right to continue in service. The rule of law demands that appointments be made strictly as per constitutional provisions," the Court observed.

The appellants had argued that their termination caused undue hardship as they had already worked for over two years and were now overage for government jobs. The Court, however, firmly rejected the plea, ruling that:

"Hardship cannot be a ground to uphold an illegal appointment. Once a process is declared unconstitutional, all appointments under it are void, no matter how much time has passed."

Quoting M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav, the Court emphasized: "If a selection process is fraudulent, widespread, and affects merit, it is neither feasible nor necessary to individually examine each appointment. The only remedy is to cancel the entire process."

The Supreme Court held that allowing the appellants to continue in service would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging unconstitutional recruitment practices.

"Fresh Recruitment Must Be Held Within Six Months – Age Relaxation for Affected Candidates"

Recognizing the prolonged litigation and its impact on affected candidates, the Court directed the Jharkhand government to issue a fresh advertisement within six months and conduct a new recruitment process in strict compliance with constitutional principles.

"To ensure fairness, the fresh recruitment process must provide age relaxation for candidates who became ineligible due to age restrictions during the pendency of this litigation," the Court ruled.

This ensures that deserving candidates are not unfairly deprived of employment opportunities due to delays caused by legal proceedings.

The Court made it clear that any future recruitment must be transparent, specifying all necessary details, including vacancies, reservation policies, and selection procedures.

Final Judgment: "Appointments Made Under an Unconstitutional Process Cannot Stand"

The Supreme Court quashed the July 29, 2010, advertisement and all consequential appointments, holding that the recruitment process violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The termination of appointments was upheld, and the Court ruled that the State must conduct fresh recruitment in a fair and transparent manner.

"The integrity of public employment depends on adherence to constitutional principles. Any process that lacks transparency and fairness cannot be sustained," the Court concluded.

By balancing constitutional principles with the need for fairness, the Supreme Court has ensured that public employment remains a fair and transparent process, free from arbitrary state action.

Date of Decision: February 10, 2025