Advertisements Failing To Mention Number Of Posts Available For Selection Are Illegal: Supreme Court
The Apex Court disposed of the Civil Appeals filed against the Judgments of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench.
The Supreme Court in a recent Judgment, held that the advertisements which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency.
The Court held thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the two Judgments of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “… the advertisements which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency. This Court further expounded in Renu(supra) that any appointment 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. 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.”
AOR Anilendra Pandey represented the Appellants while AOR Pallavi Langar represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu published an advertisement inviting applications for the appointment to the post of Class IV employees. Pursuantly, an examination was conducted and then a press release was issued stating that before the final panel of selected candidates is prepared, the candidates would be required to remain present in the District Establishment Section, Palamu for the purpose of counselling. Upon completion of the counselling process, the District Education Officer vide an Office Order, issued appointment letter to the successful candidates, including the Appellant. Meanwhile, an FIR was registered, alleging rampant corruption and mass scale cheating in the examination conducted for the subject posts.
Being aggrieved by the publication of the list of successful candidates, some non-selected candidates preferred Writ Petitions before the High Court, which were allowed. The Court directed the State to prepare a fresh merit list as per the marks obtained in the written examination without counting the marks awarded in interview. Resultantly, the State preferred an Intra-Court Appeal but the Division Bench dismissed the same. Thereafter, the District Education Officer relieved the Appellant-employee and other candidates and terminated their service. This was assailed before the High Court and the Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision and hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… the position of law is settled that though there is no fundamental right to claim reservation as Articles 16(4) and (4-A) of the Constitution of India are in the nature of enabling provisions only and do not mandate the State or its instrumentalities to provide reservation in every selection process but inspite thereof, the State’s decision to not provide reservation has to be based on some quantifiable data and valid reasoning.”
The Court was of the view 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. It added that such 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.
“… 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”, it further emphasised.
The Court, therefore, said that the Appellant-employee, who was appointed under the advertisement, 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”, it observed.
The Court concluded that 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 and that a violation of this guarantee is liable to judicial scrutiny as well as criticism.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals, quashed the advertisement, and directed the State to issue a fresh advertisement.
Cause Title- Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 176)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Anilendra Pandey, Advocates Priya Kashyap, and Rajeev Kumar Ranjan.
Respondents: AORs Pallavi Langar, Jayant Mohan, Advocates Pragya Baghel, Karma Dorjee, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Karma Dorjee, Adya Shree Dutta, and Meenakshi Chatterjee.
