Arbitrariness In Public Employment Goes To The Very Root Of The Fundamental Right To Equality: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the two Judgments of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench.
The Supreme Court remarked that arbitrariness in a public employment goes to the very root of the Fundamental Right to Equality.
The Court remarked thus in 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, “… 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 Bench added that 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 and hence, public employment process must always be fair, transparent, impartial, and within the bounds of the Constitution of India.
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 learned Single Judge did not commit any error while issuing a direction vide order dated 12th September, 2018, for preparation of fresh panel of selected candidates in consonance with the statutory rules and procedure prescribed in the advertisement as it is clearly discernible from our discussion in the first issue that the recruitment process was void ab-initio and ultra vires the Constitution of India.”
The Court added that, there was no need to comply with the principles of natural justice as that would be nothing, but an exercise in futility and the Appellant employee thus, cannot be allowed to claim prejudice from the fact that he was neither impleaded nor heard before the issuance of a direction affecting his service.
“… 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”, it further elucidated.
The Court also clarified that a beneficiary of a back-door procedure cannot claim proper treatment as per law when they come at the receiving end. Moreover, it 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 added.
The Court emphasised 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.
