2025 Supreme(SC) 301

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Amrit Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 13950-13951 of 2024(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 6120-6121 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No(s). 13952 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 3203 of 2023), Civil Appeal No(S). 13955 of 2024, (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 6118 of 2023), Civil Appeal No(S). 13953 of 2024, (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 3303 of 2023), Civil Appeal No(S). 13954 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 3399 of 2023)
Decided On : 10-02-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When appointment of candidates is a nullity in law making them disentitled to hold posts, principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when same would be nothing short of exercise in futility.
(2) Appointment – Cancellation – Once appointment process is declared to be a nullity in law, every action taken in furtherance of such appointment process is also illegal constitutional courts have jurisdiction to set aside such appointments wholly and ab-initio – This power of 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 service.
(3) Natural Justice – Applicability – Principles of natural justice cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula – There are certain exceptions to their applicability – Every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to conclusion that order passed is always null and void – Validity of order has to be decided on touchstone of “prejudice”.
(4) Arbitrariness in public employment goes to very root of fundamental right to equality – While no person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does not mean that State can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner – State is accountable to public at large as well as Constitution of India which guarantees equal and fair treatment to each person.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Termination – Rampant corruption and mass scale cheating in Examination – Direction to make a fresh panel for appointment to post of Class-IV employees – Advertisements which fail to mention number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency – A valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment must include total number of seats, ratio of reserved and unreserved seats, minimum qualification for posts and procedural clarity with respect to type and manner of selection stages, i.e., written, oral examination and interviews – Though there is no fundamental right to claim reservation as Articles 16(4) and (4-A) of Constitution of India are in nature of enabling provisions only and do not mandate State or its instrumentalities to provide reservation in every selection process but inspite thereof, State’s decision to not provide reservation has to be based on some quantifiable data and valid reasoning – It is imperative that State must specifically mention in advertisement total number of reserved and unreserved seats – However, if State does not intend to provide reservation, in view of quantifiable data indicating adequacy of representation, this aspect must also be specifically mentioned in advertisement. (Paras 19, 20, 22 and 23)

(B) Service Law – Termination – Rampant corruption and mass scale cheating in Examination – Direction to make a fresh panel for appointment to post of Class-IV employees – Advertisement issued by Deputy Commissioner is completely silent on aspect of total number of posts and number of reserved quota and general quota posts – If State chooses not to provide reservation, that decision must also be conveyed through advertisement along with lists of inclusions – Entire recruitment process initiated for subject posts is in violation of both legal precedents and settled law – Advertisement issued by Deputy Commissioner was not a valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment and is a nullity in law – Appellant-employee was precluded from invoking jurisdiction of Single Judge who could not have interfered with decision which had attained finality after being upheld by Division Bench in first impugned order – Single Judge rightly dismissed writ petitions filed by appellant-employee and other similarly situated candidates against their termination order – Since very selection and appointment of appellant-employee was a nullity in eyes of law, Single Judge committed no error in directing respondent-State to prepare fresh panel of selected candidates without hearing candidates who were likely to get affected – Recruitment process was void ab-initio and ultra vires Constitution of India – There was no need to comply with principles of natural justice as that would be nothing, but exercise in futility – Appellant-employee cannot be allowed to claim prejudice from fact that he was neither impleaded nor heard before issuance of direction affecting his service – All appointments made in furtherance of direction of High Court with respect to subject posts quashed – Respondent-State shall issue a fresh advertisement, compliant with constitutional mandate and in accordance with extant Rules and observations made here – Thereafter, recruitment process shall be re-conducted in accordance with law for subject posts. (Paras 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33 and 41)

(C) Natural Justice – Applicability – Principles of natural justice cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula – There are certain exceptions to their applicability – Every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to conclusion that order passed is always null and void – Validity of order has to be decided on touchstone of “prejudice”. (Para 29)

(D) Service Law – Appointment – Cancellation – Once appointment process is declared to be a nullity in law, every action taken in furtherance of such appointment process is also illegal constitutional courts have jurisdiction to set aside such appointments wholly and ab-initio – This power of 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 service – Beneficiary of a back-door procedure cannot claim proper treatment as per law when they come at receiving end – Candidates’ right to continue on such posts is contingent upon legality of advertisement and recruitment process conducted in pursuance thereof – Public employment is a duty entrusted by Constitution of India with State – It becomes imperative that rigours of Articles 14 and 16 are not ignored by State in relation to matter concerning public employment – Arbitrariness in public employment goes to very root of fundamental right to equality – While no person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does not mean that State can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner – State is accountable to public at large as well as Constitution of India which guarantees equal and fair treatment to each person – Public employment process must always be fair, transparent, impartial and within bounds of 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 Constitution of India – Violation of this guarantee is liable to judicial scrutiny as well as criticism. (Paras 35, 37, 38 and 39)

Facts of the case:

Core issues presented for adjudication in these appeals are: -

(1) Whether the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010 issued by respondent No. 4 and appointment process carried out in pursuance thereof, was valid in the eyes of law?

(2) Whether direction issued by High Court vide order dated 12th September, 2018 was justified considering the fact that candidates earlier appointed to the subject posts were neither impleaded as party nor were heard before issuance of a direction that adversely affected their service?

Findings of Court:

Question with respect to illegality of recruitment process was not raised in any of proceedings before the Courts below. On the other hand, it was here, for first time, before this Court, that appellant-employee have laid challenge to the first impugned order.

Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.