Key Points: - Initial appointments found to be illegal per se; direction for reinstatement with consequential benefits cannot be approved. (!) - Equality before law (Article 14) is a positive concept; cannot be enforced in a negative manner; irregularities cannot be repeated to grant relief to others. (!) (!) - Open advertisement and merit-based selection are mandated for public appointments; Section 4 of Employment Exchanges Act requires notifying vacancies to Employment Exchange to sponsor eligible candidates. (!) (!) (!) - Regularization of illegal ad hoc appointments is not a right and cannot substitute proper recruitment; Courts should avoid perpetuating illegality. (!) (!) (!) - Courts have denied reinstatement or regularization where initial appointments violated equality norms and statutory procedures; emphasis on due process and due recruitment. (!) (!) - The decision overruled earlier directions for reinstatement in similar cases, holding that illegality cannot be cured by regularization or by extending relief to others. (!) (!) - (!) - The judgment cautions against "litigious employment" and directs adherence to constitutional scheme for public employment. (!) - (!)

What is the effect of initial illegality of appointments on reinstatement with consequential benefits?

What is the appropriate remedy when ad hoc appointments violate equality before law and the Employment Exchanges Act?

What are the limits of judicial reinstatement or regularization where appointments were made without open advertisement or proper selection?