In India, the public employment sector operates according to the values of fairness, openness, and objectivity. As an employer, the state is obligated to adhere to constitutional requirements and avoid any capricious actions. A Supreme Court of India decision made by Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta on February 10, 2025, in the Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. case declared the 2010 recruitment process for Class-IV employees conducted by the Jharkhand government to be unlawful and unconstitutional. The Court also ordered the state government to publish new job postings for these positions within six months.

Supreme Court Verdict on Jharkhand's 2010 Recruitment Process:

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict, upholding the Jharkhand High Court's decision to terminate several candidates without affording them a hearing.

The Court found that the recruitment process violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India due to the following irregularities:

1. The number of available posts was not mentioned in the advertisement.
2. The reservation policy was not specified.
3. The selection criteria were altered midway by introducing interview rounds, which were not part of the original advertisement.

The Court ruled that since the appointments were made through an unconstitutional process, they could not be protected, regardless of how long the candidates had served.

Legal Precedent: Nullity of Appointments Does Not Require Hearing of Appointees:
The Supreme Court relied on the legal precedent set in Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463, which established that if appointments are a nullity in law, they can be set aside without a hearing. The bench emphasized that principles of natural justice do not need to be followed when the appointments themselves are fundamentally flawed.

The Court held that compliance with the principles of natural justice was not required in this instance, as the candidates' appointments were legally null and void, rendering them ineligible; any such compliance would have been a futile gesture.

This decision reinforces the judiciary's stance that if an appointment process itself is void, every action taken in furtherance of such a process is also illegal. The constitutional courts have the authority to set aside such appointments entirely, even if third-party rights have been created by allowing candidates to join the service.

Implications of the Judgment:

1. Nullity of Appointment Extends to All Subsequent Actions: The Court clarified that once an appointment process is declared illegal, it invalidates all subsequent actions related to it. Even if the appointees have been working in their roles for several years, they cannot claim a vested right to continue. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering strictly to recruitment rules and ensuring that any flaws in the initial advertisement do not render the entire process unconstitutional.
    
2. Back-Door Entries Cannot Claim Legal Protection: The Court noted that candidates who have benefited from an unconstitutional process cannot claim equitable treatment when their appointments are cancelled. In the present case, the appellant-employee could not claim a right to the post because the advertisement itself was declared void. The Court explained that the candidates' eligibility to remain in their positions depended on the legality of both the advertisement and the subsequent recruitment procedure. This judgment sends a strong message that any recruitment process lacking transparency and fairness will not withstand judicial scrutiny, and individuals benefiting from such flawed processes cannot claim legitimacy.
    
3. State Cannot Act Arbitrarily in Public Appointments: The Court emphasized the role of the state in ensuring fair employment practices. Public employment is not a privilege but a responsibility entrusted to the government. The state must act in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment. Arbitrary actions in public employment strike at the heart of the fundamental right to equality. While there's no inherent right to a government job, the State cannot operate with unchecked discretion or whim.
   The ruling reinforces that the government is accountable to the public and must uphold transparency, fairness, and constitutional integrity in recruitment processes. The decision also serves as a warning against politically motivated and opaque hiring practices.
    

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

• Illegal appointment advertisements render the entire recruitment process null and void.
• Appointments based on an unconstitutional process can be set aside without affording a hearing to the affected candidates.
• A flawed recruitment process cannot confer any vested rights on appointees.
• Public employment must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability.
• The state has a constitutional duty to ensure recruitment practices comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's ruling in Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand is a landmark judgment reinforcing the principles of fair and transparent public employment. It underscores that any deviation from constitutional and statutory requirements in recruitment renders the entire process null and void.

The decision also clarifies that affected candidates cannot claim a right to employment if their appointment was based on an invalid advertisement. By setting aside the entire recruitment process, the Supreme Court has once again reiterated that the state must uphold the rule of law and ensure that public employment remains free from arbitrariness and favouritism.

The judgment serves as a strong precedent for future cases involving flawed recruitment processes and acts as a deterrent against opaque and arbitrary hiring practices in government employment.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565