Summary
The Supreme Court held that a 2010 advertisement for Class IV posts in Palamu district, which stated neither the number of posts nor the reserved and unreserved break-up, was a nullity under Articles 14 and 16; it quashed the advertisement, the whole recruitment and all appointments, held that persons appointed under a void process need not be heard before a fresh panel was directed, and ordered a fresh recruitment with age relaxation.
Issues
- Whether the advertisement dated 29.07.2010 and the recruitment made under it were valid in law.
- Whether the High Court's direction of 12.09.2018 to prepare a fresh panel was bad because the already-appointed candidates were neither impleaded nor heard.
- Whether the appointed candidates could challenge their termination after the direction for a fresh panel had attained finality.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaA valid public employment advertisement must state the total posts, the reserved and unreserved break-up, the qualifications and the selection stages; an advertisement silent on the number of posts and reservation offends Articles 14 and 16, and appointments under it are a nullity. (¶¶ 18, 19, 23, 24, 39, 41)
- Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A), Constitution of IndiaThese are enabling provisions, but a State decision not to provide reservation must rest on quantifiable data and must itself be stated in the advertisement. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
Held
- An advertisement for public employment must specify the number of posts, the number of reserved and unreserved posts, the minimum qualifications and the type and manner of the selection stages (Renu followed). If the State decides not to provide reservation because quantifiable data shows adequate representation, that too must be stated in the advertisement. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The 2010 advertisement was silent on the total posts and the reserved and general quota; it was therefore not a valid advertisement, and the entire recruitment under it was a nullity, applying Umadevi. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The Division Bench order of 07.11.2019 upholding the direction for a fresh panel based on written marks only had attained finality; the terminated employees could not reopen it through fresh writ petitions, and a later Division Bench could not review a coordinate bench's decision on the same controversy. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- Natural justice is flexible and is tested by prejudice. Where the selection and appointment are void ab initio, the court need not hear the appointees before directing a fresh panel, because a hearing would be futile; such appointees cannot claim prejudice from non-impleadment (Dharampal Satyapal and Raghuwar Pal Singh followed). (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Once the recruitment is declared a nullity, every action taken under it is illegal and constitutional courts can set aside the appointments wholly, even where appointees have joined service; beneficiaries of such a process have no right to the posts (Nanuram Yadav and U.P. State Law Officers' Assn. followed). (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Public employment must be fair, transparent and impartial; though no one has a fundamental right to appointment, the State cannot act arbitrarily, and fair treatment is part of the right to equality under Article 14. (¶ 39)
- The connected appeals, which challenged only the order of 24.11.2022 upholding the terminations, became academic once the advertisement and the selection were quashed. (¶¶ 44, 45)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 13950-13951 of 2024 disposed of: the advertisement of 29.07.2010, all consequential proceedings and all appointments made under the High Court's direction of 12.09.2018 quashed; the State to issue a fresh compliant advertisement within six months with suitable age relaxation for aspirants who became over-age, and re-conduct the recruitment; no costs. The connected appeals were dismissed as academic.