Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2010 for Class-IV government employees in Jharkhand. Following a written examination held on November 5, 2017, a list of selected candidates was published. However, complaints of corruption and irregularities surfaced, leading to the termination of several appointees, including the petitioner, Amrit Yadav.
Key Legal Issues and Supreme Court’s Ruling
Validity of the 2010 Advertisement and Recruitment Process
The Court ruled against the Jharkhand government, holding that the absence of vacancy details rendered the advertisement legally unsustainable. Relying on its previous ruling in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2014) 14 SCC 50, the Bench emphasized that advertisements must specify the number of posts, qualifications, reservation details, and selection criteria.Justification of Termination of Previously Appointed Candidates
The Court affirmed the validity of the termination orders, observing that the entire selection process was fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional. It held that appointments made in violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution are null and void.Necessity of Hearing Affected Candidates Before Termination
The Court dismissed the natural justice argument, stating that when an appointment is illegal ab initio, there is no vested right to continue in service. Citing Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463, it ruled that hearing terminated employees would have been futile, as their selection was unlawful.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court underscored the constitutional duty of the State to conduct transparent and merit-based public employment. The judgment reiterated:
“Any appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained.”
“A valid job advertisement must specify the number of vacancies and reservation details; failing to do so renders it void.”
“Those who enter public service through backdoor methods cannot claim fairness when removed through lawful means.”
Court’s Final Directions
The 2010 recruitment advertisement and all subsequent appointments were declared illegal and quashed. The Jharkhand government was directed to issue a fresh recruitment notification within six months, ensuring full transparency and adherence to constitutional norms. Candidates who became overage due to delays in the selection process would be given age relaxation in the new recruitment cycle.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding human dignity and personal liberty, particularly concerning the treatment of individuals in police custody. By directing the Haryana Government to implement specific guidelines, the Court aims to standardize procedures and prevent arbitrary and inhumane treatment of accused persons. The directive also serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies across the country to adhere to constitutional provisions and international human rights standards in their operations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision provides clarity on the procedural requirements for employee transfers under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011. By validating post-facto approvals and advocating for a compassionate approach towards employees with extenuating circumstances, the court has set a precedent that balances administrative efficiency with individual welfare.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.