Advertisement Declared Void – The Supreme Court held that the advertisement dated 29.07.2010 was invalid and the recruitment process was null and void ab initio. (Paras 23-24)

No Violation of Natural Justice – The Court ruled that the principles of natural justice were not applicable in this case, as the appointments were a nullity in law. (Paras 29-33)

Fresh Recruitment Ordered – The Court directed the State to issue a fresh advertisement within six months, ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates and providing age relaxation. (Paras 41-42)

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Articles 14, 16, 16(4), 16(4-A), and 335.

2. Code of Civil Procedure (CrPC) – Relevant for procedural aspects in civil appeals.

3. Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Not directly applicable, but FIR No. 382 of 2017 was registered for corruption and cheating in the recruitment process.

Key Points:

1. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the COI – The Supreme Court held that the advertisement dated 29.07.2010, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, for Class-IV posts, was invalid as it failed to specify the number of vacancies, reserved seats, and other essential details, violating the principles of transparency and equality in public employment. (Paras 17-24)

2. Nullity of Recruitment Process – The entire recruitment process, including the selection and appointment of candidates, was declared null and void ab initio, as it was conducted in violation of statutory rules and constitutional mandates. (Paras 23-24, 34-35)

3. Natural Justice Not Applicable in Cases of Nullity – The Court held that the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) need not be followed when the appointments themselves are a nullity in law. The affected candidates, including the appellant, were not entitled to a hearing before their termination. (Paras 29-33)

4. Fresh Recruitment Ordered – The Court directed the State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh advertisement within six months, ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates and providing age relaxation for candidates who had crossed the age limit during the pendency of the litigation. (Paras 41-42)

5. Back-Door Appointments Cannot Be Regularized – The Court reiterated that appointments made through arbitrary or illegal processes cannot be regularized, and beneficiaries of such appointments have no right to continue in service. (Paras 34-38)

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The case involved a challenge to the recruitment process for Class-IV posts in Jharkhand, initiated through an advertisement dated 29.07.2010. The process was marred by allegations of corruption and irregularities, including the introduction of an interview round not mentioned in the original advertisement. (Paras 2-6)

2. Appellant’s Remedy – The appellant, Amrit Yadav, sought reinstatement after his termination, arguing that he was duly selected and had served for two and a half years. He also contended that the High Court’s direction to prepare a fresh panel violated natural justice, as he was not heard before his termination. (Paras 9-12)

3. Reason for Filing the Case – The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision to uphold his termination, which was based on the finding that the initial recruitment process was flawed and that the fresh panel prepared by the State excluded him due to lower merit. (Paras 6-8)

4. Previous Decisions – The High Court had earlier directed the State to prepare a fresh merit list based solely on written examination marks, excluding interview marks, as the original advertisement did not provide for an interview. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench. (Paras 4-7)

Issues:

1. Validity of the Advertisement – Whether the advertisement dated 29.07.2010 and the subsequent recruitment process were valid under Articles 14 and 16 of the COI. (Para 16)

2. Compliance with Natural Justice – Whether the High Court’s direction to prepare a fresh panel without hearing the affected candidates violated the principles of natural justice. (Para 16)

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Appellant’s Arguments –

   • The appellant contended that he was duly selected and had served satisfactorily for two and a half years.

   • He argued that the High Court’s direction to prepare a fresh panel violated natural justice, as he was not heard before his termination.

   • He also sought sympathy due to being over-age for other government jobs. (Paras 9-12)

2. Respondent’s Arguments –

   • The State argued that the fresh panel was prepared in compliance with the High Court’s direction, and the appellant’s termination was justified as his appointment was de hors the law.

   • The State also pointed out the appellant’s delay in challenging the High Court’s decision. (Paras 13-14)

Ratio:

1. Transparency in Public Employment – Public employment advertisements must specify the number of vacancies, reserved seats, and selection criteria to ensure transparency and fairness. (Paras 17-19)

2. Nullity of Illegal Appointments – Appointments made in violation of statutory rules and constitutional mandates are null and void ab initio, and beneficiaries of such appointments have no right to continue in service. (Paras 34-35)

3. Natural Justice Not Applicable in Cases of Nullity – The principles of natural justice need not be followed when the appointments themselves are a nullity in law. (Paras 29-33)

Subjects:

• Public Employment – Articles 14, 16, COI, Transparency, Fairness.

• Nullity Ab Initio – Illegal Appointments, Void Recruitment Process.

• Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem, Hearing, Prejudice.

• Fresh Recruitment – Age Relaxation, Constitutional Compliance.