Supreme Court Quashes Flawed Recruitment Process for Class-IV Posts: “Appointments Made Through Unconstitutional Process Cannot Be Sustained; Fresh Advertisement Directed With Age Relaxation”

---

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India quashed the entire recruitment process for Class-IV posts initiated through an advertisement dated 29th July 2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, Jharkhand, for violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court ruled that the recruitment process lacked transparency, was not conducted as per the advertised criteria, and was thus null and void. Consequently, the Court held that all appointments made under this flawed process were illegal and could not be sustained.

Further, the Court directed the Jharkhand government to issue a fresh advertisement within six months and conduct a new recruitment process in compliance with constitutional principles. To ensure fairness, the Court allowed age relaxation for candidates who had become ineligible due to age constraints during the prolonged litigation.

---

Facts

Background of the Recruitment Process

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Palamu, Jharkhand, issued an advertisement on 29th July 2010 inviting applications for Class-IV posts (Group-D government jobs).
2. However, the advertisement did not specify the total number of vacancies or the category-wise reservation breakup.
3. The eligibility criteria mentioned that candidates must have passed Class VIII and be proficient in cycling.
4. The advertisement also stated that selection would be based on a written examination, but no interview was mentioned as part of the process.

Conduct of the Examination and Allegations of Irregularities

5. A written examination was conducted on 5th November 2017 for the advertised posts.
6. Later, an interview round was introduced, even though the original advertisement did not provide for it.
7. Several candidates were selected based on combined marks from the written exam and interview, and appointment letters were issued on 9th March 2018.

Legal Challenges and Termination of Appointed Candidates

8. Some non-selected candidates filed writ petitions before the Jharkhand High Court, alleging that the recruitment process was manipulated, that marks were unfairly awarded in the interview stage, and that the process violated the original advertisement.
9. The Jharkhand High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on 12th September 2018, holding that selection should have been based solely on written exam marks, as per the advertisement.
10. The High Court directed the government to prepare a fresh panel of selected candidates, disregarding the interview marks.
11. As a result, the Jharkhand government terminated the services of already appointed candidates on 7th December 2020.
12. The terminated employees challenged their dismissal in the High Court, arguing that they were not at fault and that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the recruitment process was altered.
13. The High Court dismissed their plea, stating that their appointments were illegal from the outset.
14. The terminated employees then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both the original High Court decision directing fresh selection and the termination orders.

---

Issues

1. Whether the recruitment process initiated through the advertisement dated 29th July 2010 was legally valid?
2. Whether the High Court was justified in ordering the preparation of a fresh panel without hearing the affected candidates?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments (Terminated Employees)

• The petitioners argued that they were selected purely on merit and had already served for more than two and a half years before being terminated.
• They contended that they were not responsible for any wrongdoing and that their selection was made by the government, not by them.
• They claimed that terminating their jobs without giving them a chance to be heard violated the principles of natural justice.
• They pointed out that they had become ineligible for government jobs due to age restrictions and, therefore, sought reinstatement or an alternative remedy.

---

Respondent’s Arguments (Jharkhand Government)

• The Jharkhand government defended its actions, stating that the entire recruitment process was flawed and unconstitutional.
• It argued that introducing an interview round was illegal, as it was not part of the original advertisement.
• The government stated that the High Court had already ruled against the flawed recruitment process, and its direction to prepare a fresh merit list was binding.
• The government further pointed out that the petitioners had waited too long to challenge the High Court’s original judgment (2018), making their case weak due to delay and laches.

---

Analysis of the Law

The Supreme Court examined whether the recruitment process met constitutional and legal standards for public employment.

1. Transparency in Public Employment

• In Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2014) 14 SCC 50, the Supreme Court held that:
  • Public employment must be transparent.
  • Advertisements must clearly specify the number of vacancies, eligibility criteria, and selection process.
  • Once a recruitment process is initiated, the government cannot change the selection criteria arbitrarily.

→ Applying this principle, the Supreme Court found that the 2010 advertisement was legally defective because it did not specify the number of vacancies or the reservation breakdown.

2. Illegality of Changing Selection Criteria Midway

• In Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 3 SCC 1, the Court ruled that:
  • The rules of a selection process cannot be changed after it has started.
  • Such changes violate Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).

→ In this case, the Court found that adding an interview round after the written exam was illegal.

3. Appointments Made Contrary to Law Are Null and Void

• In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court ruled that:
  • Appointments made without following statutory procedures are null and void.

→ The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process in this case was unconstitutional and that all appointments made under it were illegal.

---

Precedent Analysis

• The Court cited M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav (2007) 8 SCC 264, which held that:
  • If a recruitment process is invalid, the entire process must be canceled.
• It also referred to State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Association (1994) 2 SCC 204, where the Court stated:
  • “Those who enter service through a flawed process cannot claim equity.”

→ Applying these principles, the Court ruled that the petitioners had no legal right to continue in service.

---

Court’s Reasoning

• The recruitment process was unconstitutional and void ab initio.
• Natural justice did not apply because the appointments were illegal from the beginning.
• The High Court was justified in directing the preparation of a fresh panel.
• Since many candidates had become over-aged due to prolonged litigation, the government must provide age relaxation in the new recruitment process.

---

Conclusion

1. The recruitment process initiated through the advertisement dated 29th July 2010 is declared null and void.
2. All appointments made under this process are quashed.
3. The Jharkhand government is directed to issue a fresh advertisement within six months.
4. Age relaxation shall be provided to affected candidates.

---

Implications

• Ensures transparency in public employment.
• Reaffirms that recruitment criteria cannot be changed arbitrarily.
• Clarifies that illegal appointments cannot be protected by principles of natural justice.
• Provides relief to over-aged candidates by granting age relaxation.

The Supreme Court’s judgment strengthens constitutional safeguards in public employment, ensuring fairness and transparency in recruitment processes.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10.31 Crore Deposit Condition for Leave to Defend in Loan Recovery Suit: “Defendant’s Defence Plausible but Improbable; Unconditional Leave Denied in Order XXXVII CPC Proceedings”