Advertisement For Class‑IV Recruitment Found Void; Supreme Court Quashes Appointments, Directs Fresh Notification With Age Relaxation

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by Amrit Yadav and others challenging two Division Bench judgments of the Jharkhand High Court that had upheld orders relating to recruitment and subsequent termination of Class‑IV employees in Palamu district. The appeals raised the validity of an advertisement dated 29 July 2010 and whether the High Court was justified in directing preparation of a fresh panel without impleading or hearing those already appointed.

The Court held that the advertisement and the recruitment conducted pursuant thereto were void ab initio for non‑compliance with settled principles governing public appointments and quashed all consequential appointments. The Bench observed that transparency in advertisements was critical and that an advertisement must specify the number of posts and reservation particulars; in its absence the process was open to arbitrariness. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the present case, the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, issued by respondent No. 4 is completely silent on the aspect of total number of posts and the number of reserved quota and general quota posts.… Therefore, we hold that the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, issued by respondent No. 4 was not a valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment and is thus, a nullity in law.” The Court further directed that “the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010 and all the consequential proceedings conducted in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed” and that a fresh notification be issued within six months, with “suitable age relaxation” to accommodate aspirants who had crossed the age limit during the pendency of litigation. The Bench reiterated the principle that “Those who come by the back door have to go by the same door,” endorsing authorities that appointments made contrary to rules cannot secure protection.

Background The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu issued Advertisement No.1 dated 29 July 2010 inviting applications for Class‑IV posts (educational qualification: class VIII, compulsory cycling test, medical fitness, and various age relaxations) but did not specify total vacancies or reserved/unreserved seat distribution. An examination was held on 5 November 2017 and appointment letters were issued on 9 March 2018. An FIR alleged large‑scale cheating and corruption. Non‑selected candidates filed writ petitions; the High Court’s Single Judge on 12 September 2018 directed preparation of a fresh merit list based solely on written examination marks, holding appointments inconsistent with the advertisement. The Division Bench dismissed the State’s intra‑court appeal on 7 November 2019. Pursuant to the direction, the State prepared a fresh panel and terminated services of those earlier appointed by order dated 7 December 2020. A batch of writ petitions by the terminated employees was dismissed by the Single Judge on 9 March 2022; intra‑court appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench on 24 November 2022. Before the Supreme Court, the principal questions were (i) whether the 2010 advertisement and consequent appointments were valid, and (ii) whether the High Court erred in directing a fresh panel without hearing already appointed candidates. The Supreme Court found the advertisement defective and unlawful, held that where appointments are nullities the requirement of pre‑decisional hearing may be dispensed with, quashed the entire selection and appointments, and directed re‑advertisement and recruitment in conformity with constitutional mandates and extant rules, allowing age relaxation in the fresh notification. The Court directed parties to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 13950-13951 OF 2024 (with connected appeals 13952–13955 of 2024) Case Title: Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Names of counsel not specified in the judgment text For the Respondent(s): Names/designations of counsel not specified in the judgment text