Amrit Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India, in the case of Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, has ruled that individuals appointed through a fundamentally flawed and illegal advertisement have no right to continue in their employment. The court’s decision centered on the validity of a 2010 recruitment advertisement that lacked essential details such as the number of available posts and the reservation quota. The Supreme Court emphasized that such omissions render an advertisement void, as they violate the principles of transparency and fairness mandated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The court referenced previous judgments, notably Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, which highlighted the necessity for advertisements to explicitly state the number of posts, eligibility criteria, and selection procedures. The Supreme Court reiterated that any appointment made in contravention of these constitutional provisions and established legal precedents is considered a nullity. Further, the bench discussed the state’s obligation regarding reservations, citing Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, which clarified that while there is no fundamental right to claim reservations, any decision to not provide reservations must be supported by quantifiable data and valid reasoning. The absence of these details in the 2010 advertisement led the court to declare the entire recruitment process illegal.
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of natural justice, specifically whether individuals appointed under the flawed advertisement were entitled to a hearing before their appointments were terminated. The court, citing Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, held that when appointments are fundamentally illegal, there is no need to comply with the principles of natural justice, as it would be an exercise in futility. The court emphasized that beneficiaries of a flawed selection process cannot claim legitimate rights, referencing P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav and State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn., which highlighted that appointments made through back-door methods or illegal processes are not entitled to protection.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the 2010 advertisement and all appointments made under it, directing the State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh, constitutionally compliant advertisement. The court also mandated that the new advertisement include age relaxation to accommodate those who had crossed the age limit during the litigation.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
