A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 24 : 2025 INSC 176, examines the legal validity of a district-level recruitment advertisement dated 29.07.2010 and the consequences of appointments made pursuant thereto. The Supreme Court held that a recruitment advertisement that omits essential information notably the total number of posts and the allocation between reserved and unreserved categories violates the twin guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and the equality-of-opportunity mandate under Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that an appointment made contrary to mandatory statutory requirements and settled precedents is void ab initio.

Where a selection process is declared void for being de hors the rules, the courts may set aside the entire selection without individual show-cause procedures to incumbents, because requiring fresh hearings may be futile and would not undo the constitutional defect. The judgment applies established principles on valid advertisement requirements (as in Renu v. Tis Hazari Courts), the limited nature of reservation entitlements under Article 16(4)/(4-A) (per Mukesh Kumar and M. Nagaraj reasoning), and the courts’ power to cancel entire tainted recruitments (per M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav).

The Court directed fresh compliant recruitment, ordered quashing of earlier appointments, and mandated reasonable age-relaxation in the new process to protect aspirants prejudiced by litigation delays.

Keywords: Article 14; Article 16; valid advertisement; nullity ab initio; natural justice; recruitment rules.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from an advertisement dated 29.07.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, for Class-IV posts. The advertisement governed eligibility, age limits, preference for local candidates, medical fitness, and procedural steps but failed to state the total number of vacancies and the breakup between reserved and unreserved posts. Following the written examination (5.11.2017), appointments were issued (office order 9.3.2018), but allegations of irregularity prompted writ petitions. The High Court (Single Judge) on 12.9.2018 directed preparation of a fresh panel on written-exam marks alone, holding interviews were not authorized by the advertisement.

The Division Bench upheld that order on 7.11.2019. Consequent re-panelling led to termination orders (7.12.2020) for those not in the fresh list, and subsequent litigation culminated in the Supreme Court’s hearing on the twin questions: validity of the advertisement and whether ordering fresh panels without impleading or hearing incumbents violated natural justice. The Court found the advertisement legally defective for omitting essential elements and held the entire selection void; it therefore endorsed the High Court’s remedial direction and ordered quashing of the appointments with directions for fresh compliant recruitment including age relaxation to mitigate litigational prejudice.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu published Advertisement No.1 dated 29.07.2010 inviting applications for Grade-IV posts with VIII pass educational qualification, a compulsory cycling test, medical fitness, and varied age-relaxation clauses. The advert emphasized preference for local candidates and service weightage but omitted the aggregate number of vacancies and reservation roster. An examination was held on 5.11.2017 and a press release followed on 9.11.2017 indicating counselling prior to panel finalization. Appointment letters were issued on 9.3.2018. An FIR (No. 382/2017) alleged corruption; some non-selectees filed writ petitions challenging the process.

The High Court (Single Judge) found that interviews were not part of the advertisement and ordered fresh panelization on written marks only. The State’s intra-court appeal was dismissed (Division Bench 7.11.2019). The State issued a fresh panel; several appointed employees (including the appellant) were relieved by order dated 7.12.2020. Those relieved filed writs which were dismissed by the High Court (Single Judge 9.3.2022), and intra-court appeals were dismissed (24.11.2022). The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the advertisement dated 29.07.2010 that omitted total vacancies and reservation breakup was a valid advertisement for public employment under Articles 14 and 16?
ii. Whether the High Court’s direction (12.09.2018) to prepare a fresh panel without impleading or hearing incumbents offended principles of natural justice?
iii. Whether appointments made pursuant to an invalid advertisement can be sustained or must be quashed in entirety?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was validly selected and had served for over two years, completing probation. There was no allegation of fraud against him. He argued that termination after valid appointment was unjust, particularly when incumbents were not impleaded or heard before the High Court directed fresh panelization. He sought reinstatement and urged the Court to exercise sympathy given age-bar concerns.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State submitted that the selection was contrary to the advertisement because interviews (introduced later) were impermissible. The High Court rightly ordered fresh panelization on written marks. Once appointments were found to be de hors the rules, incumbents could not claim precedence over meritorious candidates. Delay and laches in challenging earlier Division Bench orders were also urged.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court analysed the advertisement against authoritative precedent. Relying on Renu v. Tis Hazari Courts the Court reiterated that a valid advertisement must specify number of posts, reservation ratio, minimum qualifications, and the selection stages. It held omission of vacancies and reservation breakup rendered the advertisement non-transparent and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The Court observed that while reservation under Articles 16(4)/(4-A) is discretionary, the State’s decision to provide or omit reservation must be communicated and, if applicable, justified by quantifiable data (citing Mukesh Kumar and M. Nagaraj principles).

Since the advertisement was silent on these essentials, the entire recruitment process was declared nullity ab initio. Concerning natural justice, the Court applied flexible audi principles, noting exceptions where the act is nullity and post-decisional hearings would be futile. Citing Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, the Court held that where appointments are void, no obligation arises to conduct full-fledged hearings of incumbents before setting aside appointments.

The Court thus affirmed the High Court direction for fresh panelization, quashed all appointments made under the process and directed the State to re-advertise within six months with constitutionally compliant terms, and specifically ordered age relaxation in the fresh notification to protect aspirants prejudiced by litigation delay. Costs were reserved to parties to bear their own costs.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio is twofold.

First, a recruitment advertisement that fails to state the number of vacancies and reservation allocation lacks required transparency and contravenes Articles 14 and 16, making appointments under it void.

Second, when appointments are void ab initio, vindicating constitutional mandates takes precedence over procedural niceties of affording incumbents fresh hearings because such hearings would be an exercise in futility and the key test is prejudice. The remedial power of courts extends to quashing entire tainted selections.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court reiterated policy observations: public employment is constitutionally entrusted duty; arbitrariness corrodes Article 14; States must not ignore precedent in framing advertisements; when exercising discretion about reservation the State should base choices on quantifiable data. The Court also noted the unacceptability of back-door entries and stressed that regularisation cannot cure illegality. These observations guide administrative prudence though were not strictly necessary to dispose of the appeals.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Advertisements must specify total vacancies and reservation roster and selection stages.

2. If reservation is not provided, the advert must specifically state the decision and record the material basis.

3. Any change in selection criteria after commencement is impermissible.

4. When recruitments are declared void, courts may quash entire processes; individual show-cause may be dispensed with if futile.

5. Fresh advertisement should include compensatory age-relaxation for litigational delay.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This decision reinforces administrative discipline in public recruitment: transparency in advert content is non-negotiable. The Court’s strict approach deters ad-hoc or opaque processes that erode merit and constitutional equality. Practically, authorities must draft advertisements with full clarity vacancy numbers, reservation breakups, selection stages and statutory rules and retain documentary bases for reservation decisions. For incumbents, the judgment is sobering: beneficiary status from a flawed process affords no guaranteed shelter.

For litigants and administrators, the case emphasizes timely challenge; delay and failure to contest earlier adverse coordinate bench orders simplifies finality. The Court’s direction for age relaxation is an equitable measure balancing rule of law with individual hardship arising from protracted litigation. Administrations should adopt a checklist approach when inviting applications to avoid annulment and resultant costs, social unrest, and litigation.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 24 : 2025 INSC 176.

2. Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (2014) 14 SCC 50. (cited in judgment).

3. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 3 SCC 1. (cited).

4. M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav, (2007) 8 SCC 264. (cited).

5. Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463. (cited).

6. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC 519. (cited).

7. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. (referred).

8. State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn., (1994) 2 SCC 204. (cited).

b. Important Statutes / Constitutional Provisions Referred

1. Constitution of India — Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment), including Articles 16(4) & 16(4-A).