Holding

The 2010 advertisement was invalid and the recruitment process a nullity, so the High Court’s direction to prepare a fresh panel without hearing the affected candidates was proper.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the recruitment of Class‑IV employees in Jharkhand where an advertisement dated 29 July 2010 failed to disclose the number of posts and reservation details, rendering it void under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that the advertisement was illegal and any appointments made pursuant to it were a nullity. It further considered whether the High Court could direct a fresh selection panel without hearing the already appointed candidates, concluding that because the original appointments were void, the principles of natural justice did not apply. Consequently, the Court quashed the 2010 advertisement, the subsequent appointments, and ordered a fresh, constitutionally compliant recruitment process. The appeals challenging the High Court’s orders were dismissed as academic, and the parties were each to bear their own costs.

Issues considered

Whether the advertisement dated 29 July 2010 issued by the respondent was valid and the recruitment process lawful.
Whether the High Court’s direction to prepare a fresh panel without hearing the previously appointed candidates was justified.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 162, s. Article 16(4), s. Article 16(4-A), s. Article 335

Subjects

Article 14 of ConstitutionArticle 16 of the ConstitutionValidity of advertisementAppointment processOpportunity of hearingViolation of the statutory rulesPrinciple of Natural Justice

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 24 : 2025 INSC 176

Amrit Yadav
v.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 13950-13951 of 2024)
10 February 2025
[Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The core issues presented for adjudication before this Court in these
appeals are:- (1) Whether the advertisement dated 29.07.2010
issued by respondent no. 4 and appointment process carried out
in pursuance thereof, was valid in the eyes of law; (2) Whether the
direction issued by the High Court vide order dated 12.09.2018 was
justified considering the fact that the candidates earlier appointed
to the subject posts were neither impleaded as party nor were
heard before the issuance of a direction that adversely affected
their service.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and 16 – Validity of the
advertisement dated 29.07.2010 issued by respondent no.4:
Held: It is settled that any appointment in violation of the mandate
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is not only irregular
but also illegal and cannot be sustained – It is a trite law that a
valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment
must include the total number of seats, the ratio of reserved
and unreserved seats, minimum qualification for the posts and
procedural clarity with respect to the type and manner of selection
stages, i.e., written, oral examination and interviews – Further, the
position of law is settled that though there is no fundamental right
to claim reservation as Articles 16(4) and (4-A) of the Constitution
of India are in the nature of enabling provisions only and do not
mandate the State or its instrumentalities to provide reservation
in every selection process but inspite thereof, the State’s decision
to not provide reservation has to be based on some quantifiable
data and valid reasoning – In the present case, the advertisement

* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 25

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

dated 29.07.2010, 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 – This Court is of the
view that if the State chooses not to provide reservation, that
decision must also be conveyed through the advertisement along
with the lists of inclusions – Any appointment made in violation
of the statutory rules as well as the mandate of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution would be a nullity in law – Thus, the entire
recruitment process initiated for the subject posts, in furtherance
of the advertisement dated 29.07.2010, is in violation of both the
legal precedents and settled law – Therefore, the advertisement
dated 29.07.2010, issued by respondent No. 4 was not a valid
advertisement inviting applications for public employment and is
thus, a nullity in law. [Paras 19, 20, 23, 24]

Principle of Natural Justice – On 12.09.2018, the Single Judge
of the High Court had directed the respondent-State to make a
fresh panel for appointment to the post of Class-IV employees
as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated
29.07.2010 – Same was upheld by the Division Bench of High
Court – The candidates earlier appointed to the subject posts
were neither impleaded as party nor were heard – Whether the
Division Bench of the High Court was correct in directing the
respondent-State to prepare fresh panel of selected candidates
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the candidates
who were likely to get affected by such direction:
Held: The position of law is crystallized on the aspect of compliance
with the principles of natural justice in both administrative spheres
as well as judicial decisions – It is trite law that the principles of
natural justice cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula and
it is imperative to understand that there are certain exceptions
to their applicability – In the present case, the Division Bench in
the first impugned order dated 07.11.2019, had confirmed the
directions passed by the Single Judge to the respondent-State
to prepare a fresh panel of selected candidates without affording
any opportunity of hearing to the candidates, who were earlier
declared successful by the respondent-State and were holding
the subject posts – Subsequently, the respondent-State relieved
the appellant-employee and other candidates selected de hors the
rules and terminated their services vide order dated 07.12.2020 –
In view of this Court, since the very selection and appointment
of the appellant-employee was a nullity in the eyes of law, the
26 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Single Judge committed no error in directing the respondent-State
to prepare fresh panel of selected candidates without hearing
the candidates who were likely to get affected – In view of the
factual scenario, it is clear that if the subject appointments were
ab-initio nullity in the eyes of law, it was not incumbent on the
Single Judge to pass the order after hearing all the parties that
were likely to be affected by such decision, i.e., the candidates
who were already appointed on the subject posts including the
appellant-employee. [Paras 29, 30, 32]

Case Law Cited
Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
[2014] 2 SCR 537 : (2014) 14 SCC 50; Mukesh Kumar v. State
of Uttarakhand (2020) 3 SCC 1; Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
[2015] 6 SCR 437 : (2015) 8 SCC 519; Union of India v. Raghuwar
Pal Singh [2018] 4 SCR 1012 : (2018) 15 SCC 463; M.P. State
Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav [2007] 10 SCR 307 : (2007)
8 SCC 264; State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn. [1994]
1 SCR 348 : (1994) 2 SCC 204 – relied on.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006] 3 SCR 953 : (2006) 4
SCC 1 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Article 14 of Constitution; Article 16 of the Constitution; Validity
of advertisement; Appointment process; Opportunity of hearing;
Violation of the statutory rules; Principle of Natural Justice.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13950-13951
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2022 and 07.11.2019
of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 305 of 2022
and LPA No. 26 of 2019 respectively
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 13952, 13955, 13953 and 13954 of 2024
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 27

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Dr. Rajiv Nanda, Sr. Adv., Brajesh Pandey, Sandeep, Samindra
Kumar Tripathi, Sunil Kumar, Manish Kumar Vickkey, Kanchan
Kumar Jha, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, Paramhans Sahani,
M/s. Brajesh Pandey & Associates, Anilendra Pandey, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Jayant Mohan, Karma Dorjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Ms. Pallavi
Langar, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Anilendra
Pandey, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

CIVIL APPEALS NO(S). 13950-13951 OF 2024
1. The present appeals by special leave, are preferred by the appellant,1
assailing the following two judgments rendered by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi2: -
i) Judgment dated 7th November, 2019 in LPA No. 26 of 2019,
whereby the learned Division Bench dismissed the intra-court
appeal preferred by the respondent-State against the common
judgment of learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 6709 of 2017
and other connected petitions,3 who vide order dated 12th
September, 2018, had directed the respondent-State to make a
fresh panel for appointment to the post of Class-IV employees
as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 29th
July, 2010. (Hereinafter, referred to as “first impugned order”).
ii) Judgment dated 24th November, 2022 in batch of Letter Patent
Appeals,4 whereby, the learned Division Bench dismissed the
intra-court appeals (one amongst them filed by the appellant-

1 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-employee”.
2 Hereinafter referred to as “High Court”.
3 WP (S) Nos. 789 of 2018, 1257 of 2018, 1278 of 2018, 1342 of 2018, 1638 of 2018, 1757 of 2018, 544
of 2018, 1007 of 2018, 1915 of 2018, 1926 of 2018, 1893 of 2018 and 7047 of 2017.
4 LPA Nos. 305 of 2022, 197 of 2022, 185 of 2022, 186 of 2022 and 201 of 2022.
28 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

employee) against the judgment dated 9th March, 2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge who vide common order passed in
batch of writ petitions,5 had refused to interfere with the order of
termination issued by respondent-State. (Hereinafter, referred
to as “second impugned order”).

Factual Matrix: -
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu6 published an advertisement
dated 29th July, 2010, inviting applications for appointment to the
post of Class IV employees.7 The language of said advertisement
is germane to the controversy at hand and the same is extracted
below: -
“Date: 29 July 2010 (Ranchi)
Last Date of application
submission 21/8/2010
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PALAMU
DISTRICT, NAZARAT BRANCH
Collectorate Palamu
(Information related to making the fourth panel)
Instructions for appointment to the post of class IV
employee
Advertisement Number 1
Vacancy for the grade IV post - the eligible and interested
candidates are invited to apply in subscribed application
form to the vacant posts of Class IV category by sending
application to the appropriate offices of the State
Government in Palamu District on schedule date.
It will be mandatory to the candidate in list of the category
to submit the certificate along with the application in
printed form before the District Nazarat Branch, Palamu
Collectorate till the last date for submission of application.

5 WP(S) Nos. 4440 of 2020, 187 of 2021, 4132 of 2020, 2219 of 2021, 4358 of 2020, 4363 of 2020, 4405
of 2020, 4407 of 2020 and 2244 of 2021.
6 Hereinafter referred to as “respondent no. 4”.
7 For short “subject posts”.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 29

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

After the last date, the application will not be considered
without the eligible proof of deprivation.
Applicants are instructed to appear in the examination
on the basis of admission eligibility, the cycling test of
the qualified candidate will be held on schedule to qualify
in compulsory basis. The date of examination will be
announced later.
The complete details with terms and conditions to apply
for the post in application are as follows.
1. Name of the post - IV Grade
2. Educational Qualification - VIII Passed
3. The candidate should must be eligible in cycling (there
the cycle test should be organized to qualify on compulsory
basis)
4. The candidate should be in sound health (should
be compulsory to submit the medical fitness certificate
obtained within last 6 months)
5. The candidate over to the maximum age should not be
consider to apply.
6. The applicant for general category is eligible to apply
other than the candidate in schedule caste and schedule
tribe cast in age relaxation in between 18 to 27 years and
for backward class / extremely backward class should
be eligible to apply in age of 18 to 28 years and for
female candidate in unreserved and other backward and
scheduled and Scheduled Tribe Caste should apply with
age relaxation 18 to 40 years.
7. The candidate belong from the local areas should
be given to preference, will be eligible to apply and the
candidate working in government offices should be in
preference to apply from the date of publication of the
advertisement in status of weightage calculation. For which
weightage will be given for service. It will be mandatory
for the daily wage to submit the certificate obtained or
from the employer.
8. Preference will be given to local applicants.
30 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

9. No traveling allowance will be given to the candidates
appearing in the final examination.
10. The emplacement will be effective for one year from
the date of publication.
11. It is only related to the preparation of advertisement
panels.
12. Instructions given from time to time to the district by the
Jharkhand Government in this context should be applicable.
13. Information will be provided in the Devanagari
script prescribed letter form and educational and other
qualification proofs, eligible age certificate, reservation
certificate, caste certificate issued by the employment
office, disability certificate issued by the civil surgeon of
the district (if the applicant is disabled) and residence
certificate, caste proof issued by the eligible sub divisional
officer / appropriate office by the Government of Jharkhand,
It is mandatory for the candidate to attach the photocopy of
the certificate (issued within six months) from the concerned
authority including two passport size photographs should
must be submit.
14. It will be mandatory to attach a bank draft of Rs.100
in the name of Deputy Collector, Palamu Secretariat along
with 10x10 size envelope.
15. The decision of the District Selection Committee
regarding panel creation will be final.
16. The entire recruitment process will be completely
transparent. And all action will be taken according to
the rules of the government. Therefore, under the public
interest, even in your own interest, the broker should
not come under the influence of the middleman. The
candidate is warned to do not approach or recommend
at any level. If any such attempt is detected, the form will
automatically be canceled and legal action will be taken
against the candidate.
Sd/-
The Deputy Commissioner Palamu”
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 31

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

3. Pursuant to the issuance of the above advertisement, an examination
was conducted on 5th November, 2017. Subsequently, respondent No.
4 issued a press release8 dated 9th November, 2017, stating that before
the final panel of selected candidates is prepared, the candidates
would be required to remain present in the District Establishment
Section, Palamu for the purpose of counselling. Upon completion
of the counselling process, the District Education Officer9 vide office
order10 dated 9th March, 2018, issued appointment letter to the
successful candidates, including the appellant herein. Meanwhile, an
FIR11 came to be registered at Police Station Daltonganj Town, District
Palamu alleging rampant corruption and mass scale cheating in the
examination conducted for the subject posts on 5th November, 2017.
4. Aggrieved by the publication of the list of successful candidates, some
non-selected candidates preferred writ petitions12 before the High
Court which came to be allowed vide order dated 12th September,
2018, directing the respondent-State to prepare a fresh merit list
as per the marks obtained in the written examination conducted
on 5th November, 2017, without counting the marks awarded to the
candidates in interview. The learned Single Judge opined that the
appointment was not carried out in accordance with the stipulations
made in the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, as there was
admittedly, no provision for interview in the advertisement which
was conducted by the respondent-State. The learned Single Judge
further observed that the respondent-State had acted de hors the
rules and regulations while preparing the merit list by taking into
account the cumulative marks obtained by the candidates in written
examination as well as the interview.
5. Aggrieved, the respondent-State preferred an intra-court appeal13
assailing the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge. The
Division Bench vide first impugned order dated 7th November, 2019,
dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 12th September,
2018, passed by the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the aforesaid

8 Memorandum No. 842 of 2017.
9 Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent no. 5”.
10 Memo no. 399.
11 FIR No. 382 of 2017.
12 Supra note 3.
13 LPA No. 26 of 2019.
32 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

direction of learned Single Judge, respondent No. 5 vide office order
dated 7th December, 2020, relieved the appellant-employee and
other candidates who were purportedly selected de hors the rules
and terminated their service.
6. The appellant-employee and other similarly aggrieved candidates
assailed their termination order by preferring writ petitions14 before
the High Court seeking issuance of a writ to reinstate them in service.
The learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th March, 2022, dismissed
the batch of writ petitions, holding that no case for interference was
made out as admittedly, the respondent-State had changed the
rules of the game by introducing the interview round in the selection
process after the ball had been set rolling. The learned Single Judge
further held that the respondent-State had prepared the fresh panel
of selected candidates in compliance with the direction of the High
Court in WP (S) No. 6709 of 2017 and other analogous petitions,15
which stood affirmed in the first impugned order and hence, the
termination orders were valid in the eyes of law.
7. Aggrieved, the appellant-employee and other similarly situated
candidates preferred a batch of intra-court appeals16 assailing the
order dated 9th March, 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Division Bench, vide order dated 24th November, 2022,
dismissed these appeals and held that as the decision with respect to
preparation of fresh panel of selected candidates had attained finality
in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, the respondent-
State was justified in issuing the order terminating the services of
the appellant-employee and other similarly situated candidates for
being less meritorious.
8. Aggrieved, the appellant-employee has approached this Court by
way of these appeals by special leave assailing the impugned orders
passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant-employee: -
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-employee
strenuously contended that the appellant-employee was duly selected

14 Supra note 5.
15 Supra note 3.
16 Supra note 4.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 33

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

and has been appointed to the subject posts, purely on merit, vide
Memorandum No. 399 dated 9th March, 2018, issued by the competent
authority. There was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on
the part of the appellant-employee while seeking the appointment
on the post in question.
10. It was submitted that pursuant to the valid appointment of the
appellant-employee, he has satisfactorily served the respondent-State
for two and a half years and has also completed his probation period.
Further, the learned counsel urged that as the appellant-employee
has become over-age for other Government jobs, a sympathetic
view ought to be taken by setting aside the termination order dated
7th December, 2020 issued by respondent No. 5.
11. He further contended that the Division Bench grossly erred in issuing a
direction to the respondent-State to prepare a fresh panel of selected
candidates without impleading the affected persons, such as the
appellant-employee, as a party in the proceedings and thus, violated
the principles of natural justice. The non-selected candidates who
had filed the writ petitions had voluntarily refrained from appearing in
the counselling process, and hence, they lacked locus to challenge
the recruitment process.
12. Learned counsel concluded his submissions by imploring this Court
to take a sympathetic view and to accept the appeals, set aside
the impugned judgments, quash the termination order dated 7th
December, 2020, and direct the respondent-State to reinstate the
appellant-employee in service.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State: -
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State contended that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality. He contended that the fresh panel of selected
candidates, was prepared by the respondent-State in compliance
with the direction of the High Court vide order dated 12th September,
2018. Once the appointment of the appellant-employee was found to
be de hors the law, he cannot claim a preferential right of continuing
in service as against the candidates who were admittedly higher in
merit.
14. Learned standing counsel further contended that the case of
the appellant-employee suffers from gross delay which remains
34 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

unexplained as he is laying challenge to judgment17 of the Division
Bench dated 7th November, 2019 after a period of more than 3
years. As such, the appellant-employee is not entitled to any relief.
On these grounds, the learned Counsel for the respondent-State
implored this Court to dismiss the appeals and affirm the impugned
judgments.

Issues: -
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned
judgments and the material placed on record.
16. The core issues presented for adjudication before this Court in these
appeals are: -
(1) Whether the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010 issued by
respondent No. 4 and appointment process carried out in
pursuance thereof, was valid in the eyes of law?
(2) Whether the direction issued by the High Court vide order dated
12th September, 2018 was justified considering the fact that the
candidates earlier appointed to the subject posts were neither
impleaded as party nor were heard before the issuance of a
direction that adversely affected their service?

Discussion and Analysis: -

Issue No. 1: Whether the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010
by respondent No. 4 and appointment process carried out in
pursuance thereof was valid in the eyes of law?
17. To adjudge the validity of the recruitment process and the appointments
made thereunder for the subject posts, we deem it fit to consider
the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010,
issued by respondent No. 4 on the touchstone of the precedents
of this Court so as to find out whether the same was in conformity
with law or not.

17 First impugned order.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 35

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Renu v. District and
Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,18 discussed in detail
the requirements of a valid advertisement and observed thus:-
“16. Another important requirement of public appointment is
that of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must
specify the number of posts available for selection
and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility
criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided
and the schedule of recruitment process should be
published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement
should also specify the rules under which the selection
is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure
under which the selection is likely to be undertaken.
This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to
avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection
process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting
someone at the cost of others.”
(emphasis supplied)

19. Thus, the advertisements which fail to mention the number of
posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of
transparency. This Court further expounded in Renu(supra) that
any appointment in violation of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India is not only irregular but also illegal and
cannot be sustained. It is a trite law that a valid advertisement inviting
applications for public employment must include the total number
of seats, the ratio of reserved and unreserved seats, minimum
qualification for the posts and procedural clarity with respect to the
type and manner of selection stages, i.e., written, oral examination
and interviews.
20. Further, the position of law is settled that though there is no
fundamental right to claim reservation as Articles 16(4) and (4-A)
of the Constitution of India are in the nature of enabling provisions
only and do not mandate the State or its instrumentalities to provide
reservation in every selection process but inspite thereof, the State’s
decision to not provide reservation has to be based on some
quantifiable data and valid reasoning.

18 (2014) 14 SCC 50.
36 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

21. Reference in this regard may be made to this Court’s decision in
Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand,19 wherein, it was held that:-
“12. Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer fundamental
right to claim reservations in promotion [Ajit Singh
(2) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209]. By relying
upon earlier judgments of this Court, it was held in Ajit
Singh (2) [Ajit Singh (2) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC
209] that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are in the nature
of enabling provisions, vesting a discretion on the
State Government to consider providing reservations,
if the circumstances so warrant. It is settled law that
the State Government cannot be directed to provide
reservations for appointment in public posts [C.A.
Rajendran v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 507]. Similarly,
the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions.
However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make
such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data
showing inadequacy of representation of that class in
public services. If the decision of the State Government
to provide reservations in promotion is challenged, the
State concerned shall have to place before the Court the
requisite quantifiable data and satisfy the Court that such
reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy
of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in a particular class or classes of posts without
affecting general efficiency of administration as mandated
by Article 335 of the Constitution. [M. Nagaraj v. Union of
India, (2006) 8 SCC 212]
13. Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) empower the State to make
reservation in matters of appointment and promotion in
favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
“if in the opinion of the State they are not adequately
represented in the services of the State”. It is for the
State Government to decide whether reservations are
required in the matter of appointment and promotions

19 (2020) 3 SCC 1.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 37

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

to public posts. The language in clauses (4) and
(4-A) of Article 16 is clear, according to which, the
inadequacy of representation is a matter within the
subjective satisfaction of the State. The State can
form its own opinion on the basis of the material it
has in its possession already or it may gather such
material through a Commission/ Committee, person
or authority. All that is required is that there must be
some material on the basis of which the opinion is
formed. The Court should show due deference to the
opinion of the State which does not, however, mean that
the opinion formed is beyond judicial scrutiny altogether.
The scope and reach of judicial scrutiny in matters within
the subjective satisfaction of the executive are extensively
stated in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law
Board [Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board,
AIR 1967 SC 295], which need not be reiterated. [Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]”
(emphasis supplied)

22. Thus, it is imperative that the State must specifically mention in the
advertisement the total number of reserved and unreserved seats.
However, if the State does not intend to provide reservation, in view
of the quantifiable data indicating adequacy of representation, this
aspect must also be specifically mentioned in the advertisement.
23. 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.
We are of the view that if the State chooses not to provide reservation,
that decision must also be conveyed through the advertisement along
with the afore-mentioned lists of inclusions. This Court in the case of
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi,20 observed that any appointment
made in violation of the statutory rules as well as the mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity in law.
24. In the wake of the afore-mentioned judicial precedents, we are of
the view that the entire recruitment process initiated for the subject

20 (2006) 4 SCC 1.
38 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

posts, in furtherance of the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, is
in violation of both the legal precedents and settled law. 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.

Issue No. 2: Whether the direction issued by the High Court vide
order dated 12th September, 2018, was justified considering the
fact that the candidates earlier appointed to the subject posts
were neither impleaded as party nor were heard before the
issuance of a direction that adversely affected their service?
25. Before answering this issue, we deem it fit to discuss the background
of this case. The respondent-State had issued the advertisement
dated 29th July, 2010, in complete disregard to the precedents
of this Court as well as in sheer contravention of the mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as discussed in the
first issue. In pursuance of this advertisement, the respondent-State
has carried out the entire recruitment process. The limited ground
of challenge in the legal proceedings from which the first impugned
order emanates was that the petitioners therein had pleaded foul-play
on the part of the respondent-State, and contended that the rules
of the game had been changed by respondent-State by awarding
marks to some candidates in the interview round. The High Court in
this regard was justified in ordering preparation of a fresh panel of
selected candidates on the basis of the marks secured in the written
examination, conducted on 5th November, 2017. This decision has
been upheld by the Division Bench in the first impugned order dated
7th November, 2019 which has now attained finality as no further
challenge thereto was laid by either the respondent-State or the
appellant-employee at that time.
26. Subsequently, the respondent-State prepared fresh panel of selected
candidates. However, the name of the appellant-employee was not
included in the fresh panel, for being lower in merit and his services
were terminated by order dated 7th December, 2020. It is then that
fresh writ petitions21 came to be preferred by the appellant-employee
and other similarly situated candidates laying challenge to order

21 Supra note 5.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 39

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

whereby their services were terminated. In our view, the appellant-
employee was precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the learned
Single Judge who could not have interfered with the decision which
had attained finality after being upheld by the Division Bench in the
first impugned order. Until and unless, a review petition was filed
against the first impugned order, it provided finality with respect to
the present advertisement.
27. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions
filed by the appellant-employee and other similarly situated candidates
against their termination order. No error whatsoever was committed
by the learned Division Bench in dismissing the appeal as it had
clearly stated that the appellants therein failed to lay challenge to the
decision of the Coordinate Bench in the first impugned order dated
7th November, 2019. The Division Bench in a fresh round of litigation
could not have reviewed the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench
in relation to the same controversy.
28. It is before this Court, for the first time, that the appellant-employee
has laid challenge to the first impugned order dated 7th November,
2019, thus, the only controversy that demands our attention is
whether the Division Bench was correct in directing the respondent-
State to prepare fresh panel of selected candidates without giving
an opportunity of hearing to the candidates who were likely to get
affected by such direction.
29. The position of law is crystallized on the aspect of compliance with
the principles of natural justice in both administrative spheres as well
as judicial decisions. It is trite law that the principles of natural justice
cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula and it is imperative to
understand that there are certain exceptions to their applicability.
Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court
in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE,22 wherein it was held thus: -
“38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law
on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed
in the manner mentioned above, at the same time,
the courts have also repeatedly remarked that the
principles of natural justice are very flexible principles.

22 (2015) 8 SCC 519.
40 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

They cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula.
It all depends upon the kind of functions performed
and to the extent to which a person is likely to be
affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the
aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain
circumstances. For example, the courts have held
that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a
representation and oral hearing may not be necessary
in all cases, though in some matters, depending
upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral
hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is
treated as a necessary concomitant of the principles
of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating
to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the
requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity
is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the
other hand, in those cases where there is an admission
of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the
punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for
this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional
hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the courts
have held that under certain circumstances principles
of natural justice may even be excluded by reason
of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended
danger and so on.
…
40. In this behalf, we need to notice one other exception
which has been carved out to the aforesaid principle by
the courts. Even if it is found by the court that there is
a violation of principles of natural justice, the courts
have held that it may not be necessary to strike down
the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to
take fresh decision after complying with the procedural
requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing
has not caused any prejudice to the person against
whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of
a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion
that the order passed is always null and void. The
validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 41

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

of “prejudice”. The ultimate test is always the same viz.
the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing.”
(emphasis supplied)

30. In the present case, the Division Bench in the first impugned order
dated 7th November, 2019, had confirmed the directions passed by
the learned Single Judge to the respondent-State to prepare a fresh
panel of selected candidates without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the candidates, who were earlier declared successful by the
respondent-State and were holding the subject posts. Subsequently,
the respondent-State relieved the appellant-employee and other
candidates selected de hors the rules and terminated their services
vide order dated 7th December, 2020.
31. In our view, since the very selection and appointment of the appellant-
employee was a nullity in the eyes of law, the learned Single Judge
committed no error in directing the respondent-State to prepare fresh
panel of selected candidates without hearing the candidates who
were likely to get affected. In this regard, we are benefitted by the
decision of this Court in Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh,23
wherein, it was held that when the appointment of the candidates is a
nullity in law making them disentitled to hold the posts, the principles
of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly
when the same would be nothing short of an exercise in futility. The
relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow: -
“20. For taking this contention forward, we may assume,
for the time being, that the then Director Incharge H.S.
Rathore, Agriculture Officer had the authority to issue a
letter of appointment. Nevertheless, he could do so only
upon obtaining prior written approval of the competent
authority. No case has been made out in the original
application that due approval was granted by the competent
authority before issuance of the letter of appointment to the
respondent. Thus, it is indisputable that no prior approval
of the competent authority was given for the appointment
of the respondent. In such a case, the next logical
issue that arises for consideration is : whether the

23 (2018) 15 SCC 463.
42 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

appointment letter issued to the respondent, would
be a case of nullity or a mere irregularity? If it is a
case of nullity, affording opportunity to the incumbent
would be a mere formality and non-grant of opportunity
may not vitiate the final decision of termination of his
services. The Tribunal has rightly held that in absence
of prior approval of the competent authority, the Director
Incharge could not have hastened issuance of the
appointment letter. The act of commission and omission
of the then Director Incharge would, therefore, suffer from
the vice of lack of authority and nullity in law.
…
23. In State of Manipur [State of Manipur v. Y. Token
Singh, (2007) 5 SCC 65 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 107] ,
the appointment letters were cancelled on the ground
that the same were issued without the knowledge of the
department of the State. The Court after adverting to
the reported decisions concluded that the candidates
were not entitled to hold the posts and in a case of
such nature, principles of natural justice were not
required to be complied with, particularly when the
same would result in futility. …”
(emphasis supplied)

32. Hence, in view of the above principle and the factual scenario in the
case at hand, it is clear that if the subject appointments were ab-initio
nullity in the eyes of law, it was not incumbent on the learned Single
Judge to pass the order after hearing all the parties that were likely to
be affected by such decision, i.e., the candidates who were already
appointed on the subject posts including the appellant-employee.
33. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did
not commit any error while issuing a direction vide order dated 12th
September, 2018, for preparation of fresh panel of selected candidates
in consonance with the statutory rules and procedure prescribed in
the advertisement as it is clearly discernible from our discussion in
the first issue that the recruitment process was void ab-initio and
ultra vires the Constitution of India. Therefore, there was no need to
comply with the principles of natural justice as that would be nothing,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 43

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

but an exercise in futility and the appellant-employee thus, cannot be
allowed to claim prejudice from the fact that he was neither impleaded
nor heard before the issuance of a direction affecting his service.
34. With respect to the power of cancellation of the entire selection
process, this Court in M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram
Yadav,24 held thus:-
“24. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments,
the following principles are to be followed:
(1) The appointments made without following the
appropriate procedure under the rules/government circulars
and without advertisement or inviting applications from the
open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.
(3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the
minimum educational qualification and other essential
qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot
be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.
(4) Those who come by back door should go through
that door.
(5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the
statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India if the appointments have been made
in contravention of the statutory rules.
(6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on
misplaced sympathy.
(7) If the mischief played is so widespread and
all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make
it difficult to pick out the persons who have been
unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their
selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary
to issue individual show-cause notice to each

24 (2007) 8 SCC 264.
44 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the
whole selection.
(8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in
fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has
no place and the entire selection has to be set aside.”
(emphasis supplied)

35. Thus, it is clear that once the appointment process is declared to be
a nullity in law, every action taken in furtherance of such appointment
process is also illegal, and, therefore, the constitutional courts have
jurisdiction to set aside such appointments wholly and ab-initio.
This power of the Court is not curtailed even in a situation where a
third-party right has been created in those who have been offered
appointment or have even joined the service.
36. This Court in State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn.,25
while dealing with the back-door entries in public appointment
observed as under: -
“19. … The appointments may, therefore, be made
on considerations other than merit and there exists no
provision to prevent such appointments. The method
of appointment is indeed not calculated to ensure that
the meritorious alone will always be appointed or that
the appointments made will not be on considerations
other than merit. In the absence of guidelines, the
appointments may be made purely on personal or
political considerations, and be arbitrary. This being
so those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary
procedure can hardly complain if the termination of
their appointment is equally arbitrary. Those who come
by the back door have to go by the same door. This
is more so when the order of appointment itself stipulates
that the appointment is terminable at any time without
assigning any reason. Such appointments are made,
accepted and understood by both sides to be purely

25 (1994) 2 SCC 204.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 45

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

professional engagements till they last. The fact that they
are made by public bodies cannot vest them with additional
sanctity. Every appointment made to a public office,
howsoever made, is not necessarily vested with public
sanctity. There is, therefore, no public interest involved in
saving all appointments irrespective of their mode. From
the inception some engagements and contracts may be
the product of the operation of the spoils system. There
need be no legal anxiety to save them.”
(emphasis supplied)

37. It is, therefore, clear that a beneficiary of a back-door procedure
cannot claim proper treatment as per law when they come at the
receiving end.
38. In the present case, the appellant-employee, who had been appointed
under the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, does not have any
right on the subject posts once it is concluded that the advertisement
is itself void and is declared illegal and unconstitutional. The
candidates’ right to continue on such posts is contingent upon the
legality of the advertisement and the recruitment process conducted
in pursuance thereof.
39. At this juncture, before parting, we deem it fit to note that public
employment is a duty entrusted by the Constitution of India with the
State. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the rigours of Articles
14 and 16 are not ignored by the State in relation to the matter
concerning public employment. Arbitrariness in public employment
goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality. While
no person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does
not mean that the State can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or
capricious manner. The State is accountable to the public at large
as well as the Constitution of India, which guarantees equal and
fair treatment to each person. Public employment process thus,
must always be fair, transparent, impartial and within the bounds
of the Constitution of India. Every citizen has a fundamental right
to be treated fairly and impartially, which is an appendage of right
to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A violation
of this guarantee is liable to judicial scrutiny as well as criticism.
46 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Conclusion: -
40. In view of the peculiar facts of this case and discussion made
hereinabove, we do not deem it fit to delve into the observations
made in the impugned judgments as the subject matter dealt therein is
different. The question with respect to the illegality of the recruitment
process was not raised in any of the proceedings before the Courts
below. On the other hand, it was here, for the first time, before this
Court, that the appellant-employee have laid challenge to the first
impugned order.
41. Resultantly, the appeals stand disposed of with the following
directions: -
i. The advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, issued by respondent
No. 4 and all the consequential proceedings conducted in
pursuance thereof are hereby quashed for being violative of
Articles 14 and 16 and judicial precedents of this Court.
ii. All the appointments made in furtherance of the direction of
the High Court dated 12th September, 2018, with respect to the
subject posts are quashed.
iii. The respondent-State shall issue a fresh advertisement,
compliant with the constitutional mandate and in accordance
with the extant Rules and the observations made hereinabove.
Thereafter, the recruitment process shall be re-conducted in
accordance with law for the subject posts.
iv. In the interest of justice, we direct that the fresh notification
shall be issued in terms of our direction(supra) within six months
from today and will specifically provide suitable age relaxation
in order to accommodate all such aspirants, who would have in
the supervening period and during the pendency of the present
litigation crossed the age limit for selection on the subject posts.
42. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
43. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEALS NO(S). 13952 OF 2024
CIVIL APPEALS NO(S). 13953 OF 2024
CIVIL APPEALS NO(S). 13954 OF 2024
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 47

Amrit Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

CIVIL APPEALS NO(S). 13955 OF 2024
44. In these appeals, the appellants have laid challenge only to the
second impugned order of the High Court dated 24th November, 2022.
As we have quashed the advertisement dated 29th July, 2010 and
the consequential selection process thereto in Civil Appeal No(s).
13950-13951 of 2024, the question involved in these appeals has
become academic and therefore, does not merit our interference.
45. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
46. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan