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 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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.