AMRIT YADAV versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 09-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 Cou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.