Invalid Advertisements in Public Employment: The Newly Affirmed Principle in AMRIT YADAV v. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2025 INSC 176)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in AMRIT YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2025 INSC 176) addresses the validity of advertisements for public employment and the constitutionality of recruitment processes that violate the requirements of transparency, proper reservation policies, and procedural fairness. The appellant, Mr. Amrit Yadav (“appellant-employee”), challenged the decisions of the High Court of Jharkhand that directed reconstitution of a selection panel and led to termination orders of various Class-IV employees.

The case stems from an advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, on July 29, 2010, inviting applications for Class-IV posts but failing to specify critical elements such as the total number of seats and detailed reservation criteria. The recruitment concluded with written examinations, followed—but controversially—by an interview component not mentioned in the original advertisement. When some non-selected candidates alleged irregularities, the High Court intervened and directed the preparation of a fresh merit list. Those originally appointed, including the appellant, were terminated. Ultimately, the Supreme Court scrutinized both the flawed advertisement and the ensuing appointments, declaring the entire selection process invalid for violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, while also offering a path forward for re-advertisement.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directives that required the State to prepare a fresh list of selected candidates. The Court found that the original advertisement was a “nullity” in law because it lacked essential information—particularly the number of available posts and appropriate reservation details—and was consequently violative of both precedent and constitutional mandates of equality.

The Court also concluded that the introduction of interviews, despite the original advertisement’s silence on the matter, amounted to changing “the rules of the game” mid-process. Thus, the originally appointed candidates could not claim any right to remain in public service based on an unconstitutional advertisement.

In disposing of the appeals:

The Supreme Court quashed the advertisement dated July 29, 2010, and every subsequent step conducted pursuant to it.
All existing appointments based on the invalid advertisement were set aside.
The Court ordered the State to issue a new advertisement that aligns with constitutional requirements and clarifies reservation policies and the number of posts.
To ensure fairness, the State was also directed to relax the age criteria for candidates who may have become ineligible due to the protracted litigation.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court relied on various precedents to underscore the importance of transparent and constitutionally compliant advertisements in public employment, including:

Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi (2014) 14 SCC 50
This decision highlighted that advertisements for public employment must clearly specify the number of posts, qualifications, eligibility criteria, and the exact rules or procedure for selection. Ambiguous job notices lacking complete disclosure infringe fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16.
Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 3 SCC 1
This case concerned reservation provisions in public appointments, explaining that while the Constitution enables reservations under certain conditions, any decision not to provide reservations must be premised on quantifiable data and must still be communicated clearly.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1
The Court reiterated that appointments violating statutory rules and Articles 14 and 16 remain invalid from the outset, preventing any right of continued employment for the appointee.
Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463
This case clarified that when an appointment is ab initio illegal, the employer need not comply with the principles of natural justice while canceling the invalid appointment since no lawful right accrues from an illegality.
M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav (2007) 8 SCC 264
The Court enumerated principles for addressing large-scale illegality in public appointments, holding that widespread irregularities can warrant scrapping the entire selection if it is impossible to separate the valid from the invalid.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court grounded its legal reasoning in constitutional mandates. The selection process must adhere to Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment). The following key points informed the Court’s reasoning:

Defective Advertisement: The advertisement neither stipulated the number of available posts nor clearly stated how reservation would be handled. This omission rendered the advertisement’s entire recruitment process unconstitutional.
Improper Introduction of Interview: The written examination was permitted by the advertisement, but introducing an additional interview stage—absent from the original notice—constituted “changing the rules of the game.”
Nullity from the Outset: Because the advertisement and subsequent appointment process were procedurally flawed, the Court classified them as a legal nullity. Consequently, appointees had no vested right to remain in service.
Principles of Natural Justice Exception: Typically, a person’s right to continue public employment requires due process. However, in cases of inherently illegal appointments, the Court reaffirmed that prior hearings and other procedural formalities may be dispensed with, as no lawful right attaches to an unlawful act.

3.3 Impact

This ruling will have a far-reaching influence on future recruitment drives and public employment procedures. Key impacts include:

Stricter Guidelines for Advertisements: State entities must ensure that job advertisements comprehensively spell out the number of posts, reservation details, selection procedure (written test, interview, etc.), and other eligibility norms to avoid allegations of arbitrariness.
Heightened Transparency and Fairness: Recruitment processes are more likely to survive judicial scrutiny if they clearly align with constitutional requirements and follow set criteria from the start.
Validating the Court’s Power to Cancel Entire Selection: When widespread irregularities occur, courts will not hesitate to scrap an entire process—even if that means affecting several appointees—rather than preserve partially valid segments.
Incentive to Avoid “Back-Door” Entries: Candidates and State authorities alike must be reminded that short-term gains through non-compliance can be entirely negated by the courts, leaving employees without the right to reinstatement.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

While reading this judgment, certain legal notions may appear intricate to those unfamiliar with constitutional or administrative law. Below are explanations to make them easier to understand:

Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India: Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 16 expands on that principle specifically for employment under the State, ensuring equality of opportunity and prohibiting discrimination in granting public jobs.
Nullity in Law: An official act that is so fundamentally flawed or unauthorized that it is deemed non-existent from the beginning (i.e., “void ab initio”). Courts need not recognize it as valid for any purpose.
Principle of Natural Justice: The basic premise that decisions should not be taken against a person without giving them the opportunity to be heard. However, the law allows exceptions when the appointment or action is patently illegal or fraudulent.
Reservation Policy: Constitutional provisions allow certain percentages of public posts to be “reserved” for historically disadvantaged groups. State governments, when choosing to offer or not offer reservations, must clarify their stance in a legally acceptable manner, supported by reasonable data.
Changing the Rules of the Game: A colloquial judicial expression warning against altering or introducing new appointment criteria after a recruitment process is underway, as it seriously compromises fairness and legal certainty.

5. Conclusion

AMRIT YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND underscores that governmental bodies must meticulously adhere to constitutional safeguards when issuing advertisements and carrying out recruitment drives. The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the July 29, 2010, advertisement and every subsequent stage of that flawed procedure reaffirms that essential information—such as the number of available posts, reservation details, and selection methodology—must be stated clearly at the very outset.

By holding the entire recruitment process to exacting standards, the Court ensures that public employment remains fair, transparent, and anchored in the rule of law. Although the judgment resulted in the loss of jobs for those who had already been appointed, it reiterated a vital principle in Indian administrative law—no one can claim a right to an appointment that is unconstitutional from its inception. Ultimately, the judgment directs the reissuance of a new, constitutionally compliant advertisement that duly provides age relaxation for all those unfairly affected. This principle not only clarifies crucial aspects of public employment law but also serves as a strong reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding equitable access to government jobs.

Through this ruling, the Court makes it clear that expediency should never trump the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Where an appointment process flouts the fundamental tenets of transparency, equality, and fairness, the judiciary will step in to ensure that the process is set aside and replaced by one that fully complies with the highest standards of justice.