GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Monday, February 10, ruled that job advertisements for public employment that do not specify the number of available posts are invalid and illegal due to a lack of transparency.
ALSO READ: Woman Has Right To Choose Motherhood In Sexual Abuse Case, Rules Allahabad HC
In its ruling, the court held that such omissions violate fundamental principles of fair recruitment and upheld the termination of candidates selected through the Jharkhand High Court's 2010 recruitment drive for IV Class Employees.
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta relied on the precedent set in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2014), emphasising that transparency in public employment is crucial. The court reiterated that a valid advertisement must include the total number of vacancies, the ratio of reserved and unreserved seats, minimum qualifications, and clear selection procedures, including written tests and interviews.
The recruitment process conducted by the Jharkhand High Court in 2010 was deemed unconstitutional as it failed to mention the total number of vacancies and did not provide a reservation breakdown in its advertisement. Consequently, the court struck down the entire recruitment exercise, stating that such non-disclosure rendered the process illegal.
“It is imperative that the State specifically mentions the total number of reserved and unreserved seats in job advertisements. If the State chooses not to provide reservations, this decision must also be explicitly mentioned, supported by quantifiable data indicating adequacy of representation,” the bench observed.
The court also cited its ruling in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, stating that any appointment made in violation of statutory rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be null and void. The bench clarified that recruitment processes must strictly adhere to constitutional and legal guidelines to ensure fairness and equality in public employment.
In the present case, the advertisement issued on July 29, 2010, by respondent No. 4 was found to be entirely silent on the number of available posts and reservation details. The court emphasised that failure to disclose such critical information violates constitutional provisions and renders the selection process legally untenable.
