Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a batch of appeals by employees appointed as Class-IV employees in Palamu district, Jharkhand, pursuant to an advertisement dated 29th July 2010. The advertisement prescribed a written examination and a compulsory cycling test but did not mention any interview. However, the respondent-State conducted an interview and prepared a merit list based on cumulative marks of written exam and interview. Some non-selected candidates challenged this, and the High Court directed preparation of a fresh merit list based solely on written exam marks, as per the advertisement. This order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appellant-employee and others, who were selected only after including interview marks, were terminated. They challenged their termination, but the Single Judge and Division Bench dismissed their petitions. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeals, examined whether the termination was valid. The Court noted that the advertisement had no provision for interview, and the State had changed the rules of the game mid-process, which is impermissible. The Court held that the selection process was de hors the rules, and the employees had no right to continue. The Court also rejected the argument of violation of natural justice, as the termination was based on a court order and the appointment itself was illegal. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Advertisement Terms - Selection Process - The selection process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement; any deviation, such as introducing an interview where none was advertised, renders the selection illegal. (Paras 2-4)
B) Service Law - Termination - Illegal Appointment - An employee appointed through an irregular process has no vested right to continue in service; termination pursuant to a court order directing fresh selection is valid. (Paras 5-7)
C) Service Law - Natural Justice - Termination Without Notice - Where the appointment itself is illegal and the termination is based on a court order, principles of natural justice are not attracted. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant-employee's service was valid when the selection process included an interview not provided in the advertisement, and whether the appellant has any right to continue in service despite the irregularity.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the termination of the appellant-employee and other similarly situated candidates. The Court held that the selection process was illegal as it included an interview not mentioned in the advertisement, and the employees had no right to continue in service.
Law Points
- Selection process must adhere strictly to advertisement terms
- Changing rules of game after process begins is impermissible
- Termination of irregularly appointed employees is valid
- No right to continue in service if appointment is illegal
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (2) 101
Civil Appeal No(s). 13950-13951 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 6120-6121 of 2023) and connected appeals
The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against judgments of the High Court of Jharkhand dismissing intra-court appeals and upholding termination of Class-IV employees.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-employee sought reinstatement in service and quashing of termination order.
Filing Reason
The appellant-employee was terminated from service after the High Court directed preparation of a fresh merit list based solely on written examination marks, as the interview was not advertised.
Previous Decisions
The High Court Single Judge on 12th September 2018 directed fresh panel without interview marks; Division Bench on 7th November 2019 upheld that order. Subsequently, termination orders were issued, and the Single Judge on 9th March 2022 dismissed writ petitions challenging termination; Division Bench on 24th November 2022 dismissed appeals.
Issues
Whether the termination of the appellant-employee's service was valid when the selection process included an interview not provided in the advertisement.
Whether the appellant has any right to continue in service despite the irregularity in the selection process.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he was duly selected on merit and termination without notice violated natural justice.
Respondent-State argued that the selection was de hors the rules as interview was not advertised, and termination was in compliance with court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The selection process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. Any deviation, such as introducing an interview where none was advertised, renders the selection illegal. Employees appointed through such an irregular process have no vested right to continue in service, and termination pursuant to a court order directing fresh selection is valid.
Judgment Excerpts
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 held that 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.
Procedural History
Advertisement issued on 29th July 2010. Examination held on 5th November 2017. Appointment letters issued on 9th March 2018. Non-selected candidates filed writ petitions; Single Judge on 12th September 2018 directed fresh panel without interview. State appealed; Division Bench dismissed on 7th November 2019. Fresh panel prepared; appellant-employee terminated on 7th December 2020. Appellant challenged termination; Single Judge dismissed on 9th March 2022. Intra-court appeal dismissed on 24th November 2022. Appellant filed special leave petitions; Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeals.
