SC upholds Jharkhand HC order: Govt job advertisements must specify number of posts
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, Feb 11: The Supreme Court has ruled that advertisements inviting applications for public employment must…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, Feb 11: The Supreme Court has ruled that advertisements inviting applications for public employment must clearly state the number of available posts. Failing to do so renders the advertisement due to a lack of transparency.
“The advertisements that do not mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to a lack of transparency,” the Court observed.
Essential Requirements for a Valid Advertisement
The Court emphasized that a proper job advertisement must include the following details:
- Total number of available positions
- Ratio of reserved and unreserved seats
- Minimum qualifications required
- Selection process, including written tests, oral examinations, and interviews
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the termination of candidates selected through an advertisement published by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, on
July 29, 2010, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Class IV employees, by the Jharkhand High Court.
The Court ruled the recruitment process unlawful as it did not specify the total number of available posts.
Failure to Provide Reservation Details Violates Constitution
The Court set aside the entire recruitment process, declaring it illegal and unconstitutional because the advertisement also failed to mention reservation provisions.
“It is imperative that the State explicitly mentions the total number of reserved and unreserved seats in the advertisement. However, if the State does not intend to provide reservations—based on quantifiable data indicating adequate representation—this decision must also be explicitly stated,” the Court noted.
Court Cites Precedent on Unlawful Appointments
Referring to the advertisement dated July 29, 2010, the Court observed that it lacked crucial details regarding the total number of posts and the distribution of reserved and general quota seats.
“If the State chooses not to provide reservations, that decision must be clearly conveyed in the advertisement, along with all necessary details,” the Court stated.
Citing the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the Court reiterated that any appointment made in violation of statutory rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is legally void.
