Jharkhand Government Job Recruitment Cancelled: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection Process

The case of Amrit Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others is a landmark decision concerning the cancellation of an illegal recruitment process for Class IV government posts in Jharkhand. The Supreme Court examined whether the entire recruitment process initiated in 2010 was legally valid and if the termination of selected candidates was justified. The verdict highlights critical issues of fairness, transparency, and constitutional compliance in public employment.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from an advertisement published by the Jharkhand government on July 29, 2010, for recruiting Class IV employees. However, several candidates challenged the process, alleging that the selection criteria were altered after the examination had been conducted.

The key timeline of events is as follows:

2010 (July 29): Jharkhand government issued an advertisement inviting applications for Class IV government posts.
2017 (November 5): A written examination was conducted for the advertised posts.
2017 (November 9): A press release announced the selection process and required candidates to appear for counseling.
2018 (March 9): Appointment letters were issued to selected candidates.
2018 (September 12): Jharkhand High Court ordered a fresh panel of candidates, as interviews were illegally conducted.
2019 (November 7): The High Court upheld its earlier order, leading to the termination of previously selected candidates.
2020 (December 7): Government terminated the services of candidates selected in the earlier process.
2022 (November 24): Jharkhand High Court dismissed appeals against the termination order.
2025 (February 10): The Supreme Court ruled that the entire selection process was unconstitutional and ordered a fresh recruitment.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Disqualified Candidates)

The candidates whose appointments were canceled contended:

They were selected on merit and had completed their probation period.
The Jharkhand High Court’s order violated natural justice as they were not heard before the decision to cancel appointments.
The cancellation of their jobs caused irreparable harm since they had already worked for two years.
Many of them had exceeded the age limit for fresh government job applications.

Respondent’s Arguments (Jharkhand Government)

The Jharkhand government defended the recruitment cancellation by arguing:

The selection process was flawed as interviews were introduced after the advertisement was published.
As per Supreme Court precedent, the rules of selection cannot be changed mid-process.
The appointment of candidates through a non-transparent process made their employment legally invalid.
Merit-based candidates were replaced due to an illegal interview process, necessitating fresh recruitment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the case based on constitutional principles and public employment laws. The key observations included:

The 2010 advertisement did not specify the total number of vacancies, violating transparency requirements.
The government illegally added an interview round after conducting the written test.
The original selection process was null and void due to its non-compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The termination of candidates was justified as they were selected through a process that lacked legal validity.
Fresh recruitment should be conducted while giving age relaxation to affected candidates.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The entire recruitment process initiated in 2010 was unconstitutional and must be quashed.
All appointments made under the flawed process were invalid and canceled.
The Jharkhand government must conduct fresh recruitment following proper constitutional procedures.
Affected candidates who lost their jobs should be given age relaxation so they can apply again.

The Supreme Court stated:

“Public employment must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Once the recruitment process is found to be unconstitutional, appointments made under it cannot be upheld.”

Conclusion

This ruling serves as a strong reminder that government recruitment must be fair, transparent, and constitutional. The decision protects the rights of genuinely meritorious candidates and ensures that no one is appointed through a flawed process. By ordering fresh recruitment with age relaxation, the Supreme Court has balanced the need for justice for affected candidates while ensuring future government job selections follow legal procedures.

Petitioner Name: Amrit Yadav.
Respondent Name: The State of Jharkhand & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Place Of Incident: Jharkhand.
Judgment Date: 10-02-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: amrit-yadav-vs-the-state-of-jharkha-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-02-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category