No fundamental right to government job but appointment process must be transparent: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India recently observed that while no individual has a fundamental right to a public appointment, the State cannot act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in public employment selection processes. [Amrit Yadav v State of Jharkhand & Ors]..A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta added that public employment processes must always be fair, transparent, impartial and within the bounds of the Constitution of India."Public employment is a duty entrusted by the Constitution of India with the State ... Arbitrariness in public employment goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality. While no person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does not mean that the State can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The State is accountable to the public at large as well as the Constitution of India, which guarantees equal and fair treatment to each person. Public employment process thus, must always be fair, transparent, impartial and within the bounds of the Constitution of India," the Court said. Every citizen has a right to be treated fairly and impartially in public recruitment processes, and any violation of this guarantee is liable to be subjected to judicial scrutiny and criticism, the Court further observed. .The Court made the observation on an appeal challenging the Jharkhand High Court's decision to reject a plea to reinstate certain candidates who were terminated from Grade IV posts of the State government.The work termination of these candidates was linked to a 2018 High Court ruling, in which it was found that the recruitment process was marred by irregularities. This 2018 verdict came on petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates. The State's intra-court appeal against the 2018 single-judge ruling was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court as well in 2019. The High Court ordered the State to prepare a fresh merit list. .Among those terminated from service on account of these developments was Amrit Yadav (appellant), who was let go from his post in December 2020 after around two years of service. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court with a writ petition to reinstate him back to service. The High Court (single judge and later a Division Bench) refused to grant him relief, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court..On February 10, the Supreme Court too declined to grant him and similarly placed candidates any relief on finding that the recruitment process was flawed from the start.The Bench pointed out that the recruitment advertisement from 2010 failed to mention how many posts were vacant and whether any reservation was being extended, which ought to have been specified. The Court ruled that appointments made through such an unconstitutional process cannot be protected, even if the candidates had worked for years and were not given a hearing before their termination.The top court also quashed the High Court's 2018 directive to prepare a fresh merit list based on the exam results of candidates who applied under the 2010 recruitment advertisement. The Court proceeded to order the State to publish fresh advertisements for the said positions within six months..[Read Order]