In Brief
The Supreme Court examined whether a 2010 District Magistrate's advertisement for Class IV positions was valid and whether terminations of appointed candidates were justified. The advertisement failed to specify the total number of posts (reserved/unreserved), qualifications, or selection procedures, violating Articles 14 and 16. The Court held the entire recruitment process void ab initio. Though candidates had been appointed and served over two years, their appointments were nullities and unenforceable. The Court rejected arguments that principles of natural justice were violated by quashing appointments without hearing, finding such compliance futile where appointments were fundamentally illegal. The Court quashed both the original advertisement and subsequent appointments, ordering fresh recruitment with constitutional compliance and age relaxation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.