The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that public employment appointments must strictly adhere to merit and judicial directives, rejecting ad hoc filling of vacancies and mandating an independent fact-finding mechanism to rectify systemic irregularities. This judgment reinforces constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination in state recruitment processes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, seven candidates who appeared in competitive examinations conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), allege that despite securing higher marks than several appointed candidates, they were excluded from final appointments. They contend that the JSSC appointed candidates with lower merit, including those whose candidatures were previously rejected or who joined after the Apex Court’s judgment dated 02.08.2022, thereby violating Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
- The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the JSSC’s revised merit list and appointment process.
- The matter was heard alongside multiple analogous cases, including Mina Kumari v. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) No. 582 of 2023).
- The JSSC and State sought to rely on internal review mechanisms, proposing petitioners raise grievances directly with JSSC.
- The Court declined this proposal, citing prior findings of institutional bias and procedural failure.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Declaration that appointments made in violation of Apex Court’s directions are void
- Directives to fill 2,034 remaining vacancies strictly on merit
- Constitution of an independent fact-finding commission to investigate irregularities
- Action against erring officials
- Opportunity for petitioners to submit representations for consideration
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State can leave substantial vacancies unfilled after judicial orders, and whether merit-based appointments can be subordinated to administrative convenience or alleged non-availability of reserved category candidates.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Mina Kumari v. State of Jharkhand and State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra to argue that:
- Article 14 and Article 16 mandate transparency and merit-based selection in public employment
- Non-filling of vacancies due to claimed non-availability of S.C./S.T. candidates cannot justify appointing less meritorious general category candidates
- The JSSC’s failure to comply with the Apex Court’s 02.08.2022 order constitutes a breach of judicial mandate
- The State’s proposal to let petitioners approach JSSC directly was inherently flawed, given the Commission’s demonstrated lack of impartiality
For the Respondent
The State and JSSC contended that:
- The vacancies claimed to be unfilled were due to non-joining or non-availability of eligible S.C./S.T. candidates
- The appointment process followed existing rules and guidelines
- The Mina Kumari order was under challenge in a Letters Patent Appeal and could not be applied mechanically
- Petitioners’ claims were individual and could be addressed through departmental grievance redressal
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional obligations under Article 14 and Article 16, emphasizing that public employment is not a privilege but a public trust. It held that administrative convenience cannot override judicial directives or constitutional rights.
"The State cannot justify non-filling of vacancies by citing non-availability of reserved category candidates when less meritorious general category candidates have been appointed."
The Court distinguished Mina Kumari as directly on point, noting that the same factual matrix - unfilled vacancies, non-compliance with Apex Court orders, and irregular appointments - was present. It rejected the argument that the Letters Patent Appeal stayed the operation of the earlier order, holding that coordinate benches must follow established precedent unless overruled.
The Court further observed that the JSSC’s internal mechanisms were inadequate to ensure impartiality, citing repeated litigation as evidence of systemic failure. It emphasized that institutional integrity demands an independent, judicially supervised fact-finding body.
The Court also clarified that the 2,034 unfilled vacancies were not merely administrative gaps but constitutional obligations. The State’s failure to fill them constituted a continuing violation of the right to equal opportunity.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that merit must govern appointments and directed the State to fill 2,034 unfilled vacancies within six months, strictly on the basis of petitioners’ merit. It upheld the constitution of an independent One-Man Fact-Finding Commission and mandated that no appointment be disturbed without due process.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Vacancies Cannot Be Left Unfilled on Pretext of Reservation Shortfall
- Practitioners must challenge any state action that fills general category vacancies while leaving reserved category vacancies unfilled, if less meritorious candidates are appointed
- The burden shifts to the State to prove genuine non-availability, not merely assert it
- Merit-based filling of vacancies is a constitutional imperative, not a discretionary policy
Independent Fact-Finding Commissions Are Now Standard Remedy
- In all recruitment-related litigation involving systemic irregularities, petitioners may now seek constitution of independent commissions
- Such commissions must be empowered to summon officials, inspect original records, and recommend disciplinary or criminal action
- Internal departmental inquiries are no longer sufficient to satisfy judicial scrutiny
Judicial Directives Bind All Subsequent Appointments
- Once the Apex Court or High Court issues directions on recruitment, all subsequent appointments must comply
- Appointments made in violation of such orders are voidable, not merely irregular
- Petitioners may invoke the doctrine of res judicata by reference to analogous judgments even before final appellate disposal
