The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that public employment must be filled strictly on merit, rejecting procedural shortcuts that undermine constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. In a batch of writ petitions challenging irregular appointments by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, the Court directed the immediate filling of over two thousand unfilled vacancies and constituted an independent fact-finding commission to investigate systemic malpractices.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, all unsuccessful candidates in various Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) examinations, alleged that despite securing higher marks than many appointed candidates, they were denied appointments. They contended that the JSSC had filled only 12,046 out of 17,784 advertised vacancies, leaving 3,704 vacancies unoccupied due to purported non-availability of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. However, the petitioners argued that 2,034 vacancies remained unfilled despite the presence of eligible, higher-ranking candidates.
Procedural History
- 2022: Apex Court delivered judgments directing compliance with merit-based appointments in similar cases.
- 2023: W.P.(S) No. 582 of 2023 (Mina Kumari v. State of Jharkhand) was decided, establishing a one-man fact-finding commission to investigate irregularities.
- 2025: The same Bench issued detailed directions in Mina Kumari, including appointment of Justice S.N. Pathak (Retd.) as Fact-Finding Commissioner.
- 2026: This batch of petitions, filed by eight petitioners across multiple districts, was heard and deemed substantially identical to Mina Kumari.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (i) appointment to the 2,034 unfilled vacancies on merit; (ii) cancellation of appointments made in violation of Apex Court directions; (iii) disciplinary action against erring JSSC officials; and (iv) institutional reforms to prevent future irregularities.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State and JSSC could lawfully leave substantial vacancies unfilled while appointing less meritorious candidates, and whether constitutional rights under Article 14 and Article 16 require the State to fill all eligible vacancies on merit when qualified candidates exist.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Mina Kumari and the Apex Court’s directives in State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra to argue that leaving vacancies unfilled while appointing lower-ranked candidates violates equality of opportunity under Article 16. They cited the JSSC’s failure to maintain transparent records and its pattern of post-judgment appointments as evidence of arbitrariness. They emphasized that the State’s claim of non-availability of SC/ST candidates could not justify denying higher-ranked general category candidates their rightful appointments.
For the Respondent
The State and JSSC contended that the matter was sub judice in a pending Letters Patent Appeal against Mina Kumari, and that the Court should await its outcome. They argued that vacancies were genuinely unfilled due to lack of eligible SC/ST candidates and that filling them with general category candidates would violate reservation policy. They also suggested that individual representations to the JSSC Secretary would suffice, a proposal the Court had previously rejected in Mina Kumari.
The Court's Analysis
The Court held that the issues raised were identical to those settled in Mina Kumari, and that the principles laid down therein were binding on coordinate benches under the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court reiterated that public employment is not a privilege but a constitutional right when vacancies exist and qualified candidates are available.
"The State cannot selectively fill vacancies based on convenience or administrative expediency while ignoring the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity. When higher-ranking candidates exist, the State must appoint them, not leave positions vacant and later justify it by citing reservation norms."
The Court found no merit in the argument that reservation norms justified denying appointments to general category candidates who ranked higher than those appointed. It emphasized that reservation operates within the framework of merit, not against it. The Court also rejected the suggestion that petitioners should approach the JSSC directly, noting that the Commission had already demonstrated institutional failure and bias.
The Court further held that the 2,034 unfilled vacancies must be filled within six months strictly on merit, and that the one-man commission established in Mina Kumari would investigate wrongful appointments and recommend corrective action. The Court underscored that no appointment made in breach of Apex Court directions could be protected, and that due process must precede any termination.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that the State must fill 2,034 unfilled vacancies on merit within six months, and that appointments made contrary to Apex Court orders are voidable. The one-man fact-finding commission’s mandate was extended to this case, and petitioners were granted leave to submit representations to the Commission.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Merit Must Prevail Over Administrative Convenience
- Practitioners must challenge any state action that leaves vacancies unfilled while appointing lower-ranked candidates.
- Reservation policies cannot be invoked to deny appointments to higher-ranked general category candidates unless the category is genuinely exhausted.
- Courts will not tolerate post-hoc justifications for non-appointment.
Institutional Accountability Is Non-Negotiable
- Public bodies like JSSC must maintain verifiable, auditable records of all examinations and appointments.
- The Court’s directive to create a permanent internal fact-finding body within JSSC/JPSC sets a precedent for other states.
- Lawyers should now routinely demand production of original answer sheets and merit lists in writ petitions challenging recruitment.
Vacancy Filling Is a Constitutional Obligation
- Article 16 imposes a positive duty on the State to fill advertised vacancies with qualified candidates.
- Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the right to equality and equal opportunity.
- Petitioners in similar cases may now cite this judgment to demand immediate filling of pending vacancies, even if the recruitment process is years old.
