Recruitment procedures in public services
⚖️ Recruitment Procedures in Public Services (India)
🧾 I. Introduction
Recruitment in public services refers to the process of filling posts in government departments and public bodies through transparent, merit-based, and constitutionally compliant procedures.
It is governed primarily by:
Constitutional provisions (especially Articles 14, 16, 309, and 315-323)
Rules and regulations framed under the Constitution or statutory authority
Judicial decisions ensuring fairness, non-arbitrariness, and equality of opportunity
📌 II. Key Constitutional Principles
| Principle | Article/Concept |
|---|---|
| Equality before law | Article 14 |
| Equal opportunity in public employment | Article 16 |
| Power to regulate recruitment | Article 309 |
| Public Service Commissions | Articles 315–323 |
📚 III. Landmark Case Laws on Public Service Recruitment
Let’s explore the most important judicial pronouncements shaping recruitment procedures:
✅ Case 1: State of Punjab v. Hira Lal (1970 AIR 1973)
📌 Facts:
Hira Lal was appointed temporarily without following due recruitment procedure.
He was later discharged from service.
He claimed protection under Article 311 and argued that his discharge was illegal.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that temporary or irregular appointments made without proper recruitment process do not confer any right to permanent employment.
Procedural rules must be strictly followed even for temporary appointments.
🔑 Key Principle:
Violation of recruitment rules invalidates appointments.
Irregular recruits cannot claim regularization or protection under civil service rules.
✅ Case 2: B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana (1981 AIR 561)
📌 Facts:
Appointments were made to the Haryana Civil Service based on interviews without written exams.
Some candidates challenged the selection procedure as arbitrary and biased.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Court ruled that written tests + interviews provide a more objective and fair method.
Sole reliance on interviews could lead to subjectivity and arbitrariness.
🔑 Key Principle:
Recruitment should be merit-based and free from discretion.
Interview-only recruitment is not ideal in competitive public appointments.
✅ Case 3: A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990 AIR 1230)
📌 Facts:
The A.P. Public Service Commission invalidated a candidate’s selection after finding post-exam issues.
The candidate argued that once selected, he had a right to appointment.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that selection does not confer a right to appointment.
The government has discretion not to appoint selected candidates, provided it acts fairly.
🔑 Key Principle:
Mere selection ≠ automatic right to appointment.
Public interest and administrative necessity can justify non-appointment.
✅ Case 4: Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela (2006 AIR SC 1165)
📌 Facts:
A candidate was included in the merit list but was not appointed.
He claimed that being in the merit list created a right to appointment.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that being in a merit list creates no legal enforceable right.
The employer has discretion based on vacancies, suitability, and public interest.
🔑 Key Principle:
Merit list is not a guarantee of employment.
Administrative discretion must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
✅ Case 5: Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006 4 SCC 1)
📌 Facts:
Thousands of casual and temporary workers in public employment claimed regularization of their services.
They had been working for years without formal recruitment.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Constitution Bench held that recruitment to public posts must follow constitutional and statutory rules.
Backdoor entries (i.e., irregular/temporary appointments) cannot be regularized.
The Court banned regularization without proper recruitment unless a one-time exception is made by law.
🔑 Key Principle:
No regularization without proper recruitment.
Article 14 and 16 require equal opportunity, not appointments via favouritism or ad hocism.
📘 Summary of Case Principles
| Case | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|
| Hira Lal (1970) | Temporary/irregular appointments grant no rights |
| B.S. Yadav (1981) | Recruitment must be fair; interviews alone not sufficient |
| A.P. PSC v. Sarat Chandra (1990) | Selection ≠ appointment right |
| UPSC v. Girish Vaghela (2006) | Merit list gives no automatic claim to job |
| Umadevi (2006) | No regularization unless recruitment rules followed |
🏛️ IV. Recruitment Must Ensure:
✅ Transparency
✅ Merit-based selection
✅ Equal opportunity (Art. 16)
✅ No arbitrariness (Art. 14)
✅ Adherence to statutory and service rules
⚠️ Common Pitfalls in Public Service Recruitment
| Irregularity | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Appointment without advertisement | Violation of Art. 14 and 16 – liable to be struck down |
| Interview-only recruitment | Subjective and potentially biased |
| Temporary/ad hoc without process | No right to regularization (per Umadevi case) |
| Failure to follow reservation rules | Illegal recruitment |
🎯 Final Word
Recruitment in public services is not just an administrative exercise but a constitutional obligation. The Supreme Court has consistently insisted on:
Following rules
Avoiding arbitrariness
Respecting merit and fairness
Backdoor entries, political interference, and favoritism are not tolerated, and judicial review is actively used to ensure compliance with legal norms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments