Equality of Opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 requires transparent, advertised court recruitment; non compliant appointments are void.

Appointments to High Court and subordinate court posts must comply with the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 and with applicable statutory selection rules; appointments made without fair publicity, open advertisement, prescribed selection procedures or adherence to rules are void ab initio and susceptible to quo warranto and related remedies. High Courts must re examine and, where necessary, amend rules to mandate advertisement (including a vernacular newspaper), eligibility screening, impartial selection bodies and may adopt centralised State/Zonal/Divisional selection and annual recruitment cycles; failure to follow these procedural safeguards renders selections vitiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether appointments to posts in High Courts and subordinate courts made without complying with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or statutory rules are valid; (ii) Whether centralised and transparent recruitment and specified procedural safeguards should be directed for appointments to court staff.

Issue (i): Whether appointments made in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or the statutory rules are legally sustainable.

Analysis: The decision applies settled principles that public employment is subject to equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 and that appointments without fair publicity, open advertisement and adherence to prescribed selection procedures violate those Articles. Precedents require advertisement, transparent selection criteria and impartial selection bodies; regularisation cannot validate appointments made de hors the rules. The internal administrative powers of the Chief Justice and High Courts under Articles 229 and 235 operate subject to constitutional equality guarantees and statutory limits. Quo warranto and related remedies are available where appointments are contrary to law.

Conclusion: Appointments made in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 or applicable statutory rules are void ab initio and cannot be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether directions should be issued to High Courts to ensure centralised, transparent and regularised recruitment processes for court staff.

Analysis: Having considered responses from States and High Courts and recognising recurring complaints of irregularity and favouritism, the decision outlines procedural safeguards: re-examination and amendment of statutory rules to conform with Articles 14 and 16; mandatory advertisement requirements (at least two newspapers including one vernacular); requisition from employment exchanges as supplementary; screening of eligibility; consideration of centralised selection on State/Zonal/Divisional basis within six months; and annual recruitment exercises to avoid ad-hocism.

Conclusion: High Courts are to re-examine and, if necessary, modify statutory rules, follow prescribed advertisement and selection procedures, and may adopt centralised recruitment; failure to follow these directions will render appointments void ab initio.

Final Conclusion: The judgment establishes that appointments to High Court and subordinate court posts must conform to Articles 14 and 16 and applicable statutory rules; where entire selections are vitiated by non-compliance, such selections must be set aside and systemic remedial measures instituted to ensure transparent, regular and non-arbitrary recruitment.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointments to public posts in High Courts and subordinate courts made without compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or statutory selection rules are invalid and void ab initio, and High Courts must ensure transparent, advertised and rule-compliant recruitment processes.

---