No advertisement, no interview, no problem? The court said yes — problem.

Forty police jobs, zero advertisements: Gauhati High Court quashes backdoor appointments in Nagaland

Fifteen unemployed youth from Nagaland walked into the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court with a simple grievance: they had never even seen a notice for the 40 police jobs that had been filled between 2019 and 2020. The posts — Sub-Inspector, Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector, and Instructor Havildar — had been given out without a single public advertisement. The petitioners, all eligible candidates, had been shut out of the process before it even began. The stakes were not just these 40 appointments. The same pattern had already surfaced in a massive batch of 935 Constable appointments, decided just days earlier by the same Bench. The question was whether the State could keep filling police ranks through a backdoor that bypassed every eligible citizen.

The appointments nobody saw coming

The facts were not in dispute. The State of Nagaland, through its Police Department, had appointed respondent nos. 6 to 45 — 40 persons in total — to various ranks in the Nagaland Police during 2019 and 2020. The appointments were made without any public advertisement, without any competitive selection process, and without any opportunity for other eligible candidates to apply. The petitioners, fifteen individuals who claimed they met the eligibility criteria for these posts, approached the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the entire exercise violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16.

The State did not contest the core allegation. In its response, the State conceded that no advertisement had been issued for these posts. The respondent appointees, who had been enjoying their positions for years, also admitted the same. The only question before Justice Devashis Baruah was what the law required when the State admitted to bypassing the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity in public employment.

The precedent that sealed the fate

This was not the first time the Kohima Bench had encountered such a case. Just six days earlier, on 20 September 2024, a coordinate bench had decided a batch of writ petitions — WP(C) no. 189/2022 to WP(C) no. 199/2022 — involving 935 Constable appointments in the Nagaland Police made between January 2018 and October 2019. Those appointments, too, had been made without any advertisement. The coordinate bench had set aside all 935 appointments and directed fresh selection through proper advertisement within six months, with age relaxation for all candidates.

Justice Baruah noted that the facts of the present case were indistinguishable from that earlier batch. The same State, the same police department, the same modus operandi — appointments made in the dark, without any public notice. The Court held that a coordinate bench could not arrive at a decision contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by an earlier coordinate bench on identical facts. The principle of judicial consistency demanded that the same observations and directions be followed.

What the Supreme Court has already said

The Court did not stop at following its own precedent. It went to the root of the matter — the constitutional requirement of open advertisement for public employment. Justice Baruah relied on two Supreme Court judgments that have settled this issue beyond any doubt.

In State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mahanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, the Supreme Court held that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The Court declared that merely calling names from an employment exchange or putting up a note on a notice board does not satisfy the equality clause in Article 16. The only constitutionally valid method is an open advertisement that enables all eligible persons to compete on merit.

The Court also cited Binod Kumar Gupta and others v. Ram Ashray Mahoto and others (2005) 4 SCC 209, where the Supreme Court held that appointments made without newspaper advertisement, without adequate notice, without a fair opportunity to others, and without any selection procedure or interview were not bona fide. The Court further held that even 15 years of continuous service cannot condone a gross irregularity in the initial appointment. The message was clear: time does not heal a constitutional wound.

Both these judgments were followed by the coordinate bench in the Constable appointments case, and Justice Baruah applied them with equal force to the present case.

The doctrine that mattered: open advertisement is not optional

The ratio decidendi of this judgment is straightforward but powerful. Appointments to public posts made without any advertisement and without following any selection process violate the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such appointments deprive all eligible candidates of the opportunity to submit their candidatures and compete on merit. The only remedy is to set aside and quash such appointments and direct a fresh selection through a proper advertisement.

The Court also laid down a second ratio: where the facts and circumstances of a case are indistinguishable from those decided by a coordinate bench, the same observations and directions must be followed. A coordinate bench cannot arrive at a decision contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by an earlier coordinate bench. This is a fundamental principle of judicial discipline and consistency.

THE PLAY: If you are challenging a backdoor appointment in public employment, your first question to the State should be: "Was there an advertisement?" If the answer is no, the appointment is constitutionally dead on arrival — regardless of how long the appointee has served.

What the Court ordered

Justice Baruah allowed the writ petition and passed a comprehensive order. All appointment orders of respondent nos. 6 to 45 — the 40 appointees — were set aside and quashed. The State of Nagaland was directed to hold a fresh selection process through a newspaper advertisement widely circulated in Nagaland within six months from the date of the order.

The Court, however, did not leave the appointees entirely in the lurch. They were allowed to continue in service for six months from the date of the order or until fresh appointments were made, whichever was earlier. They were also made eligible to participate in the fresh selection process, with an upper age relaxation granted to all candidates. But the Court made it clear that there would be no relaxation in basic qualifications or physical criteria.

During the period of continued service, the Court directed that the appointees must maintain discipline, and the State would be at liberty to deal with any acts of indiscipline in accordance with law.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a clean template for challenging any public appointment made without advertisement. The legal position is settled: the State cannot bypass the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity by appointing persons through a closed-door process. The burden is on the State to show that a proper advertisement was issued and a fair selection process was followed. If the State admits — as it did here — that no advertisement was issued, the Court has no option but to quash the appointments.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is different but equally important. The principle of open competition and merit-based selection is not limited to government jobs. Any organisation that receives public funds or operates under a statutory framework must ensure that its recruitment processes are transparent and non-discriminatory. A closed-door appointment, no matter how competent the individual, carries the risk of being set aside years later.

For the 40 appointees in this case, the judgment is a harsh reminder that a job obtained without a fair process is a job held on borrowed time. They will now have to compete again, alongside all other eligible candidates, for the same positions they have been holding for years. The age relaxation granted by the Court is a small mercy, but it does not erase the uncertainty of having to re-apply for your own job.

The bottom line: If you are appointed to a public post without a public advertisement, your appointment is constitutionally infirm. No amount of service, no passage of time, and no personal merit can cure that defect. The only remedy is a fresh selection through a proper advertisement — and that is exactly what the Gauhati High Court has ordered.