Omission of closed-cadre status from an advertisement cannot override the governing cadre structure.

The petitioners were appointed as Sub-Inspectors in the Jharkhand Police Special Branch in 2018 after participating in a common recruitment process under Advertisement No. 05/2017.

The advertisement separately identified Special Branch and District Police vacancies but did not expressly disclose that Special Branch posts belonged to a closed cadre.

The petitioners challenged their treatment as members of that cadre, arguing that the restriction materially affected service prospects and had not been disclosed before they indicated their preferences.

The State relied on the 2009 resolution and 2010 notification, which had established and retained the separate closed-cadre structure, and submitted that the later recruitment notifications did not abolish it.

1. Whether the recruitment advertisement was required to expressly disclose that the Special Branch vacancies belonged to a closed cadre.

2. Whether the advertisement’s failure to make that disclosure entitled the petitioners to be treated as members of the general cadre, notwithstanding the existing cadre framework.

The Court considered the Home Department Resolution in Memo No. 2255 dated 03.06.2009 and Notification No. 6350 dated 18.10.2010, which constituted and maintained the Special Branch as a separate closed cadre for the specialised purpose of retaining trained and experienced intelligence personnel.

It also considered the later Notifications Nos. 1641 dated 17.03.2016 and 3796 dated 12.07.2017, finding that changes to recruitment procedures—including application of the Jharkhand State Police Sub-Inspector Cadre Appointment Rules, 2016—did not, without an express provision, abolish or merge that cadre.

Relying on Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 55, the Court applied the principle that an advertisement cannot override the governing recruitment framework or create an entitlement contrary to it.

Under K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India, (2025) 9 SCC 722, legitimate expectation must remain legally sustainable and cannot compel action contrary to binding law.

The Court also held that material cadre characteristics affecting service prospects should be clearly disclosed in recruitment advertisements.

The Court accepted that omitting the closed-cadre restriction was an administrative lapse: identifying separate Special Branch vacancies did not adequately explain the service consequences of closed-cadre membership.

However, the cadre pre-dated the recruitment, and the petitioners did not establish that the later notifications lawfully repealed, merged or withdrew it.

The advertisement could not amend the cadre framework, and recruitment through a common examination did not convert separately earmarked vacancies into general-cadre posts.

Although the omission supported the petitioners’ grievance about fair disclosure, legitimate expectation could not entitle them to allocation to another cadre contrary to the governing framework.

The Court therefore left the petitioners free to seek any measure that might lawfully be available under the applicable rules.

Both petitions were disposed of without granting the principal relief.

The petitioners were given four weeks from uploading of the order to submit a representation to the competent Home Department authority; any timely representation must be considered fairly and decided by a reasoned order within twelve weeks of receipt, in accordance with the applicable cadre provisions.

The State and recruiting authority were also expected to disclose cadre restrictions clearly in future advertisements.

No order as to costs was made.