75 Connected Cases Decided; Authorities Directed to Verify Appointment Procedures, Ensure Fair Hearing Before Disengagement
JAMMU, OCTOBER 23: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that appointments made through backdoor methods or without a transparent selection process cannot be protected merely because the employees have served for several years. At the same time, the Court has made it clear that disputed engagements under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) cannot be terminated through blanket government orders without examining the legality of each individual appointment.
Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of 75 connected matters, comprising 62 writ petitions and 13 contempt petitions, concerning Gram Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) and other contractual staff engaged under MGNREGA.
The judgment came in Sheraz Anjum and Others versus State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, along with several connected petitions challenging disengagement orders, recruitment advertisements and proposed termination of contractual employees.
TRANSPARENCY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ESSENTIAL
The High Court observed that public employment, including temporary and contractual engagements, must comply with the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court rejected the argument that the absence of specific recruitment guidelines before December 14, 2010, allowed authorities to make appointments at their discretion. It emphasised that public posts cannot be distributed through arbitrary selection or a pick-and-choose policy.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Court clarified that the principle against replacing one set of contractual employees with another cannot be used to perpetuate appointments made in violation of constitutional requirements.
LONG SERVICE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEGALISE AN APPOINTMENT
The petitioners argued that they had served under MGNREGA for several years and that many had crossed the prescribed age limits for other employment opportunities. They maintained that their engagements, particularly those made before the introduction of selection guidelines, should not automatically be declared illegal.
Some petitioners also contended that recommendations by Ministers, MLAs or other government functionaries could not, by themselves, establish that their appointments were irregular, especially where they claimed to have participated in an advertised selection process.
The Court clarified that the mere mention of a recommendation by a public representative does not automatically invalidate an appointment if the employee was otherwise selected through a fair and transparent procedure.
However, prolonged service alone cannot protect an appointment established to have been made in violation of the applicable rules and constitutional requirements.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS UPHELD, BUT INDIVIDUAL CASES MUST BE EXAMINED
The High Court upheld Government Order No. 203 RD&PR of 2018, dated August 9, 2018, concerning the discontinuation of engagements made in violation of prescribed rules, norms and procedures. It also upheld the government communication dated April 23, 2013, relating to an inquiry into allegedly illegal engagements and the stoppage of salaries.
At the same time, the Court found that the authorities had not conducted an adequate inquiry into the actual circumstances surrounding the individual appointments in question.
It ruled that employees could not be disengaged or deprived of their salaries solely on the basis of general government directions without determining whether their respective engagements were illegal.
AUTHORITIES DIRECTED TO CONDUCT INQUIRY
The Court directed the authorities to examine the disputed engagements individually through an in-house inquiry, allowing the concerned employees to submit representations and supporting documents. Alternatively, the authorities may issue individual show-cause notices before taking a final decision on the legality of the appointments.
The directions are intended to distinguish appointments made through a fair selection process from those made in violation of the prescribed norms.
RELIEF FOR EMPLOYEES WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE FOUND LEGAL
The High Court held that employees whose appointments are found to have been made through a fair procedure or in accordance with the applicable norms must be permitted to continue in service.
Their legitimately earned salaries must also be released. The Court further directed that fresh recruitment advertisements issued for posts occupied by such employees would stand quashed, as provided in its judgment.
However, where an appointment is found to be illegal or contrary to the prescribed norms, the authorities would be free to discontinue the engagement, and the employee would not be entitled to wages in accordance with the Court’s directions.
The Court also clarified that wages already paid under its earlier orders would not be recovered.
CONTRACTUAL STAFF NOT ENTITLED TO AUTOMATIC PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 311
The High Court further observed that contractual employees cannot claim the same constitutional protection available to regular government servants under Article 311 or insist upon a regular departmental inquiry before disengagement.
Nevertheless, where the legality of an engagement is disputed, the authorities must follow a fair procedure and examine the relevant facts before reaching a decision.
The judgment establishes a clear distinction between appointments found to be illegal and engagements that withstand scrutiny under the applicable rules. It underscores that neither prolonged service nor a blanket government order can replace a lawful, case-specific examination of disputed appointments.
The ruling is expected to have implications for contractual Gram Rozgar Sevaks and supporting staff whose engagements under MGNREGA have been challenged in Jammu and Kashmir.(KNC)
