DIMAPUR, AUGUST 6 (MExN): Following the judgment on their writ petition against backdoor appointments, the ACAUT Nagaland and the Public Service Aspirants of Nagaland (PSAN) today said that the case was not dismissed but was “disposed of by the court with binding observations.”
A joint statement from the two organizations said that in the writ petition, they had challenged the Office Memorandums dated, 4/8/08 and 11/8/16 (that provided for regularization of contract appointments after 3 years of continuous service) in addition to the 51 persons who were appointed after the state government issued another Office Memorandums (OM) dated 6/6/16 that put a ban on contract appointments.
The ACAUT and PSAN noted that while disposing the case, the court observed that the state respondents should, after applying para 53 of Umadevi(3), take steps for filing up regular vacant posts, which are manned by contract/adhoc employees, as per the recruitment Rules enforced.
Further it stated that the state government's plan to regularise employees who have completed 3 years on contract/adhoc as per the OMs is violation of the law in Uma Devi's case. It also observed that the state government should not regularize any person having completed 3 years in contract/adhoc basis in terms of OMs, they pointed out.
Further, the ACAUT and PSAN said that if any of the private respondents is being appointed on contractual/temporary basis in violation of the OM 6/6/16, the same would have to be deemed to be null and void. They added that as a onetime measure, the state government can only regularize the services of those irregularly appointed on contract/adhoc who had served more than 10 years as on 10/4/06, the date Uma Devi judgement was passed. “Thus, the two office memorandums negate the laws laid down in Uma Devi and ML Kesari and cannot apply to the state government. If the state government acts in violation of the law laid down by the Apex court, the same would be illegal and can be challenged and regularization would be null and void,” they pointed out.
It further said that “no person can be appointed even on temporary or adhoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates.”
They further quoted the order as stating that any contractual/temporary or adhoc appointment made without prior advertisement in the media including news papers is in violation of Article 14 and 16 and liable to be quashed and set-aside and the posts be filled up as per law.
The ACAUT and PSAN said that the above observations “having been sealed with apex court decisions, cannot be impeached.”
They reasoned that in order to avail the benefit of regularization at para 53 of Uma Devi's case, a person must have been irregularly appointed (not illegal) and should have served on contract/adhoc basis for more than 10 years as on 10/4/06.
In this, they stated that none of the 706 +58 appointees would come under the benefit as they were all appointed in the period 2006-2016, after Uma Devi's judgement.
Regarding the “maintainability issue,” the ACAUT and PSAN informed that they decided not to challenge the appointments of 655 appointed before the OM dated 6/6/16. “The prayer was only for a direction to the 22 HoDs impleaded, to take step for requisitioning the contract posts to NPSC within a time-bound period,” they said.
The two organizations claimed that they had “in good faith” intended that these appointments would not be quashed so as to enable them to continue in service till regular recruitment is made through NPSC, and they also be allowed to participate in the recruitment process with relaxation of age, if any. “Unfortunately, the respondents raised objection for non impleadment of 655 individuals and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. To this effect, liberty to the petitioners has been granted to agitate afresh by adding necessary parties,” they said.
The ACAUT and PSAN urged the state government to “immediately restructure the deplorable system in matters of appointments.” They stated that advertisements are mandatory even in cases of administrative exigency, where contract/adhoc/retainership/temporary/casual appointments are to be made.
