Moa Jamir
The recent Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench invalidation of the appointments of 935 constables made between 2018 and 2019 without advertisement can be considered a landmark judgment that reinforces the principles of fairness and transparency in public recruitment. In doing so, the judgment has bolted a major ‘backdoor’ in the recruitment process of a very vital department of the State and served as a strong reminder to the Nagaland Government of the imperative to stick to the ‘front door’ and keep it open for the future.
The September 20 Court’s ruling, authored by Justice Devashis Baruah, encapsulating in detail the proceedings of the batch of writ petitions filed in 2022, makes for an interesting read as well as a valuable reference for the future. In particular, it underscored the necessity for public offices to adhere to constitutional principles, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 16, which mandate equality, non-discrimination, and fair opportunity in public employment.
In the petitions, the appointments of 935 constables in various posts under Nagaland Police were challenged, contending that they were executed through ‘backdoor’ means and illegal, thereby denying thousands of eligible unemployed Naga youths a fair chance to compete.
Initially, the Nagaland Government sought refuge in Part III of the Nagaland Police (NP) Manual, particularly Rule 20, which was cited as justification for bypassing advertisement requirements. The State Government itself submitted that the NP Manual was made in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution. If so, the judge noted that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void, and the NP Manual qualifies as law under Article 13(3)(a) and thus must conform to Part III of the Constitution, embodying an "equality code" reflecting the preambular values of equality, opportunity, and social justice.
Analysing against this backdrop, Justice Baruah was ‘gracious’ in not ‘invalidating’ the NP Manual itself, implying that the ‘issuance of advertisement or inviting applications’ is ingrained in Rule 20.
In the middle of the proceedings, the State Government appeared to have realised this and attempted to rectify the situation by proposing fresh recruitment. However, the push for concessions for the in-service constables—beyond age relaxation—was rightly denied by the Court, as granting additional advantages to those who were appointed through an illegal process would have set a dangerous precedent. This would have allowed irregularities to be legitimized post facto, and the Court's refusal upheld the integrity of the recruitment process and equality before the law.
The Court’s ruling, however, also demonstrated a pragmatic approach, acknowledging the potential disruption a mass dismissal could cause within the police force as well as law and order and allowed the 935 constables to continue in service for up to six months or until fresh appointments are made.
The judgment raises a broader issue: the need for transparency and adherence to established protocols in public service recruitment. In the pursuit of efficiency or expediency, bypassing due process can have far-reaching consequences, and public trust in state recruitment hinges on a transparent system where every eligible citizen has a fair opportunity.
Looking ahead, in a submission, the State Government assured the Court that “due prescribed procedures shall be adhered to in all future appointments, including advertisement of the post as per the prescribed rules and regulations.” Hopefully, the assurance will not be restricted to this present case and department alone, but adopted extensively across the board. In addition, the judgment will serve as a significant legal reference for others to fall back on, keeping the ‘front door’ open in public recruitment.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
