The HC Judgment allows thousands of contract appointments to lapse with immediate effect, say ACAUT
Dimapur, August 11 (MExN): The Against Corruption and Unabated Taxation (ACAUT) on Thursday said that “unfettered right” of the state government to make “illegal appointments” and the Cabinet practice of regularizing the same has been “taken away” with recent High Court Judgment.
The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench on August 5 has given the legal sanctity to the Office Memorandum (OM) passed by the State Cabinet and notified on June 6, 2016 by the Government of Nagaland, stated in a press note from the Media Cell ACAUT Nagaland.
The Court gave the judgment after a Public Interest Litigation was filed by ACAUT against the government of Nagaland regarding “irregular and illegal” appointments to various departments.
Maintaining that the OM 2016 is a “partial modification” of OM 2001 and reads “in modification of OM dated 26.2.2001, it has been decided that no appointment shall be made on contract basis, henceforth,” ACAUT said that the HC judgment is very clear that all forms of “backdoor appointments have to be stopped, henceforth.”
The ACAUT further maintained that the Court’s Order is to be understood in relation to OM 2016, OM 2001, Dr. Atouzo Vs State of Nagaland and Umadevi case as the OM 2016 and the “Undertaking Affidavit” submitted by the Chief Secretary to the High Court extensively quoted from two aforementioned case.
“Not only are contract appointments banned, but by INSERT IGNOREing Dr. Atouzo Vs State of Nagaland in the OM 2016, the State Cabinet has on its own volition notified that it has no power to Regularize Contract/adhoc appointments as per the verdict of the Hon’ble High Court, Kohima bench, when the court struck down the regularization of 19 Veterinary Assistant Surgeons (VAS), all illegally, by the Cabinet,” it further argued.
“The OM of 2016 also overrides the OM of 2008 and a controversial clause that says ‘Contract employees may be regularized by the department’s who have completed more than 3 years of service, (sic) on the basis of which successive State governments made tens of thousands of backdoor appointments,” ACAUT maintained.
In this connection, ACAUT pointed out that “thousands of contract employees” already appointed by the government in the years prior to the issuance of OM 2016 “cannot be regularized by the Cabinet/P&AR Department” as OM 2001 clearly mentioned that “no contract appointment can be more than 1 year”
“It follows that there is no option but for the Government to clean the mess it has created and allow the thousands of contract appointments to lapse with immediate effect.”
“None of the contract appointments should be extendable beyond the permissible 1-year period and the departments should allow these to lapses, failing which contempt of court may be invited,” it added.
Such lapsed posts may be advertised and examination held in a free and fair manner as per the rules laid down in Uma devi Case as INSERT IGNOREed in OM 2016, it said.
It further said that all instances of backdoor appointments post-OM 2016 may be reviewed by the departments and terminated with immediate effect and the Court has given liberty to ACAUT to “approach” the Court if the government “violates and refuses” to implement the clause as laid down in OM June 6, 2016.
It also implies that all contract appointments have been banned and no posts coming under the purview of NPSC -including both gazetted and non-gazetted - can be filled up through backdoor by the departments as was the case in the past, ACAUT highlighted.
“It is absolutely critical that the government stop the yearly but illegal extension of contract appointments with immediate effect based on the landmark judgment… and none of the contract appointments is extended beyond the permissible period,” it further asserted.
This feeing up of the thousands of lapsed post can be filled up by genuine and deserving candidates from the unemployed youth community through competitive examination.”
The ACAUT Nagaland also cautioned all Head of the Departments that it will cross check all the departments for compliance and if necessary “will take recourse to legal action till it encounters satisfactory results.”
