The case of irregular appointments a.k.a backdoor appointments in public offices in the state have finally reached a point where the government should seriously review the matter and take action before serious ramifications occur if the matter has to be decided in the courts. The recent protest by an organisation representing aspirants for public office jobs, the Public Service Aspirants of Nagaland demanded the cancellation of all irregular appointments in various departments that actually comes under the purview of the Nagaland Public Service Commission, the legal official recruiter for the government jobs in the state. The PSAN was supported by other organisations like ACAUT and even the Naga Students’ Federation, the one organisation that is instrumental for the superannuation rule of government employees that is currently prevalent in the state. The immediate response from the government with its three-point memo speaks volumes of the gravity of the matter. There is no doubt that the lawmakers are fully aware that it is election year with just a few months left for the next Assembly elections. However, it is certain that the legal advisors of the state government are also well aware of the various rulings by the Supreme Court on appointments made in public offices without open advertisement and have taken note of it. However, if it is just a ploy to buy time, as the Congress alleged then it may lead to more problems for the government in the near future.
In order to beat the existing system and rules, the lawmakers themselves aided by officials and vice versa had come up with various nomenclatures for appointing persons by bypassing open advertisements and recruitment policies that were in place. There are also cases where contingency employment is genuinely required especially for those who have the required skills and expertise but the government is unable to provide regular employment or the aspirant is not ready for one. However such type of employments like consultants, contractual, casual, temporary et al were misused for many years as a gateway to regular employment. This practice have been going on in almost all the states in the country and so there we no lack of names given for such appointments. The state of Nagaland also did not lag behind in emulating such practices, if not teaching the other states a trick or two in its fifty plus years of statehood. A classic example will be the contingency employment and as the name itself explains it is contingency in nature. Such an employment is project based and time bound and when a project is completed it is terminated. However with various politics at play at different levels of the government machinery along with nepotism, Nagaland might be the one state that had the longest tenure of contingency employees in many departments.
The unavailability of private jobs was one factor but for an average Naga it is the insecurity attached a job in a private firm which makes it unattractive. So for many years in the state, being employed by the government was considered as the liberty from the toils and sufferings of the common Naga and an added prestige attached to it. The sudden surge of appointments as a representation from all the tribes through the assistance of their representatives which was considered as a form of doing justice may also have been another factor. The continued armed struggle by Naga political groups was also a major factor that affected the state in almost all fronts. On the other hand there were also times when the high handedness of the Security forces was deterrent enough for the Naga youths not to seek any other forms of employment other than a government job.
However, although all these reasons may be valid to some extent the courts will not entertain the case of Nagaland differently and that is the where the government especially the lawmakers should to be really concerned about. The judgement by the courts, especially in the landmark case of Uma Devi vs State of Karnataka, the court have given higher priority to the thousands of youth who are seeking employment in the public offices in the country. This ruling of the court is backed by Article 16 of the Constitution that pertains to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Although Article 21, the right to life or personal liberty, of those who were already employed in the government offices were taken into account, it considered them as already privileged as compared to those who did not get a chance to seek employment as there was no open advertisement. Therefore the backdoor or irregular appointments are actually prima facie illegal appointments, taking into account the judgement of the Supreme Court.
