One cannot imagine that top echelons of a university will indulge in blatantly illegal and unconstitutional acts with impunity at any time. A university is considered the lighthouse of moral uprightness, fighting against the darkness of evil and wicked deeds. In a way, university authorities and faculties are custodians of society’s moral and ethical codes, and radiate sense of justice and equity in the society. They are the temples of righteousness. How unfortunate for a society where this and similar institutes fall from grace and indulge in acts that bring shame and slur. The scathing verdict of the Division Bench of State High Court against illegal and arbitrary recruitment of about three hundred contractual workers in the SKUAST, Jammu, is an eye opener for all administrative heads that misuse of powers cannot go unnoticed. 296 persons were appointed by the then Vice Chancellor of SKUAST as contractual employees without advertising the positions and without giving opportunity to others to compete for the same. This was in violation of rules of recruitment and propriety. The University was right in cancelling their appointment for sufficient reasons and the decision has been upheld by the Division Bench. The Bench has observed in very forceful and historical verdict. It has said, “The employment under the State is in the nature of public largesse and cannot be distributed selectively at whim and caprice of the appointing authority. Such employment irrespective of mode and manner adopted, if made without giving a fair opportunity would not only run contrary to the recruitment rules but also offend right to equality, equal protection of laws and equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment generated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”.
Evidently the university authorities seem to have been motivated by self-interest to the extent that they ignored adhering to the basic features of the contractual appointment. The contractual appointment, it needs no emphasis, is in time-frame and once the contract period comes to an end, the positions become vacant and are to be re-advertised. The university authorities knowingly ignored terms of contract while making the engagements. The Division Bench has concluded that they were blinded by their urge to confer undue benefits on the appellants but failed to notice that the posts against which contractual appointments made were not sanctioned and didn’t exist in the University.
This raises an important administrative question. Obviously, since there were no sanctioned and budgeted posts against which 296 persons were appointed, the appointing authority seems to have arranged their salaries by debiting it to contingency grants. It needs to be looked into whether rules allow contingency grants to be expended for this kind of services. The verdict of the Division Bench is also strong justification for bringing a criminal case against the officers who are squarely responsible for committing this act of omission. Proper punishment would serve a strong deterrent to all administrative heads that misuse of powers cannot go unnoticed.
It is not an isolated case of misuse of powers and back-door entry provided to blue eyed persons and there are several other cases. The present court verdict should pave the way for taking up back-door entry cases for adjudication.
Finally, university has advertised the outsourcing of these positions which means that selection will have to be made after considering competitive merit of the candidates. That is fair enough since it will provide an opportunity to better merited applicants to aspire for appointment. SKUAST deserves appreciation for taking a bold step in the right direction and creating an example of bringing fairness to its administrative system.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel