Regularisation Of Backdoor Appointments Infringe Fundamental Rights Of Candidates Appearing In Competitive Process: Madras High Court

Justice S M Subramaniam opined that the practice of back door appointment was infringing the fundamental rights of all those candidates who were trying to secure public employment through open competitive process.

Equal opportunity in public employment is the Constitutional mandate. Lakhs and Lakhs youth of our great Nation are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process and they are working hard for the purpose of succeeding in the competitive process. While so, back door appointments or illegal or irregular appointments, if regularised, undoubtedly, the fundamental rights of those candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process are infringed.

The bench held that back door appointments were to be stopped forthwith to ensure equal opportunity in public employment. It thus directed as under:

The equality clause enunciated under the Constitution must be implemented in its real spirit. Thus, the back door appointments are to be stopped forthwith in order to ensure that equal opportunity in public employment is provided to all the eligible candidates through open competitive process by implementing the rule of reservation.

In the present case, the Petitioner joined as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) skilled attendant in Indian Institute of Technology, I.I.T Campus, Chennai in the year 1998. His job mainly was to aid and assist the professors of various departments when they indulge in any project. While so, he was directed not to attend for duty and was relieved from the  temporary employee. He requested the management of IIT to regularise his services but the same was not considered.

He then filed an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court Chennai. The labour court granted relief of reinstatement with backwages and all attendant benefits. The management challenged this order in a writ petition which was ordered in their favour. The petitioner later preferred a writ appeal which was also allowed. The court directed the respondents to absorb the petitioner into the services. Against this, an SLP was filed by the respondents.

Before the Supreme Court, the respondents submitted that instead of absorption, the petitioner will be given employment on some ongoing project and that the Management would endeavour to continue to employ the respondent-workman on different projects from time to time. This arrangement was accepted by the Petitioner and the SLP was ordered accordingly.

The petitioner contended that he has been engaged as a temporary employee only and that even after completing 25 years of temporary service, his service was not regularised. He contended that he was fully qualified as he had rich experience working in various projects of the IIT.

The respondent institution, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was never appointed as a permanent employee. He was engaged as daily wage employee (NMR) to execute the projects and whenever the projects were completed, the petitioner was to be discharged from the service. He further contended that the issue relating to permanent absorption was already adjudicated by the Supreme Court and therefore further round of litigation on the same issue was not entertainable.

The court agreed with this contention of the respondent institution. It observed that the Supreme Court had not given a mandatory direction to engage the writ petitioner in other projects. It was for the management to decide on the same based on its needs. The management was in fact, employing the petitioner in other projects as temporary employee.

"When the respondents are honouring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its letter and spirit and by providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to work in projects, the writ petitioner cannot further litigate the issues for grant of permanent absorption, which is to be made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force." the court observed.

The court observed that the constitutional courts are bound to protect the interests of the meritorious candidates. The court also took note of the precedents set by the courts with respect to regularisation and permanent absorption wherein the courts have decided against the High Courts granting the relief of permanent absorption.

Thus, observing that the Petitioner failed to establish any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another

Case No: W.P.No.13726 of 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. C. Umashankar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Karthik Rajan For M/s.Menon, Karthik, Mukundan and Neelakandan