In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the prolonged issue of irregular appointments within the state's public employment sector. The Court emphasized that in a welfare state, denying regularization to employees who have rendered continuous service for decades constitutes institutional exploitation. Justice Arun Monga underscored that appointments irregular in form but not in substance, backed by sanctioned posts and years of continuous service, should not be left at the mercy of procedural technicalities.
Background: Decades of Irregular Appointments
The case involved multiple petitions from Class III and Class IV employees appointed on various posts, some as early as 1979. Despite their long-standing service, these employees had not been regularized. The Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (2006), had directed that the state should, as a one-time measure, regularize employees who were appointed irregularly and had worked for ten years or more, provided they met the eligibility criteria. However, the State of Rajasthan delayed implementing this directive until 2009 and retrospectively fixed the cut-off date for counting the required ten years of service to 2006.
Court's Observations: Addressing State's Delays and Arbitrary Cut-Off Dates
Justice Monga criticized the state's delay in notifying the regularization rules and the retrospective application of the cut-off date. He noted that this approach unfairly excluded employees who completed ten years of service between 2006 and 2009 from consideration for regularization. The Court held that the delay in notifying the rules was entirely on the part of the State Government, and it was unjust to penalize employees for this administrative lapse.
Legal Reasoning: Emphasizing Constitutional Morality and Equity
The Court emphasized that constitutional morality requires that appointments irregular in form but not in substance, especially those backed by sanctioned posts and years of continuous service, should not be disregarded due to procedural irregularities. Justice Monga highlighted that the principle of equity warrants equal treatment for employees in comparable situations and that denying regularization based on arbitrary distinctions violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination in employment.
Directions Issued: Mandating Regularization and Ensuring Fair Treatment
The High Court directed the State Government to regularize the services of eligible employees who had been appointed as far back as 1979 and had rendered long years of continuous service. The Court ordered that these employees should not be made to suffer due to the state's administrative delays and that their services should be regularized from the date they became eligible, not from the arbitrary cut-off date set by the state.
Broader Implications: Setting a Precedent for Fair Employment Practices
This judgment sets a significant precedent in addressing the issue of irregular appointments in public employment. It reinforces the principle that employees who have served the state continuously for extended periods should not be denied regularization due to procedural lapses by the administration. The ruling underscores the importance of timely implementation of policies and adherence to constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Conclusion: A Step Towards Equitable Public Employment
The Rajasthan High Court's decision marks a pivotal moment in the pursuit of equitable treatment for long-serving employees in public service. By holding the state accountable for its administrative delays and emphasizing the importance of constitutional morality, the Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring that employees are not unjustly penalized for procedural irregularities beyond their control. This judgment serves as a reminder of the state's responsibility to uphold the rights of its employees and to implement policies in a timely and fair manner.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.