Backdoor Appointment Made On Minister's Recommendation: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea For Regularisation Of Employment

In dismissing a plea for regularisation, moved by the petitioner Tasleem Arif who was alleged to have been appointed on the recommendations of a Minister Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed,

“There is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents that the engagement of the petitioner even on consolidated basis has resulted into denial of opportunity of participation in the selection process to other eligible candidates”.

The case stemmed from Arif's 2008 appointment as a consolidated worker in the Municipal Council. This appointment, made on the back of a minister's recommendation, bypassed the lawful recruitment process as mandated by Section 307 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 2000. This section clearly states that the municipality requires government approval before appointing staff.

Arif, through his lawyer, argued that he possessed a valid engagement order and was not provided a hearing before his termination.

The respondents strongly argued that Arif's appointment was a blatant example of backdoor entry which had denied other qualified candidates a fair shot at the position.

Dealing with the first contention of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity of being heard before being terminated the court clarified that even a hearing wouldn't alter the outcome. Since the initial appointment itself lacked proper authorization, the question of a hearing became irrelevant, Justice Oswal reasoned.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in "State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh." the bench reiterated that the absence of a hearing becomes insignificant when the initial action itself is flawed.

Highlighting Section 307 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 2000, which mandates government approval for such appointments, the bench recorded,

“.. Petitioner has not been able to establish before this Court that the respondent No.3 was competent to engage the petitioner even on consolidated basis. In view of the admitted facts, the denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the respondents before passing the order impugned is inconsequential, as if the same had been granted, the result would have been the same”.

The court further acknowledged the respondent's action against officials involved in such "backdoor engagements," demonstrating their commitment to fair recruitment practices.

Case Title: TASLEEM ARIF Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment