Unemployment Plaguing Our System, Recruitment For Govt Jobs Should Be Conducted Periodically: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that recruitment process has to be undertaken periodically with a fair degree of regularity in public undertakings to fill up permanent posts which fall vacant because of death, disablement, retirement or removal of employees.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijay Kumar A Patil said, “When accumulated vacancies are continued indefinitely, that would not only affect the efficacy of public administration but render many qualified & eligible job aspirants age barred.”

Taking note that there has been "heart-burn" in the younger generation legitimately aspiring for public employment that recruitment process is not periodically undertaken, the court said, “A large chunk of educated youths cannot be deprived of the opportunity of public employment, which is constitutionally guaranteed.”

It added,

“Time has come to tell that in the realm of public employment, recruitment process has to be undertaken periodically with a fair degree of regularity. It becomes more imperative when the evil of unemployment is plaguing our system. An argument to the contrary, if countenanced, would render a large chunk of eligible youths aspiring for public employment, age-barred. Their curse would fall on all branches of the system. That is not a happy thing to happen, in a Welfare State.”

The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) challenging a single judge bench order dated 14th February 2024, whereby it directed the LIC to appoint Sourabh, as against the permanent vacancy that has arisen after 14.01.2020 till 14.01.2022.

Rejecting the contention of LIC that no Court shall direct appointment, although in suitable cases, direction may be issued for consideration of the candidature for appointment. It said “That is not a thumb rule and in appropriate cases a direction for appointment can also be given.”

Dismissing the contention that the petitioner is not within the zone of consideration for appointment as he is in the empanelment list and in the EWS category. It said “The validity period of the selection list being two years and some of notified vacancies still existing, candidates remaining in the selection list need to be considered for appointment.”

It added “LIC being an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the constitution, has to conduct itself as a model employer and not as a private entity acting upon its own whims and fancies. When such a public entity holds to the candidates in the fray a particular standard which it would abide by in the recruitment process, it is liable to adhere to the same as a matter of public policy, regardless of the statutory backing therefo.”

Lastly, the court disagreed with LIC that mere appearance of name of the candidate in the Final Selection List does not obligate the employer to grant appointment. It said “it is not the case of the appellants that there is no dearth of employees in the organisation. It is also not their case that the subject vacancies need not be filled at all. An Article 12 - entity cannot be readily heard to say that though vacancies in the permanent posts do galore, it would not make appointments from the select list.”

It added “In the realm of public employment, right to be considered for appointment once duly selected, assumes proprietary character and that puts the said right on a higher pedestal, opportunity in public employment being constitutionally guaranteed under Article 16.”

Accordingly it dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Advocate A.P. Murari for Appellant.

Advocate Girish V Bhat for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation AND Sourabh

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.100105 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order