Close on the heels of the August 5, 2016 landmark judgment of the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court to its November 2015 PIL, ACAUT Nagaland through its media cell has highlighted the core aspects of the court order.
ACAUT Nagaland media cell said that the court order had taken away the “unfettered right” of the state government in making “illegal appointments” and the state cabinet from regularizing such appointments after giving legal sanctity of the Office Memorandum passed by the state cabinet and notified on July 6.2016.
ACAUT said the Office Memorandum (OM) of 2016 was a partial modification of an earlier OM issued on February 26, 2001 where it was decided that no appointment shall be made on contract basis. It stated that the HC order on August 5, was clear that all forms of backdoor appointments were to be stopped and that the said order was to be also understood in relation to the OM 2016 and the OM 2001 as reiterated in the Dr. Atouzo Vs state of Nagaland and Umadevi case. The OM 2016 and the undertaking submitted by the chief secretary quoted extensively from the two above cases, said ACAUT.
ACAUT also maintained that by inserting the Dr. Atouzo Vrs State of Nagaland in the OM 2016, the state cabinet had “on its own volition” notified that it has no power to regularise contract/ad hoc appointments in line with the judgement order when the court struck down the regularisation of 19 Veterinary Assistant Surgeons(VAS). The cabinet had “illegally” regularised the services of the VAS and after the OM 2016 which overrode the OM 2008, which contained the “controversial clause” that “contract employees may be regularised by the department, who have completed more than 3 years of service (sic)”. Successive governments had applied this clause where tens of thousands of back door appointments were made, stated ACAUT.
ACAUT further reminded, that as per the Office Memorandum 2016 services of contract or ad hoc employees cannot be regularised and that as per the OM 2001 any contract appointment cannot be extend beyond one (1) year.
On the basis of the OMs, ACACUT maintained that there was no option but for the government to clean up the mess and allow thousands of contract appointments “to lapse with immediate effect”. ACAUT further cautioned that government that ignoring the court ruling would invite proceedings of contempt of court.
ACAUT urged that since backdoor appointments are banned any such resultant vacancies be it gazetted or non-gazetted be advertised for conduct of examination in a free and fair manner as laid down in the Umadevi case that was inserted in the OM 2016.
Further, ACAUT reminded that as the petitioner, the GHC had given it the liberty to approach the court if the state government failed to implement clauses in the OM 2016 and also informed all Heads of Departments (HoDs) that it (ACAUT) will also “cross check” all the departments for compliance.
The bottom-line, ACAUT said was that “apart from the contract appointments being banned henceforth, it is absolutely critical that the government stop the yearly but illegal extension of contract appointments with immediate effect based on the landmark judgment of the High Court and that none of the contract appointments is extended beyond the permissible period”.
ACAUT stated that this feeing up of the thousands of lapsed posts could be filled up by genuine and deserving candidates from the unemployed youth community through competitive examination.