Periodic Recruitment In Public Employment Is Essential When Unemployment Is Plaguing System: Karnataka HC

The Court said that though the vacancies do occur in the regular course because of death, disablement, retirement or removal, no recruitment process is undertaken periodically by the public bodies which not only affects the efficacy of public administration but renders many qualified & eligible job aspirants age barred.

The Court was hearing a Writ Appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation challenging the impugned order that favoured the private respondent and directed the appellant corporation to appoint him as against the permanent vacancy that has arisen. LIC also prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed, “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 evil of unemployment is plaguing our system.”

Advocate A.P. Murari appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Girish V. Bhat appeared for the Respondent.

The Court said that ordinarily, the Writ Courts do not direct any employer to make the appointment of any candidate who figures in the Selection List, since selection per se does not give an indefeasible right to appointment. However, according to the Court that is not a thumb rule and in appropriate cases a direction for appointment can also be given.

The Court observed, “statutory bodies like the appellant – 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 therefor.”

While noting that an Article 12 - entity cannot be readily heard to say that though vacancies in the permanent posts do galore, it would not make an appointment from the select list the Court observed, “In the realm of public employment, right to be considered for an 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.”

The Court expressed concern over the situation of the younger generation who is preparing for public employment and observed, “It needs no research to know that there has been heartburn in the younger generation legitimately aspiring for public employment that the recruitment process is not periodically undertaken. Even those bordering the age-bar too would suffer a great anxiety.”

The Court said that a large chunk of educated youths cannot be deprived of the opportunity of public employment, which is constitutionally guaranteed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.