Terming the backdoor entry in government services a “fraud on the Constitution,” and a unique “modus operandi” of successive governments for achieving “cheap political motives”, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a plea seeking regularisation.While dealing with the pleas of three petitioners working on contact basis for the last nine years as junior engineers at the University of Kashmir, a bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar stayed on fresh recruitment at the university, which triggered the petitioners’ pleas.“Permitting the State to make ad hoc and temporary appointments by adopting a ‘pick-and-choose’ method, without issuing advertisement notifications or conducting competitive examinations, and then introducing a policy of regularisation, is nothing short of a fraud on the Constitution,” the court said on May 22. Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar said the state has virtually rendered provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of our solemn document, known as Constitution of India, redundant and dead letter.The bench added that the successive governments in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, now the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and their functionaries and instrumentalities, have consistently adopted a unique “modus operandi” to deny citizens their right to equality and equal opportunity in matters of employment.Also Read | Orissa High Court invokes global philosophers to remind government: Universities not your departmentsHighlighting that the modus operandi adopted by the successive governments for achieving “cheap political motives” is to first recruit “handpicked candidates” on account of their “political affiliations” and “proximities” and then engage them on an ad hoc, contractual, temporary and daily wage basis on the pretext that such arrangements are required to be made to meet the exigencies and the emergent situations, the court said, “By such acts and omissions, the state has virtually rendered the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of our solemn document known as the Constitution of India, redundant and a dead letter.”‘Backdoor appointment fraud on Constitution’While criticising the government for politically motivated appointments, the order underscored that these persons are continued from time to time till the government comes up with a policy of regularisation of the services of such persons. It added that these persons are regularised in government service either by issuing executive orders, statutory rules, or even by legislative enactments.“Whatever be the mode adopted by the government to regularise these temporary, ad hoc, contractual and daily wage employees, picked up arbitrarily other than by holding a fair process of selection and providing fair opportunity to the eligible candidates to compete, is nothing short of fraud on the Constitution,” the order noted.Story continues below this adThe court went on to discuss the history of the government measures aimed at regularising the backdoor appointments. It referred to the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers and Work Charged Employees Regularisation Rules, 1994, which provided for the regularisation of all daily wagers who had completed seven years’ continuous service on the appointed date by creating an equal number of posts.The order noted that the latest in the series is the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, which also provided for wholesale regularisation of all temporary, ad hoc and contractual employees who had been serving the State against substantive vacancies for the last seven years.Noting that in all these executive orders, statutory rules and enactments were promulgated by the Government to provide permanent employment to their own handpicked people at the cost of those who were even deprived of an opportunity of being engaged in such capacity, i.e., temporary, ad hoc, contractual or daily wager, the court said that we need to view the controversy raised in these petitions and analyse the arguments of Haqani in this perspective.The bench emphasised that the petitioners cannot claim the enforcement of negative equality by citing the past precedent of regularisation of backdoor appointments by the university.Story continues below this ad‘State shall not deny any person equality before law’India is a sovereign democracy governed by the Rule of law. Unlike other parliamentary democracies, we have constitutional supremacy in our country.The constitutional provisions which form the essential features and basic structure of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament even if it is unanimous in its opinion.The Preamble of the Constitution of India declares: “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA” having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens inter alia EQUALITY OF STATUS AND OF OPPORTUNITY…. On similar lines is the Preamble of the State Constitution.The words “justice, liberty, equality and fraternity” are the words of passion and power.Amongst four objectives resolved by the people of India, to be achieved, the third objective, i.e., ‘equality of status and opportunity’, is the soul of our Constitution.Equality has two aspects, negative and positive. The equality can be achieved to some extent by removing inequality, but the equality of status and opportunity, used absolutely, as they are in the preamble, cannot be realised because the same means more than the removal of inequality.Opportunity is partly a matter of chance, partly a matter of capacity to seize the opportunity, should it come.The third objective laid down in the preamble has been sought to be achieved through Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, contained in Part III of the Constitution of India, dealing with fundamental rights.Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a general Article on equality and not only provides for equality of status and opportunity, but it also provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of laws.To some extent, these provisions help to secure equality of status and opportunity, but the doctrine of classification makes large inroads into the concept of equality of status and opportunity.Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India are correlated and spell out vividly the concept of equality embodied in these Articles.Also Read | ‘Can’t maintain double standards’: Calcutta High Court orders centre to regularise 7,520 workers after 38-year battleThe concept of equality envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution is a founding faith of our Constitution and indeed a pillar on which rests the foundation of our democratic republic.The true scope and ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of numerous decisions, and it is not necessary to make any detailed reference to them.It is sufficient to state that the extent and reach of Article 14 of the Constitution must not be confused with the doctrine of classification.Case of seven year service and demand of regularisationThe petitioners were engaged by the university in 2017 as junior engineers on what the respondent-university termed as a “Hire and Fire” basis on a monthly consolidated wage of Rs 15,000.They were allowed extensions in their temporary services from time to time, and the last extension granted was up to May 22. The legal battle began when the university issued an advertisement notification on March 30, inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill various posts, including one post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and two posts of Junior Engineer (Civil).On seeing the writing on the wall and apprehending their ouster after May 22, all three petitioners filed three separate original applications before the CAT and prayed for an ad interim stay of the advertisement notification. After the tribunal declined to grant the interim stay, the petitioners moved to the high court.Going by the past practice of the university of making similar appointments temporarily and later regularising them, the petitioners claimed to have acquired a right to be regularised.Story continues below this adAppearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Altaf Haqani argued that the advertisement notification issued by the university is arbitrary and unfairly denied the petitioners’ right of regularisation, which they claim to have acquired by virtue of continuous officiation on the posts for the last more than nine years.