A government job cannot be offered in exchange for land, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held, warning that such promises would amount to “putting the Government jobs on sale” and violate the constitutional requirement of fair and transparent public employment. However, the court held that workers who had spent over a decade working as casual labourers after donating their land could claim the benefit of regular engagement under the applicable rules, subject to fulfilling the prescribed requirements.Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M A Chowdhary were hearing a challenge by the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and three others to a February 3 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench. The tribunal had directed regularisation of workers who had donated land for construction of tube wells and were later engaged as casual labourers in the Department of Irrigation and Flood Control.“The Government does not have any authority to promise or to give permanent Government job to any person in lieu of the land donated by such person for public purpose. The permanent job in the Government department would be in accordance with the recruitment rules in vogue and pursuant to a selection process, which is in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” the October 5 order stated.“Making such promises would be tantamount to putting the Government jobs on sale, which is not in conformity with the rule of law, which is essence of our political democracy governed by the Constitution of India,” the court said.It observed that the government can’t appoint daily wagers, ad hoc or consolidated workers without issuing an advertisement and following a fair, transparent and just selection process in line with Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality in employment) of the Constitution. Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M A Chowdhary said the respondents who had completed 10 years of service would be entitled to regular engagement under the 2017 rules.The court said that the government or its officers are not empowered to pick up the people of its choice from the open market, engage them by giving the nomenclature of ‘daily wagers’, ‘casual workers’, ‘ad hoc’ appointees or consolidated workers and then come up with the policy of regularisation to confer the benefit of permanent employment on them. “Such practice followed by the Government is nothing but a fraud on Constitution of India,” it said.Land donated for construction of tube wellsThe dispute dates to 2014, when the respondents donated one kanal each for tube-well construction and their gift deeds stipulated government jobs in return. They were instead engaged as casual workers.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Nothing left in democracy if institutions are undermined: Former judge Sanjib BanerjeeAfter nearly five years, they approached the high court in 2019 seeking regularisation. The matter was later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal following the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Before the tribunal, the government said their engagement was governed by the 2017 rules and that their cases could be considered for regular engagement once they became eligible.The 2017 Jammu and Kashmir rules for regular engagement of casual workers were notified on December 21, 2017. They set out how eligible casual workers could be considered for regular engagement. They also covered people who had donated land to the government and were engaged as casual workers, with regular engagement linked to completion of 10 years of continuous service, subject to the conditions prescribed under the rules.By the time the matter was considered, the respondents had completed more than 10 years of service. The tribunal held that they had acquired a right to regularisation, particularly because their initial engagement followed the donation of land to the government free of cost. It directed their regularisation against available posts in accordance with applicable service conditions, relying on their completion of 10 years of continuous casual service.The Union territory challenged that decision before the high court. The respondents argued that the stipulation in the gift deeds was for a permanent government job and not just employment as casual labourers.Story continues below this adThe government’s position was that the job promised in return for the donated land was not necessarily permanent and that regularisation, if any, could only take place under statutory rules or executive orders issued from time to time.Court rejects permanent job in exchange for landThe high court rejected the idea that donating land could create an entitlement to a permanent government job. It said permanent government employment must follow the applicable recruitment rules and a selection process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The government also cannot appoint daily wagers, casual workers, ad hoc or consolidated workers without a fair and transparent selection process, or handpick people for temporary engagement and later regularise them through a policy.The court, nevertheless, did not set aside the workers’ relief altogether. It drew a distinction between a permanent government appointment promised in exchange for land and entitlement to regular engagement under the applicable service rules.The bench noted that the respondents had continued as casual workers for more than 10 years and had therefore become entitled to the benefit of regular engagement under the 2017 rules, provided they fulfilled the requirements prescribed under those rules.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Churidar or saree? Society can’t dictate what a citizen should wear, says Kerala High CourtThe court found that the tribunal had referred to the 2017 rules but had erred in its operative portion by directing the government to give the respondents regular appointments outright. It therefore modified the tribunal’s order rather than setting aside the relief.The high court directed that the respondents who had completed 10 years of continuous service as casual or daily-rated workers would be entitled to regular engagement as envisaged under the 2017 rules.Their cases were to be taken up “immediately and forthwith” so they could receive the benefit of regular engagement from the date on which they completed 10 years of continuous service as casual labourers. The bench also held that they would be entitled to all related benefits.