(1.) The Preamble to the Constitution sets out the goals, the achievement of which was envisaged by the people of free India. One of those goals is the equality of status and of opportunity. For achieving this goal in matters relating to public employment, Articles 14 and 16 have been engrafted in chapter relating to fundamental rights. Article 14 is gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. It embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The egalitarian goal of equality in the matters relating to employment envisages that appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit subject to the policy of reservation enshrined in Article 16(4). For giving effect to the aforesaid rule, Acts and Rule have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 is one such piece of legislations. However, it in the last two decades, it has become a common practice to ignore the provisions of the said Act and to give employment directly to those who are either not registered with the employment exchange or who, though registered, are lower in the long waiting list in the employment register. In this manner, a large number of appointments on Class-III and Class-IV posts have been made for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with artificial breaks to circumvent the relevant rules and then in the name of compassion and in the garb of taking action keeping in view the ground realities, the governments come out with the populist policies of regularising illegal and unconstitutional appointments. In this manner, a good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in new source of corruption. This causes frustration to those who wait at the employment exchanges for years together.
(2.) In the eighties, the Courts had not only approved the policies framed by the governments for regulations of the services of ad hoc, temporary, daily wager and causal employees on the premise that they had served for long periods but, in some cases, directed them to frame such policies. However, after having taken note of the fact that the attitude of compassion shown in the matter is encouraging the governments and public authorities to indulge in large scale violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the relevant service rules, the Courts have lately leaned against the regularisation of the services of illegal appointees. This trend is evident from the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi, 1992 AIR(SC) 789 and State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh, 1992 AIR(SC) 2130 In the latter decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court after examining the instructions issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana between 1969 and 1987 for regularisation of the services of ad hoc employees, reversed the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court for regularisation of the services of all those who had completed one year's service. While doing so, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that it is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive to frame policy for regularisation of the services of temporary, ad hoc, work-charged and daily rated employees and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot direct regularisation of the services of the employees de hors the policy framed by the government. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court further held that services of only those employees can be regularised who fulfil the conditions laid down by the government.
(3.) XXX XXX XXX