3
Supreme Court: The court order states that financial rigidity is definitely a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that canpasses the duty of impartiality, logic and law to organize work according to law.
Supreme Court : Criticizing ad hocism in government jobs, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made important remarks. The court said that the long -term appointment of regular employees under the temporary label reduces confidence in public administration. At the same time, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, regularizing the services of some employees in the UP Higher Education Services Commission, said that the state is a constitutional employer and he cannot balance the budget by trusting those who do the most basic and recurring public work. The bench further said that we need to remember that the state is not only a partner in the market, but also a constitutional employer.
There should be a fixed place in public policy
The Supreme Court said that where the work is repeated day by day and year, the system should reflect that reality in its acceptance power and appointment practices. The Supreme Court said that the long -term withdrawal of regular workers under the temporary label reduces faith in public administration and also appears to reduce the promise of safety. The court order states that financial rigidity is definitely a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that bypasses fairness, logic and the duty of organizing the work according to the law. Apart from this, it should also be noted that ad hocism thrives where the administration is opaque.
Outsourcing arrangements should be submitted: SC
The bench clearly stated that the departments of the state government should present accurate installation, register, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements. Also, with evidence, it should be clarified why they prioritize uncertain appointment compared to the approved posts where work is permanent. The court said that if the government had obstructed, then the records should also show which options have been considered, why the employees working in the same positions were treated separately and the path chosen is how it is in line with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The bench clearly stated that the sensitivity to human consequences of insecurity for a long time is not sentimentality.
Also read- Congress’s big allegation regarding MP elections, said- ‘vote theft’ in more than 27 seats’
