Official sources admit that no fewer than 5873 back door appointments have been made in different departments over a period of time. Actually the question of making unauthorized and illegal appointments had come up under sharp criticism in the previous assembly session. Those who raised the question had even produced department-wise break up of these appointments. The Government had promised to look into the matter.
There are two categories of back door appointment. One category is of those who have been appointed against sanctioned vacancies in various departments and the second category is of those who have been appointed but against no vacancy. In the latter category, appointments have been shown as consolidated, casual, daily wagers, need based, contingent or locally paid workers. No doubt, the Government does have the provision of making appointments under the above stated categories because when various developmental projects are floated, workers beyond the sanctioned strength are to be deployed on sites. After all the function of a given department cannot be interrupted for want of temporary work force.
But taking overall view of the exigencies that arise from time to time the Government has done good homework on the subject. Firstly, it has identified and also notified the departments, which are authorized to make temporary appointments under various titles. Secondly, it has very clearly laid down the norms for the appointing authority. It means that only those officers in their respective departments can make appointments that are authorized to do under the rules and regulations of the Government.
Now the Government has identified 5873 backdoor appointments in various departments and has ordered their disengagement. With a single stroke of pen this large number of temporary employees will be thrown out and they wall join the army of unemployed in the State. Technically it is all right and the decision of the Government may not be challenged. But the vital question is who should actually be punished for doing something unauthorized and illegal and whom actually is the Government punishing? What does “backdoor entry” mean? It means opening not the front but the back door of the room and letting somebody enter because if he or she enters from the front door, sentries will detect and then disallow entry. Thus we find that the real actor is the person who opens the door in the backyard and lets an outsider in. He is the real culprit and it is he who deserves punishment. One who seeks entry through front or back door is an unemployed person struggling to earn his living somehow.
Those who are not authorized and are not competent to make appointments have actually made most of the backdoor appointments. They are in full knowledge that they are not authorized but have somehow maneuvered it. The motivation must have been anything from bribery, nepotism to favouritism. The simple logic is that in case of unauthorized appointments the functionary who has made the appointment is the real culprit and deserves to be punished under rules. The brunt should fall on him first and foremost. Secondly, if a department not included in the authorized list of departments allowed to make casual appointments has overstepped its jurisdiction, the head of that department is to be held responsible for any irregular and illegal appointment. He has to be dealt with in accordance with the law or the service rules. He cannot escape punishment. Those who have made illegal appointments will find alibi in the oft-repeated “political pressure” lever. This pretext has no takers because even if there have been political pressures, the source is not going to admit it. In reality it can be political appeasement and not pressure. Political leaders and elected representatives do have a stake in the public affairs but they are not supposed to interfere in Government’s function nor can they violate the rules. Even if casual, temporary, need-based and other types of appointments are to be made, a criterion has been set forth which has to be adhered to. It is not something like loot for all.
We, therefore, entreat the Government that while nearly six thousand casual and temporary employees will be disengaged and denied the source of survival, it must take punitive action against all those state functionaries who violated and trampled the rules under foot and made illegal appointments thus dong injustice to those who had a better merit. They have to bear the consequences of their acts of commission and omission.
Follow our WhatsApp channel