Haryana Govt handpicks contract staff, neglects merit: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 10

In a significant judgment on contractual appointments by the state governments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that such employees were “handpicked” and took opportunity away from candidates far more meritorious. Justice Arun Monga also expressed reservation in “granting indulgence” in such matters.

“I may hasten to add that I have my own reservation in granting indulgence in matters of contractual appointments by the state, as the same are made without making the employees to participate in any competition and/or selection process on the basis of merits. They are simply handpicked in the garb of a contract by not granting opportunity to those who may be far more meritorious,” Justice Monga said.

The ruling came on a petition filed against the State of Haryana and other respondents by two contractual employees engaged as Horticulture Development Officer. Justice Monga asserted the petitioners were concededly well aware of the job insecurity inasmuch as it was co-terminus with the contract period. Yet, they had challenged the move to do away with their services.

Justice Monga asserted the ostensible ground to assail the move was that one set of contractual employees was being substituted with another, which was impermissible being in violation of the apex court’s judgment in the case of “Hargurpartap Singh versus State of Punjab and others”.

Justice Monga added the petition lacked merit in view of a pointed stand in the written statement by the respondents that the petitioners were appointed under a sanctioned plan scheme on contract basis. But the budget/finances were not sanctioned by the government. Resultantly, the department had no option but to discontinue with their services following non-grant/remittance of funds and/or non-availability of the posts caused by the paucity of funds.

Justice Monga added the court was refraining from interfering in the domain of the employer’s discretion to engage employees. It was best left open to the competent authority to take a call based on the requirement and/or availability of funds.

There may be substance in the argument of the petitioners’ counsel that the contracts had not been renewed on one hand. On the other, requirement of the job continued. But it was best left open to the department to pursue its cause with the competent authority in the state for sanction of budgets if it wished.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.