Srinagar: The &K High Court Saturday sought official stance on putting an end to adhocism in administrative mechanism so that all the recruitments and promotions are made strictly in terms of the established rules.
A division bench of the court issued a slew of directions to the government on the prevailing adhocism, saying a system of ‘fire fighting mechanism’ is being followed rather than establishing systems and procedures through goal setting and long-term planning.
The bench said “what was seen in the then State of J&K and now the Union Territory is that the year 2000 Supreme Court judgment depreciating adhocism is being complied with lesser degree and violated more in all the departments besides the promotions are being made on an in-charge basis.”
This practice, it said is prevalent more in Engineering departments for unknown reasons.
The observations came in a writ petition titled Ghulam Hassan Rather … v/s Union Territory of J&K and another.
The court asked as to how an employee, substantively working on the lowest post, can be given the charge of a highest position in a government department without following the laid down procedure for promotions.
“No one knows their seniority position. It is the local adjustment made with a claim that he or she is senior-most available and there being a vacancy, he/she should be given charge of that post,” the court said.
Stressing that these employees continue working on that post for years together and whenever any transfer is sought to be made, they approach the court and persuade to grant interim relief. As a result they continue on the same position for years together, the court held.
“This course adopted by the different government departments is generating avoidable litigation as many of the employees approach the courts raising the plea that they are senior to the person who has been given charge of some higher post,” it said, adding, “not only such a course demoralizes other employees in the department it results in adhocism in the working of different departments of the government.”
The duties, which are required to be discharged by senior and experienced persons are being handed over to juniors, the court observed.
Another facet of this system according to the court is “the employees already in service don’t let the posts of direct recruitment and usurp the same by adopting this system. With this practice being followed, the very object of having fresh talent at different levels in the department is defeated.”
It said “this also results in delayed recruitments and as a result many eligible candidates surpass the upper age limit for recruitments. There are many more issues which arise out of this illegal practice being followed.”
The court held that the Supreme Court in 2000 had ordered constitution of a high-level committee to be appointed to examine the entire issue.
“The report of the committee so appointed be placed before the court,” it directed and sought details with regard to the total sanctioned cadre strength in each of the departments, the notified Service Rules governing the post and number of posts to be filled up from different sources like the direct, promotional and other quotas.
It also directed the authorities to provide the number of actual employees working in each of the cadres irrespective of the incumbents holding the posts being regularly recruited or promoted as per rules or given charge of the post concerned.
“If any of the employee has been given charge of a higher post, the date from which he is continuing on that post and the substantive post held by him and seniority list of each cadre, as on which date and when the same was circulated before finalization. If any of the seniority lists are still under finalization, reasons for delay should be explained,” directed the court.
