Rule than exception

Backdoor appointments have evolved from being anomalies to being a pervasive trend in the recruiting landscape of government departments. Although these appointments are prevalent across several government departments, they often get less public scrutiny-until issues of regularization or promotions emerge. Tensions escalate, particularly among personnel who joined the organization via open, competitive recruiting, only to be disregarded in favor of those admitted through questionable means. The recent controversy surrounding the Department of Higher and Technical Education exemplifies this issue. A government directive dated April 8, 2025, issued by the Chief Secretary with the approval of the Minister for Higher Education and Tourism, aimed to integrate these contractual employees into permanent roles. The directive referenced a previous notification from December 2024 as the rationale for the action. This attempt at regularization has provoked extensive discussion and has also resulted in legal complications. Multiple writ petitions from 2022 assert that these appointments were conducted surreptitiously, bypassing due procedure and established recruiting standards. The government’s decision to regularize the positions of 147 Assistant Professors and Librarians, who were previously employed on a contractual basis, has provoked significant public and legal reactions. The core of the matter is a basic question on whether those appointed on ad hoc basis and without competitive selection, be retrospectively justified under the pretext of “public service interest”? Confronted with escalating public and judicial pressure, the state government seemed to withdraw. A circular released on April 10, 2025, said that the prior notification had not been “officially issued” and must thus be regarded as “null and void until further notice.” Principals of the impacted institutions were directed to refrain from implementing any administrative modifications associated with the revoked order. This abrupt shift has intensified the dispute and undermined the system’s trust. The government’s retraction indicates, at a minimum, an acknowledgment of procedural violation. Nevertheless, the story highlights the degree to which illegitimate appointments are entrenched in the system-silently tolerated until they are revealed or contested. The primary concern is not only the destiny of 147 people, but the overarching deterioration of meritocratic recruiting and the implications it conveys to prospective applicants who adhere to established standards. True development and progress hinge on merit-a principle that strengthens governance and fuels growth. When favoritism and nepotism override merit, they erode public trust and weaken institutions. Countless qualified employees languish without hope as they don’t have political connections and thus , their potential wasted. This injustice not only harms them but tarnishes the state’s present and future. A system that prioritizes patronisation over competence invites inefficiency and inequality, undermining its own foundation. For sustainable progress, merit must prevail, ensuring fairness and rewarding talent. Only then can a government claim legitimacy and foster lasting prosperity. The choice is thus clear- uphold merit or risk decay. While the issue awaits court resolution, a typical conflict between administrative expediency and public accountability persists. Amending such procedures post hoc does nothing to reinstate confidence in the system. Only time will reveal whether the current case will act as a pivotal moment or merely add another instance to the extensive catalog of procedural concessions justified by expediency.