Backdoor drawback

The ongoing controversy surrounding the regularization of the services of 147 assistant professors and librarians in higher and technical education department highlights the critical intersection of policy, process, and public perception. While regularization ostensibly aims to legalise job security to those who have been appointed through an opaque process, the outrage expressed by various organizations suggests underlying concerns regarding fairness, transparency, and the potential erosion of meritocratic principles. There is no debate that the government, particularly the state cabinet, holds the legitimate authority to determine the requisite actions for implementing decisions at the state level. However, the practice of ad-hocism in appointments constitute a significant flaw within the system, often justified under the guise of “special case” or the misleading term “temporary.” This practice has compromised transparency and accountability within the government, where official power is frequently swayed by nepotism, favoritism, clanism, or tribalism, thereby prioritizing mediocrity over meritocracy. Though it may not be the case in every backdoor or ad-hoc or temporary appointment, what is observed is that this practice is certainly questionable. In fact, this practice should have ended decades back when the government itself has directed that all posts are to be routed through NPSC while imposing a ban on temporary appointments even if vacancy exists. What is suggested is that even if there are posts that require urgent filling up, the process should include a mandatory advertisement in local media, detailing various conditions and specifying the temporary term period of one or two years, after which the contract should conclude. Temporary or ad hoc appointments to fill up positions may be acceptable if the particular position requires persons who have specific academic credentials or those with specialized skills. However, the term for appointment should on temporary basis till the particular post(s) is/are filled up through competitive exams by NPSC. There are may government posts that have been filled through back-door or ad hoc appointments and those appointed allowed to continue in service for over ten years. This alone highlights not only the opaqueness of the process but also manipulation at certain levels. If employees appointed on temporary or contract basis, continue to serve in their posts on temporary or contract for ten years or more then, then it amounts to confirmation of their services and thus, regularization is imminent. The controversy over regularization stems from the fact that the government has chosen not to apply due diligence. There are also some departments where those with requisite qualifications appointed at higher grade through NPSC were superseded by employees appointed on ad hoc basis purely on seniority basis. Such arbitrary decisions only make a mockery of the selection system while the affected continue to knock on the doors of the courts for justice. Furthermore, public scrutiny of the matter reveals a heightened awareness of accountability within public institutions and a demand for demonstrable equity in employment practices. Ultimately, this controversy necessitates a comprehensive review of regularization policies, ensuring that they are applied consistently, transparently, and in a manner that upholds the integrity and quality of higher education.