Appointments Without Advertisement Are Unconstitutional 'Backdoor Entries'; Co-operative Dairy Federation Is 'State' Under Article 12: Uttarakhand High Court - 2025-07-14

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes 'Backdoor' Appointments in Dairy Federation, Declares it 'State' Under Article 12

Nainital: In a significant ruling on public employment, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the appointments of several managers in the Uttarakhand Co-operative Dairy Federation (UCDF), terming them illegal "backdoor appointments" made in violation of constitutional principles. A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held that the UCDF, due to the deep and pervasive control exercised by the State government, qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and is therefore bound to provide equality of opportunity in employment as mandated by Articles 14 and 16.

The court allowed the writ petition filed by Dr. Ramesh Kumar, who was denied the opportunity to apply for the posts due to the lack of a public advertisement.

---

Case Background

The petitioner, Dr. Ramesh Kumar, a veterinarian working on contract with a district-level milk union since 2010, challenged the appointment of several individuals as Management Trainees in 2016, who were later regularized as Managers in UCDF. The core issue was the recruitment process: UCDF had enlisted the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) to conduct the hiring. However, the NDDB proceeded to select candidates through "campus selection" from a few specific colleges, without issuing any public advertisement or notifying the vacancies. Dr. Kumar, despite being eligible for the post of Manager (Procurement and Inputs), was unaware of the recruitment drive and thus deprived of the chance to compete.

He sought the quashing of the appointment orders and a direction for a fresh, transparent recruitment process.

---

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments:

- Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate , representing the petitioner, argued that UCDF is an "instrumentality of the State" under Article 12. He highlighted that its Managing Director is a Class-I government officer on deputation, State rules govern its employees' service conditions, and it receives financial aid from the government.

- He contended that making appointments without advertisement is a "constitutional sin," violating the fundamental right to equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 16.

- The process of hand-picking candidates from a single college in Jaipur was described as a "farce" and an arbitrary exercise of power, creating an illegal backdoor entry into public employment.

Respondents' Arguments:

- Mr. Shobhit Saharia , counsel for UCDF, contested the petition's maintainability, arguing that UCDF is a co-operative society and not 'State' under Article 12. He claimed its employment does not constitute public employment.

- He submitted that the state government does not fund employee salaries (except for the Managing Director) and does not have the power to override the decisions of the elected management committee.

- Counsel for the appointed managers argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that unsettling their appointments after nearly nine years would be unjust.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The High Court undertook a detailed analysis to determine whether UCDF qualifies as 'State' under Article 12. The bench found compelling evidence of pervasive state control, noting:

- The Managing Director of UCDF is a government servant appointed by the State.

- The State Government has framed statutory rules under the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, to control the recruitment and service conditions of UCDF employees.

- The State provides significant financial aid for infrastructure and development.

The court distinguished the respondents' reliance on Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. , stating that the issue in that case was related to the RTI Act, not public employment. Instead, the bench relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments like Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib and M.P. State Co-Op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar , which established tests for determining if a body is an instrumentality of the State.

On the recruitment process, the court delivered a scathing critique:

"A private employer may make appointment through campus selection as he is not bound by the Constitutional guarantees... However, UCDF which is an Apex Society, having deep and all pervasive State control cannot be permitted to act in the manner as it did in the present case."

The bench unequivocally stated that any appointment to a public post without a proper advertisement is void ab-initio. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty , the court reiterated a settled legal proposition:

"No person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates... Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered."

The court also dismissed the objection regarding the petitioner's locus standi, holding that since Dr. Kumar was eligible and was denied the opportunity to compete, he was a "person aggrieved" with the right to challenge the illegal appointments.

---

Final Verdict

Concluding that the appointments were made in blatant disregard of constitutional mandates, the High Court allowed the writ petition. The key takeaways from the judgment are:

1. UCDF is 'State' : The Uttarakhand Co-operative Dairy Federation is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and must adhere to fundamental rights.
2. Appointments Quashed : The appointments of the private respondents, made without public advertisement, were quashed and set aside.
3. Fresh Recruitment Ordered : The court granted liberty to the UCDF to make fresh appointments but mandated that it must be done only after issuing an advertisement in widely circulated newspapers and following a transparent selection process.

This judgment reinforces the principle that transparency and equal opportunity are non-negotiable pillars of public employment, and even quasi-governmental bodies cannot bypass these constitutional requirements.