Appointments Without Advertisement By State Instrumentalities Are 'Backdoor' & Illegal, Violate Art. 14 & 16: Uttarakhand High Court

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes 'Backdoor' Managerial Appointments at Dairy Federation, Cites Violation of Constitutional Rights

Nainital: In a significant ruling on public employment, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the appointments of several managers at the Uttarakhand Co-operative Dairy Federation (UCDF), declaring them illegal "backdoor appointments" that violate the fundamental rights to equality of opportunity guaranteed under the Constitution.

A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held that the UCDF, being an "instrumentality of the State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, is bound to follow fair and transparent recruitment procedures, including public advertisement of vacancies. The court found that the appointments, made through a campus selection process without any public notice, were a "constitutional sin."

---

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by Dr. Ramesh Kumar, a veterinarian working on a contract basis with the Nainital Milk Producers Cooperative Union since 2010. He challenged the appointment of several individuals (respondent nos. 5 to 8) who were recruited as Management Trainees in 2016 and later regularized as Managers at UCDF.

The petitioner argued that he was eligible for the post of Manager (Procurement and Inputs) but was denied the opportunity to compete because the vacancies were never advertised. Instead, UCDF had tasked the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) with the recruitment, which then conducted a campus selection at a single institute in Jaipur and a few others, effectively hand-picking candidates without a wider public call for applications.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal (Senior Advocate):

- UCDF is 'State' under Article 12: The petitioner argued that the State Government exercises deep and pervasive administrative and financial control over UCDF. Key indicators included the appointment of a Class-I government officer as the Managing Director (whose salary is paid by the state), state funding for infrastructure, and the existence of statutory service rules framed by the government.

- Violation of Articles 14 and 16: The failure to advertise the vacancies was a direct infringement of the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment. This process denied eligible candidates like the petitioner a fair chance to apply.

- Campus Selection is a Farce: It was contended that campus selection is a method permissible for private corporations but not for a public body like UCDF. The process was arbitrary and non-transparent.

Respondents' Counsel (for UCDF and Appointees):

- UCDF is Not 'State': The Federation's counsel argued that it is an autonomous cooperative society, not a state body under Article 12, and therefore not bound by the same constitutional mandates for employment.

- Maintainability of Petition: The private respondents challenged the petitioner's locus standi (right to bring the action), arguing he had not sought any relief for himself. They also pleaded that unsettling their appointments after nearly nine years would be unjust.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the structure and functioning of UCDF to determine its status as an "instrumentality of the State."

1. UCDF as an Instrumentality of the State: The Court found compelling evidence of state control, relying on precedents like M.P. State Co-Op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar . It highlighted:

- The Managing Director is a Class-I government officer on "deemed deputation" but paid by the public exchequer.

- The State Government has framed statutory service rules governing recruitment and service conditions.

- The State provides significant financial aid for UCDF's operations.

"Having regard to the statutory provisions... and the Rules framed... we are of the considered opinion that UCDF comes within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution."

2. Illegality of Appointments without Advertisement: The bench firmly reiterated the settled legal principle that public employment must be offered through a transparent process that ensures equality of opportunity. Citing a catena of Supreme Court judgments, including State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi , the court condemned the recruitment method.

"Appointment without advertisement will be termed as backdoor appointment which shall be void-ab-initio... The campus selection alleged to have been made by NDDB is an eyewash and farce, which cannot protect the appointment given to respondent nos. 5 to 8."

3. Petitioner's Locus Standi: The Court dismissed the respondents' objection to the petitioner's standing, noting that he was an eligible candidate who was directly prejudiced by the illegal recruitment process. The bench stated that the "denial of equality of opportunity... caused legal injury to the petitioner," making him a "person aggrieved."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the initial appointments of the private respondents as Management Trainees and their subsequent regularization as Managers.

The judgment is a stern reminder to all government-controlled corporations, societies, and public sector undertakings that they cannot circumvent constitutional mandates by adopting recruitment methods typical of the private sector. The ruling reinforces that the principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 are non-negotiable for any entity that qualifies as 'State'.

The Court granted UCDF the liberty to make fresh appointments to the posts, but with a strict condition: "only after issuing advertisement in widely circulated newspapers and after holding selection as per norms."