Supreme Court Slams 'Ad-Hocism': A Scathing Rebuke on Government's Temporary Hiring

In a landmark pronouncement that reverberates through the corridors of public administration, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a stern and unequivocal rebuke to the prevailing practice of 'ad-hocism' in government employment. The apex court articulated a profound concern, stating unequivocally that the "extraction of regular labour through ad-hoc arrangements corrodes the confidence of people." This powerful observation underscores a deep-seated issue, highlighting how the state's reliance on temporary or contractual appointments for inherently permanent roles undermines the very ethos of fair and equitable public service.

The Court's condemnation is rooted in the fundamental principle that government jobs, particularly those of a regular and permanent nature, must be filled through established, transparent, and merit-based recruitment processes.

This includes examinations and selections conducted by statutory bodies like the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) or respective State Public Service Commissions. The practice of perpetually employing individuals on an ad-hoc basis, often for years or even decades, is not merely an administrative oversight; it is, as the Court suggested, a form of exploitation that strips workers of their dignity, security, and rightful benefits.

The judgment specifically referenced a poignant case involving a peon who had been working for over two decades on a temporary arrangement.

Such instances paint a stark picture of the precarity faced by countless individuals who dedicate their lives to public service, yet remain outside the protective ambit of regular employment. The Court emphasized that this systematic bypassing of proper recruitment channels not only disadvantages eligible candidates aspiring for government roles but also traps the temporary workforce in a cycle of uncertainty, denying them the stability and emoluments associated with permanent positions.

While the Supreme Court clarified that the regularization of services cannot be claimed as an automatic right merely by virtue of long service, it concurrently issued a powerful directive against the state's continued exploitation.

The Court underscored that such ad-hoc arrangements, particularly when prolonged, constitute a breach of constitutional principles, especially Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment). It signals a clear message: the state cannot, under the guise of temporary needs, perpetually fill permanent vacancies with vulnerable contractual labour.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to governmental bodies across the nation to adhere strictly to constitutional mandates and established recruitment norms.

It is a clarion call for transparency, fairness, and the restoration of faith in the public employment system, ensuring that the confidence of the populace in governmental integrity remains uncorroded by exploitative temporary arrangements.