Manipur Govt should withdraw its decision to regularise Part Time Lecturers
in Govt Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools

Dr. Hiranya Singh *

Oriental College in Imphal in December 2013 :: pix - Ashok Ningthoujam

The Manipur Government's recent decision to regularise the part-time lecturers in government colleges and higher secondary schools is ill-conceived, unfair, baseless, one-sided, untenable and unconstitutional. It is grossly centred on emotions rather than rationale or sound reasoning. It will surely open a Pandora's box of maladies and legal repercussions. It is still questionable whether the decision was taken in return for a hefty sum of money to the tune of crores of rupees accrued through contributions made discreetly by the part-timers serving in different colleges, and paid covertly to those in power.

It is an open secret that the part-timers have been contributing money for bribing those at the helm of affairs. Though the decision seems to be based on compassionate grounds in consideration of the services rendered for by the part-time teachers for years with the incommensurately meagre pay they receive, there are some hidden agenda and intent for harvesting bribe money. This lopsided decision will certainly mar the prospects of qualified candidates or NET/SLET/Ph.D. holders getting the very responsible posts of lecturers in higher education in Manipur. This will not only frustrate and demoralize the qualified students but also disillusion them as their ambitions for a good career will be nipped in the bud.

On top of that, such a decision to regularise the part-timers in all the colleges and higher secondary schools in toto regardless of their eligibility or requisite qualifications as prescribed by the University Grants Commission, teaching proficiency and aptitude will be definitely against the quest for quality education in Manipur.

Morever, this decision is totally unjust and does not have legal merit too vis-a-vis the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme court has held that appointment in the State and its instrumentalities should only be in accordance with the rules and procedure relating to regular recruitment. The Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi against the regularisation of temporary employees may be referred to in this matter.

Further, in State of Manipur v. Ksh. Moirangninthou Singh, the Apex Court held that post the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, no direction for regularisation in services could be issued. There are few things which the Government of Manipur has forgotten to study before taking this wrong decision.

First, the decision will deprive the qualified job seekers - may be freshers or those contemporaries of the present part-timers who could not get jobs as part-time lecturers despite their qualifications and merit, of their right to equal opportunities and employments in the government sector. It will be noteworthy to mention here that the number of qualified but unemployed/underemployed candidates fulfilling UGC RR (NET/SLET/Ph.D.) are in terms of thousands and there is no dearth of qualified and proficient candidates in Manipur.

Second, public employment is a facet of right to equality envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The State although is a model employer, its right to create posts and recruit people therefore emanates from the statutes or statutory rules and/or rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts.

Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

Third, when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees.

Fourth and lastly, it will be against all norms of transparent governance and administrative integrity to regularise any person for a gazetted post in the State Government keeping a blind eye to his or her qualifications, eligibility and proficiency. It appears that the Manipur Government has acted on emotions and sentiments rather than sound reasoning and rectitude. Quality education should stem from qualified teachers who can shape the future of the students.

It is fact that there are many the part-time lecturers who do not possess the requisite qualifications and who are unfit for the recruitment rules (RR) although they have been teaching for the past so many years. This is not to say that all of the part-timers are unfit but the way they were recruited was totally improper and befitting of such a recruitment procedure.

The public knows the bitter fact that nepotism, partiality and bribery played a big role at the time of recruiting the part-timers who are now being considered for regularisation. Had it been through the right procedure involving the Public Service Commission, the lapses and lacunae could have been avoided.

In conclusion, the hastily taken cabinet decision of the government of Manipur to regularise the part-time lecturers is grossly unfair, unjust, partial and unconstitutional. Such a wrong and ill-conceived decision should be revoked at the earliest so that the rights and aspirations of qualified candidates for a respected job like that of a government lecturer are not jeopardised or forfeited. Let equality prevail in this State.