The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the government cannot offer permanent employment in exchange for land donated for public projects, as such appointments would violate the constitutional principles of equality and fairness in public recruitment. However, the court clarified that workers who have completed 10 years of continuous service as casual labourers may seek regular engagement under the applicable rules, subject to fulfilling the prescribed conditions.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M A Chowdhary made the observations while modifying a February 3 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, which had directed the regularisation of workers engaged by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department after donating land for tube-well construction.
In its October 5 order, the High Court emphasised that permanent government appointments must comply with recruitment rules and a selection procedure consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Bench observed that offering government employment as consideration for donated land would effectively amount to selling public posts, contrary to the rule of law and constitutional requirements governing public employment.
Government Cannot Bypass Recruitment Procedures
The High Court also criticised the practice of engaging individuals as daily wagers, casual labourers, ad hoc employees or consolidated workers without following an open and transparent recruitment process.
It held that government authorities cannot selectively engage individuals and subsequently introduce regularisation policies to grant them permanent employment.
The Bench described such a practice as a fraud on the Constitution, reiterating that public employment must remain accessible through procedures ensuring equal opportunity.
Dispute Over Land Donated For Tube Wells
The litigation arose from an arrangement made in 2014, when several individuals donated one kanal of land each to the government for constructing tube wells. Their gift deeds contained provisions relating to government employment in exchange for the land.
Although the individuals expected permanent appointments, the Irrigation and Flood Control Department engaged them as casual workers.
In 2019, they approached the High Court seeking regularisation. Following the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, their petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
During the proceedings, the government maintained that their engagement was governed by the Jammu and Kashmir rules notified on December 21, 2017, concerning the regular engagement of casual workers. It submitted that their cases could be considered once they satisfied the eligibility requirements.
The rules also covered individuals who had donated land to the government and subsequently worked as casual labourers. Among the prescribed requirements was the completion of 10 years of continuous service.
By the time the tribunal considered the dispute, the workers had completed more than a decade of service.
The tribunal consequently directed their regularisation against available posts under applicable service conditions, taking into account their continuous service and the circumstances of their initial engagement.
High Court Distinguishes Permanent Appointment From Regular Engagement
Challenging the tribunal’s decision, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and three other petitioners argued that the promise of employment following land donation did not necessarily mean permanent government service.
They maintained that regularisation could be granted only in accordance with the applicable statutory rules or executive instructions.
The workers, on the other hand, argued that their gift deeds contemplated permanent government jobs rather than temporary engagement as casual labourers.
Examining these submissions, the High Court rejected the claim that a promise contained in a gift deed could independently confer a right to permanent government employment.
At the same time, the Bench recognised that the workers’ eligibility for regular engagement under the 2017 rules required separate consideration.
Since they had completed more than 10 years of continuous service, the court held that they were entitled to the benefit of those rules, provided they satisfied the remaining prescribed conditions.
Tribunal’s Order Modified, Benefits From Completion Of 10 Years
The High Court found that although the tribunal had referred to the 2017 rules, it had incorrectly directed regular appointments without making the relief expressly subject to the requirements of those rules.
Instead of setting aside the tribunal’s decision entirely, the Bench modified its operative directions.
The court directed the authorities to immediately consider the cases of eligible workers for regular engagement under the 2017 rules.
It further held that those satisfying the prescribed conditions would receive the benefit of regular engagement from the date they completed 10 years of continuous service as casual or daily-rated workers, along with all consequential benefits.
The ruling thus maintained the constitutional restrictions on granting government jobs in exchange for land while preserving the workers’ entitlement to consideration for regular engagement under the applicable service rules.
