The recent spate of the Cash for Government Job scams surfacing in the recent news reports would be sufficient to evoke an apprehension in the mind of a common man of general prudence as to whether the respective government servant with whom he is dealing with is the beneficiary of preferential treatment during the selections for that respective post.
Sometimes, the answer to this apprehension can be no more transparent than the opacity of the moon.
Predominantly because selection of candidates for government service isn’t a straight-jacket formula despite stringent criteria prescribed by the Public Service Commission of appropriate jurisdiction.
For instance, take Donald Trump’s recent selection of his Chief of Staff. According to Chidadand Rajghatta (2024) in his article entitled: “WH Gets Its First Woman Chief of Staff”:
“President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday named Susan Wiles (67) as his White House chief of staff, an influential cabinet post because she will be the right hand to the President, serving as a virtual sentinel and gatekeeper, and also run the White House executive office…
Wiles’ surprise appointment, considering she has very little govt experience, came amid jockeying and speculation over a range of cabinet and administration appointments and talk of retribution…”
Shifting focus to equality of appointments provided for in the Constitution, Article 16 provides:
“A. 16. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State…”
Yet the Indian Constitution also provides for a meritocratic framework in the legislative process, with the nomination of experts to contribute valuable insights, even if this bypasses the principle of electoral representation.
Specifically, the preference envisaged in Article 80(1)(a) aims to enhance legislative quality by bringing in experts in specified fields, ensuring informed decision-making in Parliament.
And while Article 16(1) provides a general safeguard against preferential bias in employment, the provisions of Article 80(1)(a) highlight a different kind of preference aimed at strengthening legislative expertise.
Consequently, the same persons who gave India its Constitution while having succeeded in indicating that Article 16 and Article 80 apply to different forms of appointments in Governmental Service and which operate in distinct domains.
Herein it becomes relatively easy to understand where the role of middle-men and middle-women arise in turning the democratic activity of appointments for Government Jobs into a test of malleability of the administration.
The mechanisms through which preferential bias creeps into Governmental appointments may be:
1. Political patronage
Government appointments may be influenced by political affiliations, where individuals loyal to a ruling party are appointed to key positions regardless of merit. This undermines the principle of neutrality and competence in public administration (Meyer-Sahling & Mikkelsen, 2016).
2. Caste and community-based reservations
Preferential appointments under affirmative action policies aim to address historical injustices by reserving positions for marginalised communities. While promoting social justice, this can sometimes lead to perceptions of bias when appointments are viewed as favouring specific groups over merit-based selection (Deshpande, 2013).
3. Nepotism and favouritism
Appointments can also reflect nepotism, where individuals related to or favoured by those in power secure government positions. This bypasses competitive selection processes, allowing unqualified individuals to occupy roles of influence (Basak, 2019).
4. Discretionary powers in appointments
Certain government roles allow for discretionary appointments, where the selection is made without strict adherence to transparent criteria. This opens the door for subjective decisions influenced by personal or political considerations (Lewis, 2008).
How the Supreme Court of India perceives recruitment criteria for government jobs?
In an article entitled: Supreme Court Rules Against Midway Changes in Recruitment Criteria for Government Jobs written by Arjun Brij and published in Swarajya, while summarising the Judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Versus Rajasthan High Court & Ors. 2024 Insc 847:
“In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled that eligibility criteria or rules governing recruitment for government jobs cannot be altered midway through the selection process unless the existing rules specifically allow it. This judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra concurring.
***
The case, centered on whether the rules of the “game”—in this case, the recruitment process—can be changed after the process has begun. The petitioners argued that altering eligibility requirements after the recruitment process was initiated is fundamentally unfair to candidates. The Court's ruling upheld a previous judgment from 2008, K Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512, which stated that changing recruitment criteria mid-process is impermissible.
***
The Constitution Bench’s final ruling laid out five key conclusions:
- The recruitment process spans from the call for applications to the final filling of vacancies.
- Eligibility criteria cannot be changed once the recruitment process has begun unless allowed by the original rules.
- Recruitment rules must meet constitutional standards of equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination in public employment (Article 16).
- A candidate’s placement on a select list does not guarantee employment.
- The K Manjusree judgment remains valid and is not undermined by the Marwaha ruling.
Therefore, in conclusion, it would only be apt to cite a line from the United Nations Handbook Of Civil Service Laws And Practices, which Supreme Court Justice: Manoj Misra, J. quoted in his judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Versus Rajasthan High Court & Ors. 2024 Insc 847:
“The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness”.
