Avinash Azad
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s recent decision upholding the termination of three officials from the Handicrafts Department has reignited a stormy debate that has haunted the Union Territory for over three decades: the cancer of “backdoor appointments.” Since the 1990s, thousands have entered government service through irregular and illegal means — ad hoc, need-based, or temporary routes, facilitated by political or bureaucratic patronage. The latest ruling, while limited to one case, has re-energised public calls for a sweeping probe that goes far beyond individual petitioners and nullifies every such appointment masquerading as “service.”
The contrast at the heart of this battle is glaring. On one side, thousands of backdoor recruits were not only retained but steadily promoted, securing plum postings from junior positions to senior ranks such as Special Secretary and Superintending Engineer. Many of these appointees, initially engaged through irregular routes, were later inducted into the KAS, some even elevated to the IAS, and eventually retired as Commissioner Secretaries and Principal Secretaries — despite their entry itself being tainted by illegality.
On the other side stand thousands of daily wagers — men and women who have toiled for decades on paltry wages, demanding regularisation. Many have retired without benefits, and countless others have died waiting, their families left adrift. Yet, the system appears to bend over backwards to protect the illegitimate while showing indifference to those who carried the weight of public work without dignity or security.
A Judgment That Could Shape the Future: The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal recently dismissed the appeals of three employees accused of securing their positions through forged appointment letters and a fake selection list dated March 15, 2018. Acting on a Crime Branch probe (FIR No. 29/2021), the Administrative Department cancelled the appointments and ordered recovery of salaries fraudulently drawn. Rejecting the employees’ plea for a hearing, the Bench cut to the heart of the matter: when an appointment is obtained on a forged or fabricated list, no employer–employee relationship exists in law. “Such an appointment is illegal from inception,” the judges ruled, “and therefore, the question of hearing does not arise.”
Many see this pronouncement as a watershed — a judicial precedent broad enough to challenge the very foundation on which thousands of backdoor appointments survive.
Decades of Patronage, Decades of Injustice: Since the early 1990s, backdoor appointments have functioned as an open secret, a tool for rewarding loyalty and influence. Irregular entrants were slipped into departments, later regularised quietly, and eventually retired with full pensionary benefits. Some reached the highest echelons of power. This sustained malpractice robbed deserving candidates of fair opportunities, drained the state exchequer, and created a hierarchy built not on merit but manipulation. Meanwhile, daily wagers who formed the backbone of civic and departmental work were kept hanging, their service treated as expendable. Their protests — some entering their third decade — have been met with broken assurances. The injustice cuts sharply: those who gamed the system enjoy security, while those who kept the system running survive on daily hope and little else.
Public Distrust and Political Silence: Successive governments have acknowledged the rot but stopped short of decisive action. Probes were ordered, files piled up, inquiries fizzled out. Political patronage shielded beneficiaries, while administrative inertia ensured no large-scale clean-up ever took place. “This is not just corruption; it is daylight robbery of the rights of educated youth,” remarked a senior officer, contrasting his service with that of a colleague who, despite being a backdoor entrant, now holds the position of Additional Secretary.
Civil society voices echo this outrage, asking why governments consistently ignored a festering wound that eroded governance and destroyed young people’s faith in the system. For aspirants who slog through competitive examinations, the perception that jobs were distributed through influence has been demoralising and alienating. This distrust, experts warn, fuels frustration and restiveness in an already fragile society.
A Call for a Clean Sweep: Legal experts argue that the time is ripe for the courts to move decisively. The High Court’s recent stand establishes a principle that illegality remains illegality — even decades later. Observers suggest that a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) or CAG-led audit should comb through all departmental records since 1990, forcing transparency by making recruitment data public. Every illegal appointment, they argue, should not only be invalidated but also subjected to recovery of state funds misused. Simultaneously, a humane resolution for daily wagers has become urgent. Justice demands that those who have devoted their lives on insecure terms must be provided stability through a transparent and time-bound regularisation policy. Without that, the system will only deepen the gulf between the privileged few and the exploited majority.
Justice Delayed, But Not Denied? For many in Jammu and Kashmir, the demand is plain: extend the principle behind the recent ruling from singular cases to the entire matrix of backdoor entries over the last three decades. Declare them void, recover public money, and restore credibility to governance. Whether the High Court will rise to this call remains a matter of watchful anticipation, but public sentiment is converging on the belief that only the judiciary has the authority — and now the moral obligation — to deliver.
For daily wagers waiting on the streets, this fight has never been about charity but dignity. For educated youth excluded by nepotism, it is about equality before law. For the government itself, it is about rescuing institutions from rot and restoring trust. The High Court’s ruling may well be the spark. What comes next will decide whether Jammu and Kashmir chooses fairness over favour, law over influence, and justice over delay — finally breaking the stranglehold of backdoor appointments that has long mocked the idea of meritocracy.
