The government’s lateral entry scheme, which was designed to bring fresh talent into the bureaucracy by hiring joint secretaries on a contractual basis, has faced several hurdles since its inception.
Despite 63 appointments made under the scheme since 2019, the future of the initiative remains uncertain due to both political opposition and legal challenges.
While the political opposition, particularly from certain parties and their allies, raised concerns about the lack of quotas in the scheme, it is the legal battle that has delayed its progression, awaiting resolution for almost five years.
The legal saga began in February 2020 when Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service officer, filed a case against the scheme. He argued that the scheme lacked legal validity and did not adhere to procedural norms.
Chaturvedi filed the challenge before the Nainital Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), claiming that the scheme went against established legal principles. This legal challenge set the stage for what would become a prolonged legal battle.
The delay in the case further intensified when the government sought to transfer the matter to Delhi, citing the nationwide significance of the case. This request was granted in December 2020 by the CAT, and the case was moved to the Uttarakhand High Court (HC) for review.
However, in February 2021, the Chairman of the CAT, Justice L Narasimha Reddy, along with a judicial member, recused themselves from hearing the case, causing further delays. The CAT in Delhi then put the case on hold, awaiting the decision of the Uttarakhand HC.
In October 2021, the Uttarakhand HC ruled that the case should not be transferred to Delhi, prompting the Centre to challenge this decision in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in February 2022, stayed the HC’s order and later referred the case to a larger bench in March 2023 due to the case's public importance.
However, it wasn’t until July 2023 that the Supreme Court finally constituted a three-judge bench to hear the matter. Despite this, six months have passed, and the case has yet to be heard.
In reviewing the case, several key arguments have emerged. The applicant, Chaturvedi, argues that the lateral entry scheme contradicts the Constitution’s framework of permanent civil services.
Several Supreme Court rulings have highlighted that contractual appointments to permanent posts undermine the constitutional provisions of recruitment and tenure for civil services.
According to Article 309 of the Constitution, recruitment for central government positions must be conducted through an Act of Parliament or under statutory rules, neither of which were in place for the lateral entry scheme.
In response, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) defended the scheme by citing Article 310 of the Constitution, which grants the President the power to appoint individuals with special qualifications to any post, including those at the joint secretary level.
However, Chaturvedi countered that this power should not extend to large-scale recruitment.
Another concern raised by Chaturvedi relates to the potential conflict of interest that could arise from hiring candidates from the private sector for government roles.
He argued that such appointments could lead to candidates returning to their previous jobs after a short tenure, potentially undermining the government's confidentiality and exposing it to risks of conflicts of interest.
The applicant also pointed out that there were no robust verification procedures in place to ensure the credentials and integrity of candidates applying for these positions, unlike the rigorous checks that government officers undergo.
Additionally, Chaturvedi questioned the justification for the lateral entry scheme, especially since there were already plenty of qualified candidates within the existing pool of empanelled officers.
The DoPT had reportedly highlighted in 2017 that, on average, for every vacancy at the joint secretary level, there were 18 applications from empanelled officers, raising doubts about the need for external recruitment.
Follow us
