There’s a subtle but crucial difference between backdoor appointments and irregular appointments in public service. In backdoor appointments, individuals have no prior legal claim to the job and are not on the payroll before their official appointment.
In contrast, irregular appointments via regularisation involve individuals already serving—often as daily wagers or contractual employees—who are already drawing salaries and possess certain legal rights under labor and service laws.
Regularisation typically falls into two categories:
First, when it is against a sanctioned post—meaning a permanent position officially recognized by the government. When the occupant leaves, the post remains and must be filled again.
Second, when it is against temporarily created posts, often sanctioned by administrative authorities to meet immediate needs. These posts cease to exist once the occupant leaves.
In the context of Nagaland, many government employees—both past and present—have been appointed through regularisation or by bypassing established recruitment procedures.
A closer examination would reveal that many of us—including myself—are indirect beneficiaries of this system. My own parents were appointed to clerical positions in the government without undergoing a formal recruitment process.
This phenomenon has historical roots. During the early years of statehood, vacancies often outnumbered qualified individuals. Stories abound of officers actively seeking people to employ, and of individuals having the luxury to choose among job offers. This urgency, born out of necessity, may have inadvertently laid the foundation for practices that later became normalized.
Statements by apex organizations during past and present disputes suggest a desire for an amicable and pragmatic solution. However, recent protests—including the use of coffins as symbols and the demonization of a few individuals—were below the belt and unbecoming of the spirit of reform.
Regularisation is not unique to Nagaland. Across India, over the past two decades, the services of lakhs of individuals have been regularised.
There is judicial rationale behind this: the government, as an employer, cannot exploit the prime years of a worker’s life and then discard or underpay them. The Honourable Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have delivered significant judgments affirming this principle.
Download Nagaland Tribune app on Google Play
Yet, while judicial interventions offer relief, they are no substitute for systemic reform. The root of the problem lies in the absence of structured manpower planning and transparent recruitment policies.
To address this, the government must take decisive steps:
- Notify sanctioned posts for every public office—from grassroots institutions to the Secretariat.
- Issue gazette notifications prescribing recruitment rules for every post, including temporary and contractual positions.
Without these structural measures, the cycle of backdoor entries, irregular recruitments, and resulting unrest will continue. And however idealistic one may try to be during protests, a deeper look may reveal that many of us may have benefited from irregularities in appointments—making our outrage, at times, hypocritical.
Systemic reform, not selective outrage, is the true path forward. And the onus is on the government in power!
