There is a fixed procedure before appointment to any government job. Candidates pass the examination, their documents and character are verified and then appointment letter is issued.
The Uttar Pradesh government has issued a new order regarding the rules related to this process and questions are being raised regarding a provision of this order.
Seeing the question being raised, the government has also issued a clarification and said that the interpretation of this order in the media is misleading.
So what is there in this order and which provision of it are the opposition parties and student organizations calling unconstitutional?
In fact, M Devraj, Principal Secretary in the Uttar Pradesh Government, issued a 21-page order on October 28.
Under this, some guidelines were issued to check the character and background of the candidates before appointment to government jobs.
A provision of paragraph number four of this order states that if a person is a member of any organization whose declared objective is to change the existing system of society through violent means, then he can be considered ineligible for a government job.
The government has further added that the person should be 21 years of age.
Also, if he has taken part in any such activity within the last three years from the date of verification, then only the rules of this order will be applicable on him.
The order also says, "If concrete and positive evidence of change in his behavior during this period is available, then this presumption can be challenged."
BJP Rajya Sabha MP from Uttar Pradesh Ram Pratap Singh has welcomed this decision and said that similar action should be taken against those who spread anarchy in the country.
He said, “If you want to change power, then come to the elections.” If you win the elections, there will be a change of power, but if you want to change the power on the basis of hooliganism and anarchy, then it is not going to happen.
What are the opposition parties saying?
Meanwhile, former Chief Minister and Samajwadi Party President Akhilesh Yadav has taken a dig at the government's decision and said, "Those who are making such laws are themselves going to be unemployed soon."
His party spokesperson Udayveer has compared the government's decision with the rules of the British rule.
He says, "It is a constitutional right to protest in a democracy. How can demanding change of power and changing the system through violence be one thing?"
Congress leader Aradhana Mona Mishra has also called this order "unconstitutional".
He said that this order should not affect the students who are protesting peacefully demanding education and jobs.
He said, "The Constitution of this country gives people the right to express their views, protest and demonstrate peacefully. Violating this right is unconstitutional. If someone makes an inflammatory statement or tries to create unrest, that is a different matter."
This order of the government has come at a time when major protests have been recorded in different parts of the country in the last three months.
Students have been seen participating enthusiastically in these demonstrations. Cases of FIR being registered against many of them have also come to light.
In such a situation, many people are seeing this order as an attempt to suppress the voice of protests.
Critics say that through such orders, the government wants to create fear among the youth and instill the fear in their minds that if they participate in any anti-government protest, they may have to lose their government jobs.
'Who will decide the difference between peaceful and violent protest?'
Anjali, who is studying LLB from Allahabad University, is also one of those who believe this. Anjali is also a student activist and is associated with a student organization named Disha.
She says, "The government may have said in the order to disqualify people involved in violent activities, but there is a fear that people involved in peaceful movements may also be targeted by terming them as violent."
Giving the example of the workers' demonstration in Noida, he alleged that by turning the peaceful protest into a violent one, serious legal action was taken against the workers, students and workers.
According to the student, this order is an attack on the constitutional right to express dissent and the youth should continue to raise their voice for their democratic rights.
All India People's Front (Radical) is a political platform that advocates socio-economic equality, struggle against exploitation and democratic rights.
Its Uttar Pradesh general secretary Dinkar Kapoor questions the government's order and asks, "Who will decide the difference between peaceful and violent protests?"
The government can file cases under serious sections against people involved in any movement and then deprive them of jobs by terming them involved in violent activities.
There is anger among the youth in UP due to paper leak, irregularities in recruitment and lack of new recruitments. The government should listen to their voices and not try to suppress them through action.
"Don't weigh crime and disagreement on the same scale."
Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) Lucknow University unit minister Shakti Singh said that there should be character verification in government jobs, but its process needs to be fair. He said there should be a clear distinction between political ideology, peaceful protest and violent activities.
If there is an adverse report against any candidate, he should be given full opportunity to present his case and a fair hearing.
According to him, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that injustice is not done to any youth and his years of hard work and future are not affected.
At the same time, Ashutosh Srivastava, president of Lucknow University unit of ABVP, said that there should be clear rules against serious criminal activities and those who challenge the system through violent means.
However, a student's political ideology, ideological dissent or peaceful movement should not be used as a basis for prejudice against him. He said, "Crime and disagreement should not be weighed on the same scale."
According to him, it is important to implement the rules in a transparent and fair manner, so that action is taken against the wrongdoers, but the future of innocent youth is not affected.
government clarification
However, amid questions being raised on the order, the Appointment Department of Uttar Pradesh has issued a clarification on October 29 saying that no candidate will be considered ineligible for a government job on the basis of political ideology. Therefore, it is misleading to call this provision a provision to prevent employment on the basis of political considerations.
Mention of organizations involved in violent activities
The government says, this provision is related to those organizations whose declared objective is to change the existing system of society through violent means. General political views, criticism of the government and peaceful democratic activities do not come within its scope.
The provision was already in force, clarified in the new order
The Appointment Department says that this rule was also present in the earlier government order. In compliance with the instructions of the High Court, the old provisions have been compiled together and placed in a more clear and systematic manner in the new order, so that they can be followed uniformly.
Three-year period and evidence of change in behavior also mentioned
According to the rules, participation in such activities in the last three years after the age of 21 can be considered evidence of active engagement. However, if there is concrete evidence of positive changes in the person's behavior during this period, then there is a provision to take them into consideration.
Why was the order needed?
According to the government, different government orders were issued between 1958 and 2021 regarding character and verification before appointment to government jobs.
In these orders, the process of verification, time limit and guidelines related to appointment were fixed. Now the government has compiled all these instructions at one place and made a consolidated policy, so that they can be followed uniformly in different departments.
In this process, two cases of Allahabad High Court have also been mentioned.
In the cases of Shailendra Kumar vs State Government and Anil Kumar Yadav vs State Government, the High Court had given instructions to make a new policy regarding police recruitment. Citing these instructions in the new mandate, the government has reorganized the verification process.
It has been clearly stated in the order that these guidelines will be effective from the date of issue and the already pending cases will also be settled on the basis of these.
That is, in the cases of candidates whose character verification is already going on, the categories of crimes, rules of ineligibility and exceptions prescribed in the new order will be kept in mind.
