Supreme Court Speaks on Job Scarcity: ‘More Candidates, Fewer Vacancies’

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu)- Regarding government jobs, the Supreme Court said that the number of people seeking government jobs in the country is much more than the available jobs. The court has canceled the Rajasthan High Court's order granting bail to two persons accused of 'tampering with the sanctity' of the civil recruitment examination.

It said that this act possibly affected many other people who had made honest efforts in the hope of getting a job. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said that such an act possibly reduces people's confidence in public administration and the executive. The bench said, 'The reality is that the number of people seeking government jobs in India is much more than the jobs available. Whatever the case may be, every job that has a clearly defined admission process with a prescribed examination and/or interview process should be filled only according to that.' The bench also said that complete honesty in the recruitment process creates confidence among the people in the fact that only the real claimants of certain posts have been appointed to such posts. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court gave its verdict on the appeals filed by the Rajasthan government challenging the order of the High Court of the state in May last year.

The High Court had granted bail to two accused in connection with an FIR lodged for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Rajasthan Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022. The FIR alleged that the accused had tampered with the 'sanctity' of the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Government Department) Competitive Examination-2022. The FIR claimed that in place of one of the candidates, another person allegedly appeared in the examination as a dummy candidate. It also alleged that the attendance sheet was tampered with and the photo of another person was affixed on the original admit card. In its judgment delivered on March 7, the Supreme Court noted that both the accused had earlier approached the trial court, which had rejected their respective bail pleas