Employment is often discussed as an economic statistic: the number of jobs created, the unemployment rate, the size of the workforce. But for an individual, employment is much more than a number.
It is income, dignity, independence, and a place in society.
That is why a recent Central Administrative Tribunal ruling concerning a candidate seeking an interview for an Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist position at Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-Kashmir deserves attention beyond the individual case.
The candidate’s application had been rejected because she failed to submit a printed copy of her online application and self-attested documents within the prescribed period. She subsequently submitted the documents before the interview.
The tribunal acknowledged the university’s concern about deadlines and fairness to other applicants. But it also asked the university to consider allowing her to participate, noting that appearing for an interview did not guarantee appointment.
More importantly, the bench described employment as “a form of national wealth” and stressed equality, transparency, equal opportunity and merit-based selection as fundamental principles governing public employment.
That observation deserves to become more than a judicial phrase.
In Jammu and Kashmir, where government employment carries enormous social and economic significance, the way vacancies are advertised, applications processed, candidates shortlisted and selections made can shape lives for decades.
A job is not simply a salary.
It can determine whether a young person remains economically dependent on a family, whether a household can afford education and healthcare, whether someone can marry or establish a home, and whether a highly educated person chooses to remain in the region or leave in search of opportunity.
This is why every loophole in recruitment matters.
Rules are necessary. Deadlines are necessary. Institutions cannot run credible recruitment processes if requirements are constantly relaxed for individual applicants.
But rules should serve the purpose of fair recruitment, not become traps that prevent otherwise qualified candidates from even being considered.
The distinction is important.
There is a difference between changing eligibility criteria after applications have been received and correcting a procedural omission that does not affect a candidate’s qualifications or give her an unfair advantage.
Government and public institutions need clearer frameworks for making that distinction.
The first requirement is transparency.
Every recruitment notice should state precisely which requirements are mandatory, which defects can be rectified and which omissions will lead to outright rejection. Candidates should not discover the consequences of a technical mistake only after the application window closes.
The second is digital simplicity.
If an application is submitted online, institutions should ask whether requiring a duplicate physical submission serves a genuine administrative purpose. Where paper documentation remains necessary, applicants should receive automated confirmation that their documents have been received and alerts when something is missing.
Technology should reduce uncertainty, not create another layer of bureaucracy.
The third is independent scrutiny.
Recruitment bodies should have mechanisms to review borderline cases before a candidate is excluded. Such review should not mean preferential treatment. It should mean applying the same clearly defined standards consistently.
The fourth is speed.
A recruitment process that takes years to conclude imposes its own punishment on candidates. Young people cannot indefinitely suspend their lives while waiting for a vacancy, examination, interview or court challenge to reach its conclusion.
Vacancies should be filled within defined timelines, and delays should require explanation.
There is also a larger employment question that cannot be solved through government recruitment alone.
The government simply cannot employ every educated young person.
The answer must therefore include a much larger private-sector and entrepreneurial economy.
Jammu and Kashmir needs policies that make it easier for businesses to start, expand and hire locally. Tourism, agriculture, horticulture, food processing, handicrafts, technology, renewable energy, healthcare and education all offer possibilities, but they require infrastructure, credit, skills and predictable regulation.
The government should measure employment programmes not by the amount of money announced but by the number of sustainable jobs actually created.
Training without employment is not enough.
Subsidised loans without viable markets are not enough.
Skill certificates without industry demand are not enough.
The ultimate test should be whether a young person can use those programmes to build a stable livelihood.
At the same time, public recruitment must remain a model of fairness.
If government institutions demand merit from applicants, they must demonstrate merit in their own selection processes.
That means transparent criteria, published marks where appropriate, credible grievance mechanisms, independent oversight, and consequences for manipulation.
The tribunal’s intervention in the SKUAST-K case is ultimately about more than whether one candidate should appear for one interview.
It is about the principle that opportunity should not be lost through arbitrary processes, while fairness to every other candidate must remain protected.
Those principles are not contradictory.
A strong recruitment system can uphold both.
Employment is indeed a form of national wealth because the real wealth of a society lies not only in its roads, buildings or budgets, but in the productive capacity of its people.
J&K has a large pool of educated, skilled and ambitious young people.
The government’s responsibility is not merely to tell them to work harder.
It is to ensure that the system gives them a fair chance to work.
A job is not a favour from the state. A fair opportunity to earn one is a measure of how well the state works.
About the Author
Moien Darial writes with the precision of an analyst and the sensitivity of a storyteller, exploring global economic shifts and emerging technologies.
