- (1.) The framers of the Constitution, in the Preamble to the Constitution, guaranteed to secure its citizens justice, social, economic and political as well as equality of status and opportunity but the 'right to employment' was not incorporated in Part III of the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. By judicial pronouncements, the courts expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and included various facets of life as rights protected under the said Article despite the fact that they had not been incorporated by specific language in Part III by the framers of the Constitution. Judgments of this Court in the cases of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 3 SCC 545 and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 460 expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that 'right to livelihood' is integral part of the 'right to life'. Taking cognizance of the stark reality that majority of the Indian population (about 76%) is residing in rural areas and unemployment was the greatest challenge before any State or the Central Government, the Parliament decided to enact a law to provide rural employment to restricted persons as stated in such law. This resulted in enactment of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'). As per the preamble of the Act, it was an enactment to provide for enhancement of livelihood security of households in the rural areas of the country by providing at least hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Even the object and reasons of this enactment demonstrate that objective of the legislation is to enhance the livelihood security of the poor households in rural areas and the Government including the State Government was required to prepare a scheme to give effect to the guarantee proposed under the legislation. Another paramount feature of the Act was that if an eligible applicant is not provided work as per the provisions of this legislation within the prescribed time limit, it will be obligatory on the part of the State Government to pay unemployment allowance at the prescribed rate. This Act was to extend to whole of India and was to come into force on such date as the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette may appoint. This Act was later amended by Amending Act 46 of 2009 (w.e.f. October 2, 2009) and titled as 'Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005'.
(2.) A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1, while dealing with the question that the persons appointed under the provisions of the Act would be entitled to regular appointment, rejected the claim of the Respondents for regularisation and made certain significant observations which read as under: 51. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution would include the right to employment cannot also be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the instance of the employees before us would lead to the consequence of depriving a large number of other aspirants of an opportunity to compete for the post or employment. Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the backdoor. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the courts recognise that an appointment to a post in government service or in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper selection in the manner recognised by the relevant legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of individualising justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few who are before the court. The directive principles of State policy have also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument based on Article 21 of the Constitution.
(3.) Thus, in the present petition, this Court has to examine the relief claimed within the provisions of the Act and the principles of law stated by the Court in the referred judgments.;