Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENTMALKAPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT,ANDHR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)676
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order
dated April 21, 1992 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal in O.A.No.9501/91 and batch. The admitted position
is that the respondents were not sponsored through the
employment exchange for selection to the 723 posts sought to
be filed up from the candidates sponsored through the medium
of employment exchange. The respondents independently
applied for consideration of their claims but they ware not
considered. Consequently, they approached the Tribunal and
sought direction for their appointment. Interim directions
were issued to consider their cases and to appoint, if
selected by the selected authority. Though the Tribunal held
that sponsorship of the candidates through the medium of
employment exchange was valid end not violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution, Since many of the candidates
came to be selected in terms of the interim direction,
orders were issued to appoint the selected candidates. There
is a difference of opinion Sn this behalf. Whereas The
majority of two members held that it is not violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the minority view
was that it was violative. Thus, these appeals by special
leave.
This Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. N. Hargopal &
Ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 308] noted the contention of counsel
appearing for respondents therein that excluding the
candidates who were not sponsored through medium of
employment exchange and restricting the choice of selection
to the candidates sponsored through the medium of employment
exchange, would offend the equality clause of Articles 14
and land held that the contention was attractive and it was
not open to the Government to impose restriction on the
field of choice. But in view of the fact that even the paper
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
publication would not reach many a handicapped who would be
unable to have access to the newspaper, it was held that the
sponsorship through the medium of employment exchange would
not violate Articles 14 and 16. On the other hand, it would
advance the rights to the handicapped imposed by the state
and central Governments to consider the cases of the
candidates through medium of employment exchange while
holding that such a restriction was not intended to be
applicable to the private employment as held in para 6 of
the judgment.
Shri Ram Kumar learned counsel for the state contended
that in view of the above decision the direction issued by
the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. On the other,
S/Shri Shanti Swarup and L.R.Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, contended that the restriction of the
field of choice to the selected candidates sponsored through
the medium of employment exchange prohibits sponsored the
right to be considered for employment to a post under the
state and many people cannot reach the employment exchange
to get their names sponsored fair means and procedure to
send the names strictly according to seniority in their
record. So the better course would be to adopt both the
mediums viz of employment exchange and publication in the
newspaper as that would subserve the public purpose.
Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of
the view that contention of the respondents is more
acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of
fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common
knowledge that many a candidates are unable to have the
manes sponsored, though their names are either registered or
are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange with
the result that the choice of selection is restricted to
only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored
by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many
a deserving candidate are deprived of the right to be
considered for appointment to a post under the state. Better
view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the
requisitioning Departments for selection strictly according
to seniority and reservation as per requisition. In addition
the appropriate Department or undertaking or establishment
should call for the manes by publication in the newspapers
having wider circulation and also display on their office
notice boards or announce on radio, television and
employment news-bulletins: and then consider the cases of
all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is
adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of
opportunity in the matter of employment would be available
to all eligible candidates.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No case is
made out to disturb the directions issued by the tribunal
for appointment of the selected candidates. Therefore, the
directions survive. No costs.