M RAJI REDDY Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER APSEB WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the relief sought for is to direct the 1st respondent to interview the petitioner for the post of Helper. But, there is one impediment i.e., sponsoring of petitioners name.by the 2nd respondent. It Is submitted by the petitioner that he has registered his name with the Employment exchange on 22-2-85. As on that date the petitioner had just become major and eight years have passed since the registration of his name In the Employment Exchange and now to say that he is over-aged because of over 25 years of age and his name cannot be sponsored, will be atrocious and highly arbitrary.

(2.) The procedure in employment exchange needs a radical change. What was felt as reasonable years back cannot hold good in the present times owing to the growing needs of employment to eke-out livelihood. It is needless to mention that having regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy, as also the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the constitution everybody is entitled to seek for employment according to the qualifications prescribed. To avoid the arbitrariness and nepotism, nodoubt, it is true that regulation of interviewing of candidates qua employment exchange by sponsoring is a welcome measure, but the said salutary method should not work out as hardship to the employment seeking aspirants and should not be detrimental to their interests. The case, on hand is a glaring example of such arbitrariness and unreasonableness for the reason that even though the petitioner, soon after his attaining of majority and unable to prosecute his studies any further because of economic weakness has registered his name with employment exchange, even after 8 years, the same did not fructify and the 1st respondent would not consider the petitioners plea unless his name is sponsored by the employment exchange i.e., the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent would plead that the seniority of the petitioner is yet to come and by the time it comes, the petitioner would be over-aged. In fact, that is the plea which is taken by the counsel far A.P. Electricity Board., i.e., the 1st respondent herein. If they were to be allowed, instead of doing good, sponsorship through employment exchange condition would nullify the very object of the same thereby violating the most precious and cherished right to life which is guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India and is also bad on the touch stone of Art.14 of the Constitution being unjust, arbitrary, and most unreasonable. As such, it is now time to sponsor more number of candidates for a post instead of 1:3 or 1:6 to more ratio and if it is not possible to do the same, the age of the person registering with employment exchange subject to its renewal promptly without break, shall be frozen as on the date of his registration with the concerned employment exchange.

(3.) In view of what is stated supra, I am constrained to compel the 2nd respondent to sponsor the candidature of the petitioner for consideration by the 1st respondent.