CH VENKATESWAR RAO Vs. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case the facts of which though touched the compassion of the court, the court does not find a legally permissible out-let to grant any relief to the petitioner. In deciding a hard case, the court should not lay down a bad law. Unemployment seems to have become a perpetual curse for the unemployed youth. It is quite startling that the petitioner who registered his name with the first respondent District Employment Officer as far back as on 5-4-1978 was not sponsored not even once for any appointment to any post till date. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that thousands of unemployed youth who have registered with the employment exchanges have approached and are approaching this court making complaint that despite lapse of a decade or more after the registration, their names are not sponsored by the employment exchanges for any post for any appointment. Understandably, the frustration is slowly creeping in the minds of the youth. It is very alarming and dangerous trend. Frustration breeds contempt; contempt in turn breeds disaffection for the Rule of Law. There is an extreme urgency to revert this trend This situation reflects the magnitude of unemployment in the State. The situation should draw the attention of the socio-economic planners of the State and some solution should be found for the existing malady in the labour market

(2.) The petitioner is an unemployed youth who has passed Secondary School Certificate examination in the year 1977 and he has registered his name with the first respondent District Employment Officer on 5-4-1978. The petitioner has averred in the affidavit in support of the writ petition that in Krishna district mere are number of Government offices and undertakings, and the respondents 2 and 3 are making appointments to the posts of Attenders and other posts. The petitioner has further averred that the respondents 2 and 3 who are appointing authorities consider only these candidates who are sponsored by the first respondent District Employment Officer. The petitioner has further averred that the first respondent District Employment Officer is refusing to sponsor the name of the petitioner for the post of Attender on the ground that the petitioner is age barred for the post According to the petitioner, the maximum age prescribed under the statutory regulations for the post of Attender is 34 years whereas the age of the petitioner is 35 years. In the background of these facts, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent District Employment Officer to sponsor his name for appointment to the post of Attender and further direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Attender.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inaction on the part of the first respondent-District Employment Officer in not sponsoring the name of the petitioner so far, as well as the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 who are the appointing authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Attender or any other equivalent post, is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of the submission, the learned counsel sought to place reliance on the decision of this court in M.Raji Reddy v. The superintending Engineer, APSEB Warangaland Anr. (1) 1994(1) APLJ 54.