CHINMOY PATHAK Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge which reads as under :

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same has been passed at the first hearing of the matter. We are of the considered opinion, that the aforesaid order cannot be sustained on the simple ground that the order finally disposing of a writ petition must be a speaking order. Such an order can only be passed after hearing the Counsel for all the affected parties. In normal circumstances it ought to be made-only after the parties have been given an opportunity to place on record their respective cases by way of affidavit, written statement or otherwise. On numerous occasions the Supreme Court has observed that short cryptic orders disposing of the writ petitions are not appropriate for disposing of the matters finally. In our opinion, this appeal cannot be disposed of finally at this stage as a large number of writ petitions have been disposed of and are being disposed of by this Court relying on a special Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Mahata vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. In our opinion, the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the proposition that as soon as an individual files a writ petition and claims that he has not been considered, as his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange would automatically be entitled to the order that he be interviewed along with the sponsored candidates. Such a direction would be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution as well as the law laid down by the supreme Court in a catena of judgments. The Supreme Court has categorically laid down in the case of Arun Kumar Nayek vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2006 (8) SCC 111 that advertisement for vacancies in a newspaper having wider circulation, announcement on Radio, Television and Employment newspaper bulletins are essential requirements for filling up vacancies on government posts as well as posts in Government instrumentality such as boards, Corporations and Co-operative Societies etc. Employment in a school would certainly fall within the definition of 'public employment'. Such employment cannot be limited only to candidates who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The relevant observations in paragraph 9 of the said judgment are as under :

(3.) SIMILAR observations have been made in the case of Excise Superintendent, malkapatnam, Krishna District, A. P. vs. K. B. N, Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216. In paragraph 6 of the judgment it has been observed as follows :