DINESH KUMAR DADDICH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1, vide order dated September 1, 1993, after superseding the order dated January 29, 1990 directed that the procedure for appointment in all Government Offices/ Semi-Government Offices/ Establishments in Public Sector, which was prevalent before January 29, 1990 i. e. to invite list of candidates for selection, will continue to apply. The said order will not apply for the appointments to be made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or for which examinations are held and to the promotions. Later on Respondent No. 2, vide its Notification dated May 11, 1995, invited list of candidates for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-II and Teacher Grade-III, from the concerned District Employment Exchanges/district Sainik Boards. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by petitioners on the ground that they are contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules' ). The petitioners have prayed that respondents be directed to consider their candidature for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-Ill, in pursuance to the advertisement published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated May 11, 1995, marked as Annexure-1.

(2.) IN reply to the Writ Petition, the respondents have stated that the Parliament has enacted the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959' ). Section 4 of the Act of 1959 provides that after the commencement of the said Act in any State or area thereof, the employer in every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up any vacancy to such employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed. Counsel for respondents further submits that the Central Government has made National Employment Service Manual, which provides that the existing vacancies should be cleared through Employment Exchanges. His submission is that the aforesaid orders were issued in pursuance of the policy framed by the Central Government as mentioned above as such are valid. In support of his arguments, counsel for the respondents relied on the judgments reported in (1987-I-LLJ-545) (SC), Union of India v. N. Haragopal (1986-II-LLJ278) (AP), Narasimhamurthi (M. C.) v. Director of Collegiate Education (1967-II-LLJ-606) (Mys.), N. Haragopal v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and 1992 (3) SLR 647 G. Ramesh v. Deputy Director.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that Section 4 of the Act of 1959 speaks that the vacancies should be notified to the Employment Exchanges. It does not mean that the list of candidates be invited from the Employment Exchanges. His further submission is that the policy framed by the Central Government is not applicable in the present case and if the Central Government has framed any policy, the same is contrary to the Rules. He further submits that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1995 Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan connected writ petitions decided on July 18, 1995.