JAGDISH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the decision of the respondents to recruit Teachers/Laboratory Assistants/Librarians/Physical Training Instructors for the year 1995-96 through Employment Exchange is under challenge.

(2.) The petitioners came to know through an advertisement issued by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner for the posts of Teachers/Laboratory Assistants/Labrarians/Physical Training Instructors for the year 1995-96, that the posts of Teachers in general category would be filled in from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges alone. This decision has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the recruitment to aforesaid posts, is governed by the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) and therefore a method of recruitment which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Rules cannot be adopted. It is also contended that the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 only requires Notification of vacancies and does not provide for sponsoring of candidates for employment by Employment Exchange and does not make it obligatory for the employer to employ only those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. It is further contended that requiring compulsory registration with the Employment Exchange and getting sponsored through the Employment Exchange as a condition to recruit violates the candidate's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as there is no rational basis for distinguishing a case of a candidate who has applied through the Employment Exchange and the one who has applied directly. It is also argued that the registration with the Employment Exchange being at the District level and as the recruitment is being done at the District level, candidates will be sponsored only district-wise, which will result in introduction of a residential qualification for employment and all the posts in the Districts would be reserved for residents of that particular district alone. It is also contended that the policy adopted would provide for different procedure for recruitment, one for the reserved category and the other for the general category which would be arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners also contend that as there are no guidelines, statutory or otherwise, laying down the procedure for sponsoring the candidaters by the Employment Exchanges, there will be no uniformity in the procedure followed by the different Employment Exchanges. The sponsorship is therefore bound to be not on a rational and uniform basis but would be arbitrary. The policy would virtually convert the Employment Exchanges into the selectors.

(3.) The respondents on the other hand have taken a stand that the procedure adopted was not against the Recruitment Rules as Rule 16 of the Rules provides for inviting applications by the Commission or the appointing authority by publication in the Rajasthan Gazette or any other method which is considered proper. It was contended that the Government has decided the method of appointing candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges which was perfectly within its power under the aforesaid Rule. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. N. Hargopal and others (1987)(3) S.C.C. 308), the Government has power to direct that the vacancies in its departments may be filled through Employment Exchanges and such a direction would not be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was further contended that in the past it had become almost impossible for the respondents to complete the procedure of recruitment by advertising posts in the Rajasthan Gazette within time as thousands of applications were received for even a smaller number of vacancies and it became difficult to consider all the eligible candidates and select the best amongst them. In order to curtail the number of candidates, the procedure of considering candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges alone was adopted. It was also contended that there was nothing arbitrary or unfair in the procedure being adopted.