DINESH KUMAR DADDICH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1, vide order dated 1. 9. 1993, after superseding the order dated 29. 1. 1990 directed that the procedure for appointment in all Government Offices/semi- Government Offices/establishments in Public Sector, which was prevalent before 29. 1. 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 11. 5. 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 III, in pursuance to the advertisement published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 11. 5. 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 in any 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 Services 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 and as such are valid. IN support of his arguments, counsel for the respondents relied on the judgments reported in Union of INdia vs. N. Hargopal (1), Narasimhamurthi (M. C.) vs. Director Collegiate Education (2), N. Haragopal vs. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (3) and G. Ramesh vs. Deputy Director