STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent had filed a petition challenging not consideration of his candidature for the post of Physical Training Instructor. THE respondent had applied in response to an advertisement dated 20. 5. 91 Annex. 1 to the petition. As per the advertisement applications had to be sent through Distt. Employment Officer, Jodhpur. It was also stipulated in the advertisement that candidates registered with the Employment Exchange, Jodhpur could also directly apply to the Distt. Education Officer enclosing an attested copy of the Registration Card issued to them by the Employment Exchange. THE respondent applied enclosing attested copy of the Registration Card issued to him by the Employment Exchange, Jodhpur. However, his candidature was not considered valid because on verification by the Distt. Education Officer from Employment Exchange it turned out that the respondent's registration was cancelled and on the date of the application he was not registered with the Employment Exchange.

(2.) THE respondent contended in the petition that exclusion of his candidature only on the ground that the list forwarded by the Employment Exchange did not contain his name was illegal being based on irrelevant consideration. It was also submitted that restricting the candidature to only those who applied through Employment Exchange or who are registered with the Employment Exchange. Itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the respondent had no notice of the Employment Exchange cancelling his registration. THE petitioner had also impleaded the Employment Officer as respondent No. 4 after coming to know through the reply filed on behalf of the State the reason for exclusion of his candidature to be cancellation of his registration by the Employment Exchange. THE Employment Officer did not appear before the Court despite notice.

(3.) THE second case relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is Arun Tewari's case (Supra), in which Union of India vs. N. Hargopal (Supra) as also Excise Supdt. , Malkapatanam vs. K. B. N. Vishweshwara Rao were noted. But one of the contrary views expressed in the decisions was not taken. THE learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the view expressed in Excise Supdt. Malkapatnam vs. K. B. N. Vishweshwara Rao was binding on this Court being the view expressed by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court. In paragraph 4 of the decision in this case the decision in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal was referred to. In paragraph 6 of the decision it was observed that the contention that the restriction of the field of choise to the selected candidates sponsored through the medium of Employment Exchange prohibits the rights to be considered for employment to the post under the State and many people cannot reach the Employment Exchange to get their names sponsored and the Employment Exchanges are not adopting fair means and procedure to send the names strictly according to seniority in their record and therefore the better course would be to adopt both the madicums viz. of Employment Exchange and publication in the Newspaper as that would subserve the public purpose better and would be more acceptable being consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It was further observed that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the Employment Exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Under these circumstances many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. It was then observed that the better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the Requisitioning Authority/ Establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the Requisitioning Deptts. for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or Undertaking or Establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office Notice Boards or announce on Radio, Television and Employment News Bulletins and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted fair play would be subserved and the quality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.