http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENTMALKAPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT,ANDHR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)676

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special  leave arise  from the  order dated April  21, 1992  of the  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in  O.A.No.9501/91 and batch. The admitted position is that  the respondents  were  not  sponsored  through  the employment exchange for selection to the 723 posts sought to be filed up from the candidates sponsored through the medium of  employment   exchange.  The   respondents  independently applied for  consideration of their claims but they ware not considered. Consequently,  they approached  the Tribunal and sought direction  for their  appointment. Interim directions were issued  to consider  their cases  and  to  appoint,  if selected by the selected authority. Though the Tribunal held that sponsorship  of the  candidates through  the medium  of employment exchange  was valid end not violative of Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution, Since many of the candidates came to  be selected  in terms  of  the  interim  direction, orders were issued to appoint the selected candidates. There is a  difference of  opinion Sn  this  behalf.  Whereas  The majority of  two members  held that  it is  not violative of Articles 14  and 16  of the  Constitution, the minority view was that  it was  violative. Thus,  these appeals by special leave.      This Court  in Union  of India & Ors. Vs. N. Hargopal & Ors. [(1987)  3 SCC  308] noted  the contention  of  counsel appearing  for   respondents  therein   that  excluding  the candidates  who   were  not   sponsored  through  medium  of employment exchange  and restricting the choice of selection to the candidates sponsored through the medium of employment exchange, would  offend the  equality clause  of Articles 14 and land  held that the contention was attractive and it was not open  to the  Government to  impose restriction  on  the field of choice. But in view of the fact that even the paper

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

publication would  not reach many a handicapped who would be unable to have access to the newspaper, it was held that the sponsorship through  the medium of employment exchange would not violate  Articles 14 and 16. On the other hand, it would advance the  rights to  the handicapped imposed by the state and  central  Governments  to  consider  the  cases  of  the candidates  through  medium  of  employment  exchange  while holding that  such a  restriction was  not  intended  to  be applicable to  the private  employment as  held in para 6 of the judgment.      Shri Ram  Kumar learned counsel for the state contended that in  view of  the above decision the direction issued by the Tribunal  is not  in accordance  with law. On the other, S/Shri Shanti  Swarup and L.R.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the  respondents, contended  that the restriction of the field of choice to the selected candidates sponsored through the medium  of employment  exchange prohibits  sponsored the right to  be considered  for employment  to a post under the state and  many people  cannot reach the employment exchange to get  their names  sponsored fair  means and  procedure to send the  names strictly  according to  seniority  in  their record. So  the better  course would  be to  adopt both  the mediums viz  of employment  exchange and  publication in the newspaper as that would subserve the public purpose.      Having regard  to the respective contentions, we are of the  view   that  contention  of  the  respondents  is  more acceptable which  would be consistent with the principles of fair play,  justice and  equal  opportunity.  It  is  common knowledge that  many a  candidates are  unable to  have  the manes 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 of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the  employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving  candidate are  deprived  of  the  right  to  be considered for appointment to a post under the state. Better view appears  to be  that it  should be  mandatory   for the requisitioning Departments  for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation as per requisition. In addition the appropriate  Department or  undertaking or establishment should call  for the  manes 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.  The  equality  of opportunity in  the matter  of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.      The appeals  are accordingly  disposed of.  No case  is made out  to disturb  the directions  issued by the tribunal for appointment  of the  selected candidates. Therefore, the directions survive. No costs.