http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N. HARGOPAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/04/1987

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1227            1987 SCR  (2) 911  1987 SCC  (3) 308        JT 1987 (2)   182  1987 SCALE  (1)753  CITATOR INFO :  D          1988 SC1369  (14)  RF         1992 SC2130  (5)

ACT: Service Law.     Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of  Vacan- cies)  Act,  1959:  Ss. 2(e), (f)  and  4--Establishment  in public sector/private sector--Whether bound to appoint  only persons  sponsored by employment exchanges--Statute  whether covers government departments.     Constitution  of  India, Arts. 14 &  16:  Insistence  on recruitment  through employment  exchanges--Whether  offends equality clause.

HEADNOTE:     Sub-section  (1)  of s. 4 of  the  Employment  Exchanges (Compulsory  Notification of Vacancies) Act,  1959  requires every  establishment in public sector to notify  vacancy  in any  employment to the employment exchange. Sub-section  (2) lays down similar requirement in respect of every establish- ment  in  private sector, while sub-s. (4)  lays  down  that nothing in sub-ss. (1) and (2) shall be deemed to impose any obligation  upon any employer to recruit any person  through the employment exchanges to fill any vacancy merely  because that  vacancy has been notified. An ’establishment’  is  de- fined in s. 2(e) of the Act to mean any office or any  place where any industry, trade, business or occupation is carried on,  an  ’establishment in public sector’in s.  2(f)  as  an establishment owned, controlled or managed by the Government or a Department of the Government, and an ’establishment  in private sector’ in s. 2(g) as an establishment which is  not an establishment in public sector.     Instructions issued by the Government of India from time to  time  enjoined   upon   employers--Central    Government offices,  quasiGovernment institutions and statutory organi- sations and establishments in the private sector to restrict their field of choice for vacancies to which the Act applied in the first instance, to candidates sponsored by employment exchanges.     A question arose as to whether an ’establishment in  the public sector’, or an ’establishment in the private sector’,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

as  defined in the Act, could make appointments to posts  to which the Act applies, of 911 persons  not  sponsored  by the  employment  exchanges,  and whether the Act covers Government establishments also.     The  High Court held that the Act had no application  to Government  establishments,  that  it  casts  no  obligation either on the public sector establishments or on the private sector  establishments  to make the appointment  from  among candidates  sponsored by the employment exchange  only,  and that any insistence that candidates sponsored by the employ- ment  exchanges alone should be appointed would be  contrary to the right guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the  Constitu- tion. Disposing of the Appeal of the Union of India, the Court,     HELD:  1. The High Court was wrong in holding  that  the Act was not applicable to Government establishments. If  the definition of ’establishment’ in s. 2(e). which includes  an ’office’,  is read alongside the s. 2(1’), it will be  clear that Government offices are also included in the  expression ’establishment in public sector’. [914E]     2.1  There is no provision in the Act which  obliges  an employer  to employ those persons only who have  been  spon- sored  by the employment exchanges. Section 4(4) of the  Act makes  it  explicitly clear that the employer  is  under  no obligation  to  recruit any person  through  the  employment exchanges  to fill in a vacancy merely because that  vacancy has  been notified under ss. 4(1) and 4(2).  The  compulsion extends only to notification of vacancies that may occur  in the establishment before filling them up. [915G-H; 916G]     2.2  The  object of the Act is not to restrict,  but  to enlarge the field of choice so that the employer may  choose the best and the most efficient and to provide an opportuni- ty  to the worker to have his claim for appointment  consid- ered  without having to knock at every door for  employment. [918B-C]     3.  The  Government is at perfect liberty to  issue  in- structions  to  its  own departments  and  organisations  to adhere  to  the  rule that not merely  vacancies  should  be notified  to  the  employment exchanges  but  the  vacancies should also be filled by candidates sponsored by the employ- ment exchanges, provided the instructions do not  contravene any  constitutional  provision  or any  statute.  But  these instructions  cannot bind other bodies which are created  by statute  and which function under the authority of  statute. In  the absence of any statutory presumption, the  statutory authority  may  adopt  and follow such  instructions  if  it thinks 912 fit.  Otherwise,  the Government may  not  compel  statutory bodies  appointment of persons from among  candidates  spon- sored by employment exchanges only. Private employers cannot be  so compelled by any instructions issued by  the  Govern- ment. [921C-E]     4. Any restriction that employment in Government Depart- ments  should be through the medium of employment  exchanges does  not  offend Arts. 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution.  In public  employment, it is necessary to eliminate  arbitrari- ness  and favouritism and introduce uniformity of  standards and  orderliness. There has to be an element  of  procedural fairness in the recruitment. A public employer cannot choose to  receive  applications for employment where and  when  he pleases and to make appointments as he likes. The insistence on  recruitment  through  employment  exchanges   therefore, advances  rather  than restricts the  rights  guaranteed  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Arts. 14 and 16. [922E; B-D]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9-15  of 1986 etc.     From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh  High  Court in W.P. Nos. 8120,  8121,  7932,  8095, 8032, 8107 and 8 109 of 1984.     B.  Datta, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao,  C.V. Subba Rao, R.P. Srivastava, B. Parthasarthi, K.V. Sreekumar, D.  Vidyanandam, M.K.D. Namboodary, T.V.S.N. Chaff,  Ms.  V. Grover, Ms. Anita, W.A. Qadri, A. Subba Rao, A.T.M. Sampath, R. Venkataramani, R.A, Perumal, S.M. Garg and S.  Markandeya for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The question raised in these appeals is  whether  an ’establishment in the public sector’  or  an ’establishment  in  the private sector’ as  defined  in  the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of  Vacancies) Act,  1959 may make appointments to posts to which  the  Act applies,  of  persons not sponsored by  the  Employment  Ex- changes?  A further question is whether the Act covers  Gov- ernment  establishments also? A Division Bench of  the  High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the Act has no  appli- cation  to Government establishments, that the Act casts  no obligation  either on the public sector establishment or  on the  private sector establishment to make  the  appointments from among candidates sponsored by the 913 Employment  Exchanges  only  and that  any  insistence  that candidates  sponsored  by  the  Employment  Exchanges  alone should  be appointed would be contrary to the right  guaran- teed  by  Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  The  learned Additional  Solicitor  General appearing for  the  Union  of India  argued that the object and the scheme of the  Employ- ment  Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of  Vacancies)  Act and the instructions issued by the Government of India  from time to time left no option to the employers but to  confine their field of choice to candidates sponsored by the Employ- ment  Exchanges.  It was argued that  such  insistence  that appointments should be made from candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges only did not offend Arts. 14 and 16  of the Constitution. He also argued that the Act was applicable to Government Establishments also.     We  may  refer to the provisions of the  Employment  Ex- changes  (Compulsory  Notification of Vacancies)  Act,  1959 without  further ado. The title of the Act  itself  suggests that  the compulsion is in regard to notifying of  vacancies only  and  nothing more. The preamble to the Act,  like  the title  of the Act, also does not ’suggest any compulsion  in the  making  of appointments, but only in the  notifying  of vacancies.  The  preamble says "An Act to  provide  for  the compulsory  notification  of  vacancies  to  employment  ex- changes." Section 2(e), (f) and (g) defines "establishment", "establishment  in  public  sector"  and  "establishment  in private sector" as follows:-               "(e) "establishment" means--               (a) any office, or               (b)  any  place  where  any  industry,  trade,               business or occupation is carried on;                     (f)  "establishment  in  public  sector"               means  an establishment owned,  controlled  or               managed by--

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

             (1)  the  government or a  department  of  the               Government;               (2) A Government company as defined in section               617 of the Companies Act, 1956;               (3)  A  corporation (including  a  cooperative               society)  established by or under  a               Central, Provincial or State               914               Act, which is owned, controlled or managed  by               the Government;               (4) A local authority;                    (g)  "establishment  in  private  sector"               means an establishment which is not an  estab-               lishment in public sector and where ordinarily               twenty-five  or more persons are  employed  to               work for remuneration;" The High Court thought that the definition of "establishment in  public sector" as meaning an establishment  owned,  con- trolled or managed by the Government or a Department of  the Government indicated that an establishment in public  sector was something different from the Government or a  Department of Government and did not include the Government or  Depart- ment  of the Government. It had to be something which  could be  owned,  controlled  or managed by the  Government  or  a department  of the Government. The High Court  also  thought that  the expression ’public sector’ was used in  contradic- tion  to  ’private  sector’ and that it  could  not  include offices of the Government. The expression would only take in an agency or instrumentality of the State, but not the State itself.  We are unable to agree with the conclusion  of  the High  Court on this part of the case. If the  definition  of ’establishment’ which includes an ’office’ is read alongside the definition of ’establishment in public sector’, it  will be  clear that Government offices are also included  in  the expression  ’establishment  in public sector’. That  is  the interpretation  which  the Government  itself  is  advancing before  us and that is how the Government has always  under- stood  the provision during these three decades as  will  be evident from the instructions issued by the Government  from time  to  time to which we shall be referring later  in  the course of our judgment. We are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the Act is not applicable to  Govern- ment establishments.     Section 3 of the Act specifies posts, vacancies to which the Act does not apply. Section 4 provides for the notifica- tion  of vacancies to employment exchanges. It is  desirable to extract the whole of sec. 4 which is as follows:-               "4. (1) After the commencement of this 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  establish-               ment,               915               notify  that  vacancy to such  employment  ex-               changes as may be prescribed.                         (2) The appropriate Government, may,               by  notification  in  the  Official   Gazette,               require  that from such date as may be  speci-               fied  in  the notification,  the  employer  in               every establishment in private sector or every               establishment  pertaining  to  any  class   or               category  of establishments in private  sector               shall,  before filling up any vacancy  in  any               employment  in that establishment notify  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             vacancy to such employment exchanges as may be               prescribed,  and the employer shall  thereupon               comply with such requisition.               (3) The manner in which the vacancies referred               to in subsection (1) or sub-section (2)  shall               be  notified to the employment  exchanges  and               the  particulars of employments in which  such               vacancies have occurred or are about to  occur               shall be such as may be prescribed.               (4) Nothing in sub-sections (1) and (2)  shall               be  deemed to impose any obligation  upon  any               employer  to  recruit any person  through  the               employment  exchanges  to  fill  any   vacancy               merely because that vacancy has been  notified               under any of the sub-sections." Section  5 deals with the duty of the employers  to  furnish information  and  returns  in prescribed  forms.  Section  6 provides  for  official  access to  records  and  documents. Section  7  provides  for penalties. Section  8  deals  with cognizance of offences. Section 9 provides for protection of action taken is good faith. Section 10 vests the rule making power in the Central Government.     It  is  evident that there is no provision  in  the  Act which  obliges an employer to make appointments through  the agency  of the Employment Exchanges. Far from it, sec.  4(4) of  the  Act, on the other hand, makes it  explicitly  clear that  the  employer is under no obligation  to  recruit  any person through the Employment Exchanges to fill in a vacancy merely  because  that vacancy has been notified  under  sec. 4(1) or sec. 4(2). In the face of sec. 4(4), we consider  it utterly futile for the learned Additional Solicitor  General to argue that the Act imposes any obligation on the  employ- ers  apart  from notifying the vacancies to  the  Employment Exchanges. The learned Additional Solicitor General  invited our attention to the speech of the Minister of Labour and 916 Employment and Planning (Shri Nanda) made at the time of the introduction of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notifi- cation of Vacancies) Bill. Far from being of any  assistance to  the learned Addititional Solicitor General,  the  speech appears  to  be against his submission. In his  speech,  the Minister quoted from the report of the Training and  Employ- ment  Services Organisation Committee and observed that  the recommendation  of the Committee offered a full  explanation of  the  provisions of the Bill. The recommendation  of  the Committee which he quoted was, "Though we have not, for  the present,  recommended  compulsion on  private  employers  to recruit through the employment exchanges, we recommend  that they  be  required on a compulsory basis to  notify  to  the Exchanges all vacancies, other than vacancies for  unskilled categories, vacancies of very temporary duration and  vacan- cies proposed to be filled through promotion." The  Minister further said, "The main thing is that an obligation is being placed  that after this legislation becomes operative,  from that date, the employer in every establishment in the public sector  shall, before filling up any vacancy in any  employ- ment  in  that establishment, notify that  vacancy  to  such Employment Exchanges as may be prescribed. And so far as the private sector is concerned, there is this further  qualifi- cation that the Government concern may specify by  notifica- tion  that  the employer in every establishment  in  private sector  or  every establishment pertaining to any  class  or category of establishments in private sectors shall,  before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that  establish- ment,  notify that vacancy to such Employment  Exchanges  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

may  be  prescribed. This is the kernel of  this  provision. This  is the main object, that is, an obligation  placed  on the employer to notify the vacancies that may occur in their establishment before filling these vacancies." The  Minister was conscious that there was a likelihood of the Bill  being misunderstood  as compelling the employers to make  appoint- ments  through the Employment Exchanges only.  He  clarified the  position  saying, "The misunderstanding is as  if  this Bill  gives power to the Government to compel the  employers to recruit only such persons as are submitted by the employ- ment exchanges. That is not so. This compulsion extends only to notification of vacancies. Naturally the employer has  to consider  the  names which are submitted by  the  employment exchanges but there is no compulsion that they must restrict to  the choice only to the least that is submitted to  them. Of  course, there is also the objection from the other  side that  it  may not go far enough. We believe that  even  this will  make  things very much better. In any case,  when  the Committee  reported, they also suggested this much  advance. At present, they said, we should have only compulsory  noti- fication, but, not compel the emp- 917 loyers to recruit only out of the least that is sent by  the employment exchanges."     As  we said the speech of the Minister, at the  time  of the introduction of the Bill, is totally destructive of  the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General  that the employers arc under an obligation to recruit persons for appointment  through  the  Employment  Exchanges  only.  The learned Additional Solicitor General requested us to give  a purposive  interpretation to the provisions of the  Act  and insist  that employers, in making appointments,  should  re- strict their field of choice to candidates sponsored by  the employment exchanges. We are unable to appreciate the  argu- ment  since there is no provision of the Act which  requires interpretation  by us and which we may reasonably  interpret as  compelling the employer to appoint persons sponsored  by the employment exchanges. On the other hand, we have already referred  to  sec. 4(4) which is explicit that there  is  no such obligation on the part of the employer. We also  notice that  the object of the Act is not to restrict the field  of choice in any particular manner, but to enlarge the field of choice. That is why in his introductory speech, the Minister said,"  .........  a large number of employers, particularly in  similar  industrial establishments and  in  construction works,  do not employ any scientific method, but depend  for their  supply of labour on agents or recruit in a  haphazard manner  from amongst these assembled at factory gates or  at works sites. The methods adopted are not always dictated  by a  consideration of efficient service, but as more a  matter of  bestowing patronage and favour. This applies in  varying degrees  to a large number of employers." The Minister  dis- cussed the existing position and anticipated position in the following words:-               "The  Act  of notification  of  vacancies  has               important consequences. In the first place, so               far  as the employer is concerned, he will  be               placed  in  a position to have  a  much  wider               choice for the purpose of selection. Now, what               is the present position? Any person knocks  at               the  gate of the factory or the mill or  other               establishment and from those few who are there               they choose. Now it would be possible for them               to  have a wider area of selection. The  names               of  so many others who may not be able  to  go

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             and knock at every gate, can be submitted  and               out of them, the best can be selected. So  far               as  the quoting of selection is concerned,  it               should  improve because of the wider range  of               choice. On the side of the worker certainly it               means a more equitable distribu-               918               tion  of employment opportunities.  It  should               not  be necessary for a person to be  all  the               day  moving from place to place. It should  be               sufficient  for  him to register at  a  place,               give all the particulars about his  qualifica-               tions  and then he should be sure that at  any               rate,  his name will be considered along  with               other names and there will be some regard  for               fitness  in  the choice of  people  who  enter               these new places for employment."     It  is, therefore, clear that the object of the  Act  is not to restrict, but to enlarge the field of choice so  that the employer may choose the best and the most efficient  and to  provide an opportunity to the worker to have  his  claim for  appointment  considered without the  worker  having  to knock  at  every  door for employment.  We  are,  therefore, firmly of the view that the Act does not oblige any employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by  the employment exchanges.     The  next  question  for consideration  is  whether  the instructions issued by the Government from time to time have the  effect  of compelling the employers to  restrict  their field  of choice to candidates sponsored by  the  employment exchanges. We may straightaway rarer to some of the instruc- tions on which reliance was placed by the learned Additional Solicitor  General.  In O.M. No.  14/11/64-Estt.  (D)  dated March  21, 1964, the Ministry of Home Affairs addressed  all the  Ministries regarding recruitment of staff  through  the agency  of the National Employment Service and the  utilisa- tion  of Employment Exchanges by  quasi-government  institu- tions  and statutory organisations. It is enough if  we  ex- tract paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of this communication which  are as follows:-               "1. The undersigned is directed to say that in               paragraph 6 of this Ministry’s office Memoran-               dum  No.  71/40-DGS (Apptts)  dated  the  11th               December,  1949  (copy enclosed) it  was  laid               down that all vacancies in Central  Government               Establishments,   other  than   those   filled               through  the Union Public  Service  Commission               should  be notified to the nearest  Employment               Exchange  and  that no  Department  or  office               should fill any vacancy by direct  recruitment               unless the Employment Exchanges certified that               they  were unable to supply  suitable,  candi-               dates. Subsequently in this Ministry’s  Office               Memorandum Nos. 71/49-DGS (Apptts) dated  30th               January, 1951 and 71/222/56-CS(C) dated the               919               14th  December,  1956  (copy  enclosed).   The               Ministry  of  Finance etc. were  requested  to               issue  immediate  instructions to  all  quasi-               Government institutions and statutory  Organi-               sations with which they were concerned  asking               them to fall in line, as far as possible, with               the  Central Government establishments in  the               matter  of recruitments, by suitably  amending               their  recruitment rules or  adopting  Resolu-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             tions to achieve this object if necessary. The               Ministries were also requested to impress upon               these  institutions that it was in  their  own               interest  as  well as in the interest  of  the               country as a whole that recruitment should  be               made  through the Employment Exchanges,  as  a               large number of experienced and trained  hands               were available on their registers and the need               for  tapping  other  sources  of   recruitment               should  arise only if the Employment  Exchange               has  certified that they were unable to  nomi-               nate suitable recruits from their registers.                 .................................................                 .................................................               4.  Under  the EE (CNV)  Act,  recruitment  of               staff through the Employment Service is volun-               tary  so  far as the private  sector  is  con-               cerned.  Even  so,  efforts are  made  by  the               Employment  Service  to persuade  the  private               sector  to accept candidates sponsored by  the               Employment Exchanges. The Directorate  General               of  Employment  and Training are placed  in  a               very embarrassing situation when they have  to               approach the State Governments and  establish-               ments  in  the private sector to  utilise  the               Employment  Service in filling up  the  vacan-               cies,  when some establishments in the  public               sector do not recognise the Employment Service               as the normal channel of recruitment.               5. It is accordingly requested that the Minis-               try of Finance etc., may issue instructions to               all quasi-Government institutions and Statuto-               ry Organisations with which they are concerned               requiring  them  to notify  vacancies  in  the               manner  and form prescribed in Rule 4  of  the               EE(CNV)  Rules 1960 to the prescribed  Employ-               ment  Exchange  and to fall in line  with  the               Central Government Departments in the recruit-               ment  of staff through the agency of  the  Em-               ployment               920               service.  The need for issuing  advertisements               for  inviting  applications or  tapping  other               sources  of recruitment should  be  considered               only  if the Employment Exchanges  issue  non-               availability  certificates.  A  copy  of   the               instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance               etc.,  may kindly be endorsed to the  Ministry               of Home Affairs and the Directorate General of               Employment and Training." It  will  be noticed that in order to give  effect  to  such instructions  in the case of  quasi-Government  institutions and statutory organisations, it would be necessary to  suit- ably  amend  the recruitment rules or adopt  resolutions  to achieve  that  object. This is so mentioned in  para  1.  In Office  Memorandum  No. 14/22/65-Estt. (H)  dated  June  12, 1968,  the Ministry of Home Affairs informed all  the  other Ministries:-               "The  undersigned is directed to say  that  in               paragraph  6  of  this  Ministry’s  O.M.   No.               71/49/DGS  (Apptt)  dated the  11th  December,               1949,  it was laid down that all vacancies  in               Central Government Establishments, other  than               those filled through the Union Public  Service               Commission, should be notified to the  nearest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             Employment Exchange and that no Department  or               Office  should  fill  any  vacancy  by  direct               recruitment  unless  the  Employment  Exchange               certified  that  they were  unable  to  supply               candidates." In office Memorandum No. 14024/2/77-Estt(D) dated April  12, 1977,  the Department of Personnel addressed all the  Minis- tries/Departments and said,                         "As the Ministry of Agriculture  and               Irrigation, etc. are aware, in accordance with               the instructions issued by the Central Govern-               ment  (vide marginally-noted  communications),               all vacancies arising under Central Government               Offices/establishments  (including  quasi-Gov-               ernment  institutions and statutory  organisa-               tions),  irrespective of the nature and  dura-               tion  (other  than those  filled  through  the               Union Public Service Commission), are not only               to  be  notified  to, but also  to  be  filled               through,  the  Employment Exchange  alone  and               other  permissible sources of recruitment  can               be  tapped  only if  the  Employment  Exchange               concerned issued a non-availability’  certifi-               cate.  There  can be no  departure  from  this               recruitment   procedure  unless  a   different               arrangement in this regard has been previously               921               agreed to in consultation with this Department               and the Ministry of Labour (Directorate Gener-               al  of Employment and Training).  Similar  in-               structions are also in force requiring  vacan-               cies against posts carrying a basic salary  of               less  than  Rs.500  p.m.  in  Central   Public               Employment Exchanges."     It  is clear that it is the desire of the Government  of India that all Government Departments, Government  Organisa- tion  and statutory bodies should adhere to ’the  rule  that not  merely vacancies should be notified to  the  Employment Exchanges, but the vacancies should also be filled by candi- dates  sponsored  by the Employment Exchanges. It  was  only when  no  suitable  candidates were  available,  then  other sources  of  recruitment were to be  considered.  While  the Government  is at perfect liberty to issue  instructions  to its own departments and organisations provided the  instruc- tions do not contravene any constitutional provision or  any statute,  these instructions cannot bind other bodies  which are created by statute and which function under the authori- ty of statute. In the observation of any statutory prescrip- tion  the statutory authority may however adopt  and  follow such  instructions if it thinks fit. Otherwise, the  Govern- ment may not compel statutory bodies to make appointments of person  from  among candidates sponsored by  employment  ex- changes only. The question, of course, does not arise in the case  of private employers which cannot be so  compelled  by any instructions issued by the Government.     The  further question is whether the instruction  issued by the Government that in the case of Government Departments the  field of choice should, in the first instance,  be  re- stricted to candidates sponsored by the employment exchanges offend Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Shri P. Parmesh- wara Rao, learned counsel appearing for some of the respond- ents strenuously urged that such a restriction would  offend the  equality clauses of the Constitution, namely, Arts.  14 and  16.  He urged that when Parliament had  gone  into  the question  and decided that there should be no compulsion  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

the matter of appointment by way of restriction of the field of choice, it was not open to the Government to impose  such compulsion.  He  argued  that it would  be  unreasonable  to restrict  the  field  of choice to these  sponsored  by  the employment  exchanges. In a country so vast as India,  in  a country  where  there was so much  poverty,  illiteracy  and ignorance,  it was not fight that  employment  opportunities should  necessarily  be channelled  through  the  employment exchanges  when it is not shown that the network of  employ- ment exchanges is so wide, that it reaches all the 922 corners of this vast country. He argued that it is futile to expect  that  persons  living in distant  places  could  get themselves registered with employment exchanges situated far away.  The  submission  of Shri Parmeshwara  Rao  is  indeed appealing  and  attractive. Nonetheless, we  are  afraid  we cannot  uphold it. The object of recruitment to any  service or  post is to secure the most suitable person  who  answers the  demands of the requirements of the job. In the case  of public  employment, it is necessary to eliminate  arbitrari- ness  and favouritism and introduce uniformity of  standards and orderliness in the matter of employment. There has to be an  element  of  procedural fairness in  recruitment.  If  a public employer chooses to receive applications for  employ- ment where and when he pleases, and chooses to make appoint- ments  as  he  likes, a grave element  of  arbitrariness  is certainly  introduced. This must necessarily be  avoided  if Arts. 14 and 16 have to be given any meaning. We, therefore, consider  that insistence of recruitment through  employment exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights  guaran- teed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The  submission that  employment exchanges do not reach every-where  applies equally  to  whatever  method of  advertising  vacancies  is adopted.  Advertisement in the daily Press, for example,  is also  equally  ineffective  as it does  not  reach  everyone desiring  employment. In the absence of a better  method  of recruitment,  we think that any restriction that  employment in  Government Departments should be through the  medium  of employment exchanges does not offend Arts. 14 and 16 of  the Constitution. With this modification of the judgment of  the High Court, the appeals and the special leave petitions  are disposed of. No orders are necessary in the writ petition. P.S.  S                                        Appeals  dis- posed of. 923