WP/13136/2009 of M. Vijaya Kumar Vs The District Employment Officer, Ranga Reddy on 29 December 2009

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 2[nd]respondent - M/s. Bharat Dynamics Limited – in not considering thecases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of JuniorTechnicians on the ground that their names were not sponsored by theEmployment Exchange.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties andperused the material on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon adecision of the Supreme Court in THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT,MALKAPATNAM v. K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO[[1]]contended thatthe respondents cannot restrict the recruitment only to the candidatessponsored by the Employment Exchange.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent contended that as per the recruitment and promotion rules of the 2[nd]respondent company, the non-executive vacancy shall be filled uponly by the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange andtherefore the impugned action cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.

An identical question has been considered by a DivisionBench of this Court in W.A.No.822 of 2000. After considering theobservations made by the Supreme Court in K.B.N. VISWESHWARARAO’S case (1 supra) and the other decided cases on thesubject, the Division Bench by judgment dated 10.6.2003 held thatthe ratio raid down by the Supreme Court in K.B.N. VISWESHWARARAO’S case (1 supra) would come into play where the employer isrequired to issue public notification inviting applications and considerthe cases of those applicants also along with the candidatessponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is further held by the Division Bench as under :

“In our considered opinion, it is for theconcerned authority to decide whether they wish tocall the candidates from open market or from theemployment exchange or from both sources for aselection by them. If the employer decides to adoptboth the courses, it cannot be precluded form doingso. But, if the employer decides to restrict his choiceto the candidates sponsored by the employmentexchange, the same does not offend Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution”

Thus, it was concluded by the Division Bench as under :

“For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that a Writof Mandamus does not lie compelling the employer toact contrary to its own regulations or rules, as the casemay be, and to consider the cases of those who submitapplications directly on their own accord along with thecandidates sponsored by the employment exchange,even though the rules or regulations, as the case maybe, prohibit such consideration.”

In the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.822 of 2000, dated 10.06.2003, and having regard to Rule 2.1of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the 2[nd] respondent whichspecifically provides that the non-executive vacancies shall be filledup only from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange,this Court dismissed W.P.No.13109 of 2009 and etc., by a commonorder dated 18.11.2009 holding that the 2[nd] respondent was notrequired to issue any notification inviting applications from all thepersons interested and consequently the action of the 2[nd] respondentin confining the recruitment only through the candidates sponsored bythe Employment Exchange cannot be found fault with and noMandamus as prayed for can be issued.

Since the petitioners herein are also similarly situated, followingthe order in W.P.No.13109 of 2009 and etc., dated 18.11.2009, thisWrit Petition is dismissed. No costs.

_____________

G. ROHINI, J.

Dt. 29.12.2009 gbs