Telangana High Court
WP/27386/2005 of N.Padma Bhai, Vs The District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27386 of 2005 Dated 26-12-2005 Between: N.Padma Bhai. .. PETITIONER AND The District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Ranga Reddy District and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER The petitioner is an unemployed woman. She came to know that
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27386 of 2005
Dated 26-12-2005
Between:
N.Padma Bhai.
.. PETITIONER
AND
The District Employment Officer,
Employment Exchange,
Ranga Reddy District and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner is an unemployed woman. She came to know that the secondrespondent is undertaking the appointment to the post of Helper in Wage Group-I.The second respondent did not issue any general notice inviting applications for thatpurpose. On the other hand, it is restricting the consideration of the same to thecandidates sponsored by the first respondent Employment Exchange of RangaReddy District. The petitioner seeks a direction that her case also be consideredalong with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Reliance isplaced upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT,KRISHNA DISTRICT v. K.B.N.VISWESHWARA RAO.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents had resisted the plea of thepetitioner and relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in W.A.No.822 of2000, dated 10-06-2003, in THE CHIEF MANAGER, PERSONAL AND HRDSECTION, STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SMT.K.LAKSHMAMMA.
In Visweshwara Rao’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that whenever a Stateagency undertakes employment into various categories of posts, in addition torequisitioning the names from the employment exchange, it should also call forapplications by publishing notification in the newspapers. The respondents are notable to state as to how the requirement indicated by the Supreme Court does notapply to the petitioner. The Division Bench of this court has dealt with a case, wherethe relevant service regulations provided for, restricted the consideration of thecandidates to those who were sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Evenassuming that the ratio laid down in that case is applicable to the facts of this case, itis not the case of the respondents that they have any rule which restricted theconsideration of a candidates only those who are sponsored through employmentexchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner without insisting on sponsoring by theEmployment Exchange, provided she fulfils the prescribed qualification. Since thematter has been resisted by the respondents without there being any proper basis, asum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is awarded as costs.
Note:Issue C.C. by tomorrow.(B/o)Prv
26-12-2005
_____________