Holding

The restriction to employment‑exchange‑sponsored candidates violates the constitutional principles of equality and must be replaced by a procedure that includes both employment‑exchange intimation and public advertisement of vacancies.

Summary

The State (Excis e Superintendent, Malkapatnam) sought to fill 723 posts by selecting candidates whose names were sponsored through the employment exchange, while the respondents, who applied independently, were excluded. The respondents approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which issued interim directions to consider their applications and appoint them if selected. The State appealed, arguing that the restriction complied with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, whereas the respondents contended it violated the equality clause. The Supreme Court, relying on Union of India v. N. Hargopal, held that limiting selection to employment‑exchange‑sponsored candidates infringes the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It directed that the requisitioning authority must intimate the employment exchange and also advertise vacancies through newspapers, notice boards, radio, television and employment news‑bulletins, thereby ensuring all eligible candidates are considered. The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Tribunal’s directions.

Issues considered

Whether restricting recruitment to candidates sponsored through the employment exchange violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
Whether the Tribunal’s interim directions to consider independently applied candidates are legally valid

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

EqualityEmploymentArticles 14 and 16Employment ExchangePublic Service RecruitmentFair PlayConstitutional Law

Judgment

THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT MALKAPATNAM, A
KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO AND ORS.

AUGUST 22, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Constitution of!ndia, 1950 : A1ticles 14 a11d 16.

Se1vice Law-Equality of oppo1t1111ity in employment-Restlicting selec- C
tion to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange-Employment under
State-Candidates sponsored through Employment Exchange- Respondents
applied independently for consideration as they were not sponsored through
Employment Exchange-As their claim was not c01isidered they sought direc-
tions from Tribunal for their appointment-111terim directions issued by
T1ibu11al to consider cases of respondent~Pursuant to interim directions D
issued by Tiibunal many candidates were selected-Appeal prefe1red by
State-Held 110 case was made out to disturb the directions issued by the
Tribunal for appointment of the selected candidates-Held the plinciples of
fair play justice a11d equal opportunity require that it should be ma11datory for
the requisitioning autho1ity to intimate the Employment Exchange-In addi- E
tion, the appropliate Department or undertaking or establishment, should call
for the names by publication i11 the newspapers having wider circulatio11 and
also display on their office notice boards or am10w1ce on radio, television
and employment 11ews-bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the
candidates who have applied.
F
U11ion of India & Ors. v. N. Hargopal & Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 308,
referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal no. 11646-
11724 of 1996.
G
From the .Judgment and Order dated 21.4.92 of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. Nos. 9501-10, 11938-39-
11309-12/91, 53143, 56222, 49638, 49640, 49656-59, 52869 52877, 53141-
42/90, 11801, 11836-37/91,55763, 56217, 56227, 56309, 56402, 56435-36/90,
11821-23 & 11112-16 of 1991. H
73
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A K. Ram Kumar and C. Balasubramanian, for the Appellant.

L.N. Rao, R. Sauthanakrishnan, K. R. Nagaraja, Manoj Swarup, and
Santanu Bhowmick for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

These appeals by special leave arise from the order dated April 21,
c 1992 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in 0.A. No. 9501/91
and batch. The admitted position is that the respondents were not spon-
sored through the employment exchange for selection to the 723 posts
sought to be filed up from the candidati::s sponsored through the medium
of employment exchange. The respondents independently applied for con-
D sideration of their claims but they were not considered. Consequently, they
approached the Tribunal and sought direction for their appointment. In-
terim directions were issued to consider their cases and to appoint, if
selected by the selecting authority. Though the Tribunal held that sponsor-
ship of the candidate through the medium of employment exchange was
E valid and 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 in 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 wa:s that it was violative . Thus, these appeals by special leave.
F
This court in Union of India & Ors. v. 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,
G would offend the equality clause of Articles 14 and 16 and 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
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
H medium of employment exchange would not violate Articles 14 and 16. On
EXCISE SUPERINI'ENDENf, MALKAPA'!NAM v. KB.N. VISWESHWARA RAO 75

the other hand, it would advance the rights to the handicapped. In that A
view, this Court upheld the restriction imposed by the State and Central
Governments to consider the cases of the candidates through medium of
·---r
----- employment exchange, while holding that such a restriction was not in-
tended to be applicable to the private employment as hdd in para 6 of the
judgment.
B
Shri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the State, contended that in
... view of the above detision, the direction issued by the Tribunal is not in
accordance -with law. ·On the other hand, S/Shri Shanti Swamp and L.R.
~ Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the
restriction of the field of choice to the selected candidates sponsored c
through the medium of employment exchange prohibits 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 and
the employment exchanges are not adopting fair means and procedure to
sent the names strictly according to seniority in their record. So, the better
·-... D
course would be to adopt both the mediums, viz., of employment exchange
and publication in the newspaper as that would subserve the public pur-
pose better.

Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that
contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consis- E
tent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is .
common knowledge that many a candidates are 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 of the candidates whose names come to F
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 authority/establishment to in-
_,
timate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should spon-
""'-
sor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning Departments for G
selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition.
In addition, the appropriate Department or undertaking or establishment,
sh9uld 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 H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP.5S.C.R.

A 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
B selected candidates. Therefore, the directions survive. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeals disposed of.

)-