The judgment established the importance of legal sponsorship of candidates by the Employment Exchange, the jurisdictional aspects of issuing a show cause notice, and the absence of a legal right for a selected candidate to be appointed automatically.

Headnote:
Employment Exchanges - Forester - Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 - [Section 3, Section 4] - The court discussed the provisions of the Employment Exchanges Act, 1959, which ensures equal opportunity for the unemployed. It highlighted the controversy regarding the imperative nature of notification of vacancies to an Employment Exchange and the process of sponsorship of candidates. The court emphasized the importance of seniority of candidates with reference to their registration in the Employment Exchange and the legal implications of fraudulent sponsorship of a candidate's name. The court also addressed the jurisdictional aspects of issuing a show cause notice and the legal rights of a selected candidate to be appointed automatically. The judgment referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and their application to the case at hand.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent was selected for the position of Forester, but allegations of fraudulent sponsorship of his name led to a show cause notice for termination of his services. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court, directing his continued service and monetary benefits.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court's decision to allow the writ petition was deemed erroneous as it failed to consider the jurisdictional aspects of the show cause notice and the legal rights of a selected candidate. The court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the respondent to submit his show cause within two weeks.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the show cause notice, the respondent's right to continued service, and the jurisdictional aspects of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of legal sponsorship of candidates by the Employment Exchange, the jurisdictional aspects of issuing a show cause notice, and the absence of a legal right for a selected candidate to be appointed automatically.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondent was directed to submit his show cause within two weeks. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Five vacancies of Foresters were notified on or about 22.11.1978 to the District Employment Exchange, Nellore. Pursuant thereto names were sponsored and 49 candidates registered upto 6.09.1969 were considered for pre-submission interview. However, a request was made to the District Employm.ent Exchange, Nellore on 22.12.1978 10 sponsor names of some more candidates for the above posts. 60 candidates registered uplo 11.02.1970 were initially considered and after submission interview a list of 18 candidates was sent to the employer on 9.01.1979. In the said list, the name of the respondent was also included although he got himself registered with the Employment Exchange only in the year 1976 having registration No. 2412/76. However, against his name, the registration number was stated to be 6899/69. Allegedly, he got his name enlisted in the list of candidates in connivance with one Mr. Haranadha Reddy, the then Junior Assistant of District Employment Exchange, Nellore.

3. Respondent was selected having been placed in Sl.NO.3 in the merit list. Alleged fraud played by the respondent together with the aforementioned Junior Assistant, District Employment Exchange was brought to the notice of appellant no. 1 on 24.04.1979. As a proposal was made thereby to delete his name from the list of candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange on 9.01.1979 for the post of Foresters, no offer of appointment was issued in his favour.

4. Respondent, thereafter, filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By an order dated 1.04.1981, a direction was made to conduct an enquiry on the said application. During pendency of the said original application itself, he filed a writ petition wherein an interim order was passed to consider his case for appointment. On or about 23.04.1982 pursuant to or in furtherance of the said interim order, an offer of appointment was issued to the respondent. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed by the High Court in terms of an order dated 24.12.1992 opining that it had no jurisdiction in that behalf. The District Employment Officer, Nellore sent a report to Appellant No. 1 holding the respondent guilty of misconduct. He thereafter filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was marked as O.A. No; 5409 of 1994 inter alia questioning the order passed by the District Employment Officer contained in letter dated 24.08.1993 as arbitrary and illegal and directing appellant no. 1 to allow all service benefits to him as a Forester with effect from the date of his selection. Indisputably, during pendency of O.A. No. 5409 of 1994, a notice to show cause was issued as to why his name should not be removed from the post of Forester. The Tribunal, in terms of its order dated 5.05.1999, dismissed the said original application directing the respondent herein to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, he filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2005, the said writ petition has been allowed directing:

"9. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and also the report of the 3rd respondent - District Employment Officer, Nellore dated 24.8.1993 and consequently the show cause notice termination. Petitioner shall be continued in service, as if he has been in regular appointment from 23.4.1982 and he shall be given benefit of pay as revised from time to time and he shall also be given notional increments up to the date of filing the present writ petition i.e. 19.7.1999 and thereafter fiscal monetary benefits shall be released.

10. The arrears arising out of the pay fixation shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

5. Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 477

The judgment established the importance of legal sponsorship of candidates by the Employment Exchange, the jurisdictional aspects of issuing a show cause notice, and the absence of a legal right for a selected candidate to be appointed automatically.

Cases Referred (6)