important point
Neither the State nor its instrumentality could grant any exemption in regard to compliance of the statutory requirements.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Respondent No.1 joined the services of Appellant-Corporation as Balwadi Teacher on an honorarium of Rs.100/- per month.

3.The Corporation requested the State of Andhra Pradesh to grant exemption in regard to requirements of sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the regular posts, pursuant whereto G.O. Ms. No.27 M.A. (Q) dated 16th January, 1991 was issued, stating :-

“The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in his letter 2nd read above has stated that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has been implementing the Urban Community Development Programme since 1967 that under this programme a number of Balwadi and Sewing Centres were opened in the slum areas for the benefit of the slum Woman and Children and a grant of Rs.250/- p.m. was paid by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to the Balwadi Teachers and that there is a long standing demand from these persons for absorption into posts with a regular scale of pay as most of them are working as Teachers from 10 to 15 years. Therefore, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has requested the Government to exempt the voluntary workers from the Employment Exchange Procedure so that they may be considered for appointment in the existing and future vacancies of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad as Lower Division Clerks, Lower Division Typists, Bill Collectors, Record Assistants or any other posts for which they are eligible.

2.The Government having carefully examined the proposal of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad hereby accord exempting 214 voluntary workers listed in the annexure to this order from Employment Exchange procedure so that they may be considered for appointment as LDCs, L.D. Typists, Bill Collectors, Record Assistants or any other posts for which they are eligible in the existing and future vacancies.

3.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action accordingly.”

4.The said order clearly postulates that what was exempted was requirement of sponsorship of the candidates by the Employment Exchange and not the selection process itself.

5.Appellant is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was, therefore, obligated to undertake the selection process in terms of the constitutional scheme envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6.Respondent, for the purpose of her selection in a regular post created by the appellant-Corporation, was thus, required to appear for a vive voce before a Selection Committee as also a written test. She appeared in the interview on 24th December, 1991. She, however, did not appear in the written test. From April, 1989 she absented herself from her duties. As she had unauthorisedly remained absent continuously for long time, a letter dated 2nd June, 1992 was received by the Corporation from Jai Prakash Nagar Welfare Association requesting the Corporation to terminate her services.

7.Having come to learn thereabout the respondent made a request before the appellant on 12th February, 1993 that she be provided with a job of typist stating:-

“I am to state here that I passed Higher Typewriting in English and S.S.C. passed I have attend the interview on 26.12.91, by (but) could not attend written test and Typewriting exam as I am late and there was a communication gap.

I request you sir kindly to appoint me a typist as I am fully qualified to hold the post. My colleagues have already been appointed. If I am provided with the job, I shall ever remain grateful.”

8.It, therefore, stands admitted that she had not appeared at the written test as also typewriting examination. She also having realized that she had been absenting from her duties continuously, purported to file some medical certificates for treating her to be on leave from 1st May, 1989 to 19th February, 1993. Appellant by its letter dated 10th March, 1993 asked her t