Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution do not cast an invariable or mandatory obligation upon an employer to advertise a vacancy for public information, through press unless, of course, there is a rule or other provision of law requiring him to do so.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) A common question arises in this batch of writ petitions. It would be sufficient if I state the facts in the first of the writ petitions, i. e. , W. P. No. 11535/83.

( 2 ) THE Divisional Manager, A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, kurnool, notified to the |district Employment Exchange, Kurnool, certain vacancies in the category of Conductors. The District Employment officer, accordingly, forwarded certain names. Though the petitioners were also registered with the Employment Exchange, Kurnool, their names were not forwarded, obviously because there were many persons registered far earlier to them, and the petitioners turn had not yet arrived. The petitioners applied to the Divisional Manager, A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, kurnool, directly, to call them for interview and to consider their cases for appointment as Conductors. This was refused by the Divisional manager on the ground that their names have not been sponsored/by the employment Exchange. This refusal of the Divisional Manager is challenged in these writ petitions as illegal and violative of the equal opportunity clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is mainly placed upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Sankara Reddy vs. A. P. S. E. Board.

( 3 ) THE Divisional Manager (respondent in the writ petition) has not issued or published any notification or advertisement inviting applications for the said posts. He has merely notified the concerned Employment exchange of the said vacancies, and proposed to consider only those persons who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The question is, whether the petitioners have a rightwhether flowing from Articles 14 and 16, or otherwiseto compel the respondent, Divisional Manager, to call them also for interview and to consider their cases for appointment to the said posts, in the above circumstances.

( 4 ) ARTICLE 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny to any person equality before law, or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 16 specifically ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Where an appointment is proposed to he made to any office under the State, it is obligatory upon the appointing authority to consider the claims of all eligible persons on a fair basis, and make a selection. But, this does not mean that in every case it is obligatory upon the appointing authority to issue a public advertisement inviting applications. We are not concerned with a situation where there is a Rule or other provision of law requiring the publication of such notification or advertisement. No such obligation is cast either by Article 14, or Article 16 by themselves; see the Full Bench decision of the punjab and Haryana High Court in Daljit Singh vs. State of Punjab. The full Bench of five Judges considered this very question, viz. , whether Art. 16 requires that, while making a direct recruitment to an office under the state, it is obligatory to issue an advertisement in the public press, so as to reach every conceivable candidate in the country ? On a consideration of the several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as other courts it came to the conclusion that there is no such obligation. The same view was also taken in Kartar Singh Rai vs. State of Punjab ; State of Uttar pradesh vs. Bhola Nath Srivastava Jauhar ; Dr. S. T. Venkataiah Thimmaiah vs. Stale of Mysore ; and Parmatma Sharon vs. Chief Justice of Rajas than high Courts These decisions negative the contention that the decision of the Supreme Court in B. N. Nagarajan vs. State of Mysore, or in R. N. Nanjimdappa vs. T. Thimmaiah, do infer any such obligation.

( 5 ) THIS is not to say that the appointing authority can consider whomsoever it wishes or or chooses, or that it can appoint any one it likes in a secretive or cloistered manner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document