Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
M.Sankara Reddy - Appellant
Versus
A.P.State Electricity Board - Respondent
W.P. No. 1791/78
Decided On : 04-19-79
Advocates Appeared :
.
Held : The action of the Board in not calling for interview solely on the ground that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange is illegal and violative of the petitioner 5 right to equality of opportunity and appointment and also constitutes an invidious discrimination which is not based on any reasonable classification having rational relation to the object viz., selection of suitable candidates for appointment to the posts advertised or notified by the Board.
Sub-section (4) of Sec. 4 gives an indication that there is no compulsion on the Board to recruit a candidate merely because he has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The provisions of Sec.4 are intended only to compel the Employer to furnish information to the Employment Exchange with regard to the vacancies arising in the establishment. The failure to notify the vacancies by the Employer is made punishable by Sec. 7 of the Act. But once information with regard to the vacancies has bun furnished by the Employer to the concerned Exchange in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 4, the statutory obligation must be deemed to have been complied with and no further obligation to recruit a person sponsored by the Exchange is cast on the employer. The employer has to consider the merits of the persons sponsored by the Exchange and also other eligible persons who directly send their applications for appointment to the Post notified by the Employer, Other wise a person not sponsored by an Exchange will be deprived of his right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. If the provisions of the Act are to be constured as including the employer from appointing persons other than those sponsored by the Exchange and instructions in the Manual in para 7-44 are to be construed as precluding a person even though "placed" in a temporary appointment from being sponsored for a regular post under an Employer, they result in depriving the right of a citiz6n for being considered for appointment or employment, and they are violative of the rights under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The instructions contained in the National Employment Service Manual are purely administrative or departmental instructions and have no statutory force and cannot deprive a citizen of his right to be considered for appointment to an office under the State.
W. P. Allowed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is a graduate in Engineering in the Electrical branch. He obtained his B. E. degree in the year 1970 and registered himself in the Regional Empovment Exchange, Hyderabad in the same year, his registration number being PE 2211/70. The petitioner registered for the specfic occupation of Engineer (Electrical) which bours the occupational classification code No. 003. 20 fold) corresponding to 022 10 (new ). The petitioner applied in the year 1971-72 for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Andhra praddsb State Electricity Board but he was not selected. In the year 1976 the petitioner was appoined temporarily as a Supervisor (Electricat) in the Roads and Buildings Department under Ru1e 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules of the andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services having been sponsored for the said post by the Regional Employment Officer, P and E. , Hyderabad.
( 2 ) WHILE so. having learnt that some posts of the Junior Engineers had fallen vaccant in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), the petitioner sent an application to the Board on 16. 3. 1968 but the petitioner was not called for the interview. On enquiry he learnt that his application was rejected as he was not sponsored by the regional Employment Officer. The petitioner has thereupon filed this writ peittion for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the Board to consider his application for the post of Junior Engineer by treating the registration of the petitioner in the petitioner in the Regional Employment Exchange with registration No. PE. 2218/60 as valid and subsisting. The petitioner contends that there is no rule either in the A. P. State Electricity Board Service Rules or in the Recruitment Rules requiring a candidate to be routed through the employment Exchange before he is appointed to the service under the bourd He also contends that the Regional Employment Officer should have sponsored the name of the petitioner to the Board for considerarion for appoinment to the post of Junior Engineer as the petitoner had registered bis name is the Regional Employment Exchange for the post of Junior engineer (Electrical), that the petitioner was holding the post of Supervisor in the Roads and Buildings Department purely on a temporary basis which is liable to be terminated at any time, and that the action of Regional employment Officer in not sponsoring the name of the petitioner to the Board is iliegal and unjust. Pending the wirt petition, he sought interim directions to direct the first respondent to interview the petitioner and consider hss application for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer. An interim order was passed on 2. 5. 1978 directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment as Junior Engineer by calling him for the interview. It is stated that tee petitioner was interviewed and he was included in the panel of candidates selected for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the Board, a counter affidavit has been filed by the manager, Personnel Services stating that 964 applications were received for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) put of which the interviews were restricted to 600 candidates who secured the prescribed marks and that the petitioner was not called tor the interview as he secured less marks. It is also stated that the vacancies were notified to the Employment Exchange as it is obligatory on the part of the Board to obtain list of the candidates from the Employment Exchange, that the name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the Exchange as he was already employed in the Roads and buildings Department of the State Government and that as the petitioner s name was not sponsored by the Excnange, he was not called for the interview. But the petitioner was interviewed pursuant to the interim directions given by this Court. It is further stated that as the petitioner was not spo
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
