Non-compliance with the notification requirement of the Employment Exchanges Act does not invalidate appointments made by the employer.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these three writ petitions had been appointed purely on a temporary basis, as second division clerks and were employed in the first grade college at Kolar. Exhibit A, dated december 26, 1962, in each of these cases, is the order of appointment pertaining to the respective petitioner. In the last paragraph of Ex. A, it is categorically stated that the appointment is purely on a temporary basis and is liable to be terminated without notice. Subsequently by the order as per Ex. B, dated January 5, 1965, the services of these petitioners were terminated with immediate effect.

( 2 ) IT would appear from the facts set out in the affidavits annexed to these three writ petitions that consequent upon the appointment of certain persons whose names had been registered at the regional Employment Exchange at Bangalore, the services of these three petitioners who had been appointed purely on a temporary basis, were terminated as mentioned in Ex. B. The petitioners, being aggrieved at the termination of their services, have filed these three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of termination as per Ex. B and the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Director of Collegiate education in Mysore, requiring him to appoint the petitioners to the cadre of the second division clerks with continuity of service as from the date of Ex. B. It may be stated that it is only in writ petition No. 204 of 1965 that the two appointees have been impleaded as additional respondents; in the remaining two petitions, the appointees in consequence of whose appointment the temporary services of the petitioners were terminated, have not been impleaded as parties (to the writ petitions ).

( 3 ) WE have heard, at considerable length, the arguments of Sri Jagannath Shetty, the learned advocate for the petitioners, and of the Special High Court Government Pleader who has appeared on behalf of the Director of Collegiate Education in Mysore who is a respondent in all these three writ petitions. For the reasons which will be presently stated, we are satisfied that the petitioners cannot succeed in these writ petitions.

( 4 ) THE main contention urged by Sri Jagannath Shetty is that the vacancies of second division clerks in the first-grade college at Kolar had not been notified to the employment exchange at oorgaum, Kolar Gold Fields. It is contended by him that the requirement of Sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has not been complied with and that, therefore, the filling up of the vacancies of second division clerks in the first-grade college at Kolar by the appointment of the additional respondents in Writ Petition No. 204 of 1965 and of the other persons mentioned in the two other writ petitions, are all invalid. It is further contended by him that if the said vacancies had been properly notified as required under Sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Act, there was a chance for the petitioners to have registered themselves at the Oorgaum exchange for being appointed to those vacancies. It is urged by him that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Act has the effect of rendering the said appointments invalid and that, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for by them. As against this contention on behalf of the petitioners, it is urged by the learned Special High Court government Pleader that though the language of Sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Act may be mandatory, the compulsion therein is really in regard to the notifying by the employer of the vacancy to the employment exchange and that any non-compliance with Sub-section (1) of S. 4, through resulting in liability to punishment under S. 7 of the Act, has not the effect of rendering any appointment made (in contravention of that sub-section) invalid