( 1 ) THE subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal is an order dated 20. 12. 06 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 26838 (W) of 2006.

( 2 ) IN the writ application, the only prayer made by the writ petitioner/ appellant was for a direction upon the respondent authorities to allow the writ petitioner to appear in the interview for appointment in the post of clerk. Since the name of the writ petitioner was not sponsored by employment exchange, he approached this Court by filing a writ application for such direction upon the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview. The writ application was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there was no specific averment in the writ application stating that the name of the writ petitioner was not earlier sponsored by the employment exchange concerned.

( 3 ) IT is the main contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant/writ petitioner that the recruitment procedure followed by the respondent authorities violated the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A. P. vs. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (6) Supreme Court Cases 216.

( 4 ) IT is the contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant/writ petitioner that the concerned authority should have adopted the following procedure, namely inviting the names from the concerned employment exchange and also notifying the vacancies in the newspaper, as it was directed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the judgement as referred to above. But in the present case, the concerned authority proceeded only on the basis of names sponsored by the employment exchange. Vacancies never notified in the newspaper. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellant/writ petitioner that the matter may be sent back to the concerned authority to proceed afresh with the selection process by inviting the names from the employment exchange and also by notifying the vacancies in the newspaper.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents refers to West bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005. The learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents refers to Rule 8 (5) (a) and 8 (5) (b), which is quoted below:

"8 (5) (a) : On receipt of the sanction from the District Inspector of Schools, the school authority shall make a requisition to the employment exchange for sponsoring, within forty-five days, names of the candidates".

"8 (5) (b) : In case of receipt of a non-availability certificate from the employment exchange, the school authority shall, under intimation to the district Inspector of Schools, make an advertisement with complete postal address of the school and other relevant particulars in a daily newspaper having circulation throughout the State".

( 6 ) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents that in view of the provisions of Rule 8 (5) (a) and 8 (5) (b), names were invited from the employment exchange and on the basis of such names, selection process started. It is submitted by the learned Advocate of the State respondents that in the writ application, there was no such prayer made by the writ petitioner that the post was required to be advertised so that non-sponsoring candidates could appear in the interview and the learned Single Judge was very much justified in rejecting the writ application.

( 7 ) WE have heard the learned Advocate, of the respective parties and we have perused, the various judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. Principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Excise superintendent, Malkapatnam vs. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao (supra) are quoted below:

"6. . . . Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should

Click Here to Read the rest of this document