The court established that non-sponsored candidates cannot participate in recruitment processes without public advertisement, as it violates constitutional principles of equality and fair opportunity.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The recruitment process for filling up the Group-D post in the concerned school initiated in the year 2006-2007 is still travelling in the Court flagging an issue which is otherwise settled through a catena of judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Apex Court.

2. The private respondent approached the Court for writ of mandamus to be issued so that he can participate in the selection process initiated for filling up Group-D post in the concerned school as a non-sponsored candidate. The interim order was passed allowing the private respondent to participate in the interview with the rider that the panel so prepared shall not be considered and approved by the District Inspector of School as it is subject to the final result of the said writ petition. Undeniably the private respondent stood first in the panel having found meritorious amongst the other sponsored candidates but in view of the embargo created in the interim order, the panel so prepared could not be approved by the concerned District Inspector of School.

3. The said writ petition being WP 8557(W) of 2007 was finally disposed of on 17.07.2013 by the Single Bench directing the concerned District Inspector of School to consider and approve the panel within 4 weeks from the date of the communication of the said order. The aforesaid order is impugned in the instant appeal by the appellant who stood second in the said panel being a sponsored candidate and an application for stay was also filed in the instant appeal which was taken out on 19.08.2013 and interim orders staying the operation of the order for a limited period was passed which was made absolute to operate till the disposal of the appeal on 05.09.2013. The consequential effect of the same leads to an unambiguity in our mind that the said interim order is still operative as a resultant effect the panel prepared by the selection committee could not be approved as on this date by the concerned District Inspector of School.

4. More than a decade has passed since the date of initiation of the recruitment process yet the post felt vacant prior to the year 2006-2007 has not been filled up. The argument advanced by the appellant is basically founded upon a proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court in case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Krishna District A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 216. The point which emerged in the said report was whether the authority can fill up the vacancy in the public employment, only amongst the candidates sponsored by the respective employment exchange without making any wide publication inviting all eligible candidates to offer their candidature for such posts. The Apex Court highlighted the equality principles emanating from Part-III of the Constitution of India and deprecated the practice of restricting the candidates sponsored by the respective employment exchanges. The Apex court held that the principle of fair play, justice and equal opportunity having ingrained in the Constitution of India, cannot be whittled down, as non-adherence has a cascading effect on a deserving candidate who shall be deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to the post under the State. The Apex Court held that there is no fetter on the part of the authorities to intimate the Employment Exchange to sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning department for selection in order of seniority and reservation but in addition to the same, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspaper having wider circulation as well as display on their