The court upheld that recruitment must allow fair opportunity to all eligible candidates; exclusive reliance on Employment Exchange for hiring is lawful but does not negate the necessity for equal opportunity.

-

-

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2568 of 2024.Appellants were the petitioners in the W.P.(C).

2. Appellants who are DLR workers in the 3^rd respondent Municipality had filed the W.P. inter alia, contending that while recruitment of candidates through the employment exchange is a legally envisaged method of recruitment to public employment, restricting consideration solely to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is contrary to the principles of fairness and denies others to participate in the selection process. Contending that publication by way of advertisements is imperative to a fair recruitment process and challenging Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman to the extent the said aspect is overlooked, the appellants had filed the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs :

“(1) To call for records leading to Ext.P7 order and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order in the interest of justice ;

-

(2) To call for records leading to Ext.P2 and Ext.P3and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, in the interest of justice ;

(3) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction, directing respondents No.3 and 4 to conduct fresh selection process towards the 23 sanctioned posts of contingent sanitation workers in tune with the direction contained in Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao (1996) 6 SSC 216, expeditiously within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court ;

(4) Declare that the selection to the contingent sanitation workers in the 3^rd respondent Municipality without following the directions in Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao (1996) 6 SSC 216 is illegal and unsustainable being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ;

(5) Declare that the Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 Government orders are quashed to extent of limiting selection and appointment of cleaning/sanitation workers in contingent service of Local Self Government Institutions to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange alone being violative of directions in Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao (1996) 6 SSC 216.

(6) Dispense with the filing of English translation of exhibits in vernacular ; and

(7) Such other writ, orders or directions deem fit on facts and in the interest of justice.”

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia holding that the case of the appellants squarely fall within the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others [2006 KHC 507] in so far as the appellants do not have a case that they had been appointed through a valid selection process. This it was held disentitles them from seeking the prayers. Further, holding that a long period of employment in any Municipality, Corporation, or Panchayat does not by itself give a vested right to appellants to continue, and seek regularisation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C). Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal is filed.

-

4. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, Advocate for the appellants, Sri.Sunil Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent, Sri.A.Haroon Rasheed, learned Standing Counsel for R3 & R4 - Pattambi Municipality, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate for party respondents R6, R16 to 24, 27 & 28 and Sri.K.Shaj, Advocate for respondents R7 to R12 and R14 & R15.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had rendered the impugned judgment, overlooking the legal contentions and precedents relating to the subject matter. He submits that Exts.P4