The court emphasized the need for fair play and equal opportunity in employment, discussed the applicability of the Employment Exchanges Act, and provided guidelines for the selection process.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

In both these Writ Petitions, as common question of law is involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge of Thiruvallur, with a view to take steps to fill up different ministerial posts, such as Examiner of Copies, Reader, Copyist, Senior Bailiff, Office Assistant, Masalchi, Watchman, Xerox Operator, Driver, etc., took steps and called for the names from the District Employment Office of Thiruvallur. In spite of different requests, including oral request, only some names were forwarded in piecemeal and not for all the posts. The aforesaid matter was referred to by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, to this Court, vide D.No.3296/A/2007, dated 38. 2007 / 09. 2007. Similar problem having been faced, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, vide his D.No.12393, dated 20.9.2007, referred the matter to this Court in its administrative side and pointed out the vacancy position. It is informed that for the post of Steno-Typist, the Employment Exchange was requested to send the list of candidates and the District Employment Office, Madurai, has addressed all the Employment Offices in Tamil Nadu, requesting them to send the list available and the willing candidates in the ratio of 1:1 by letter dated 8. 2007, but in the absence of any candidate, no name has been recommended.

3. As pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.65, Labour and Employment (N2) Department, dated 30.3.2007, the names can be recommended only in the ratio of 1:1, but under the Rules, the post be filled up on the basis of the merit and under Rule 10-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, generally no advertisement can be published, facing difficulty, the Chief Justice of the High Court, suo motu referred the matter for determination of the issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, registered as Suo Motu W.P.No.32836 of 2007.

4. The petitioner-R. Amirthaveni has preferred the other Writ Petition in W.P.No.33647 of 2007 and she claims to be the senior most registrant in the local Employment Exchange, Dharmapuri. It appears that the names of number of persons, were forwarded, but she was not selected for appointment in the District Court, Dharmapuri. It is in the aforesaid background, prayer has been made to consider only her case pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 30.3.2007 issued from Labour Employment (N2) Department and no other person.

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court, the State Government cannot restrict the name of one person against one vacancy. Otherwise, it will amount to compelling the appointing authority to appoint the recommended person without assessing the merit. It was further submitted that if the selection is made pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 30.3.2007 issued from Labour and Employment (N.2) Department, read with Rule 10-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, it will not only violate Rule 10-A(b) of the said Rules, but also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the selection should not be restricted among unemployed persons, as employed persons have also a right to apply for selection against another post, if permission is granted by its employer and restricting the selection only amongst the unemployed persons, will violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, according to him, an employer cannot be restricted from selecting only the candidates recommended by Employment Exchange, but can also make selection out of persons who may apply pursuant to advertisement in the newspapers. According to him, in the absence of any advertisement, if an employer is forced to select only from those whose names have been empanelled in the Employment Exchange, such action will be arbitrary and discriminatory and shall be against the constitutional provisions.

6. On the other hand, according to the learned c