IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NOs. 29 OF 2005 AND 31 OF 2005. Date:22.12.2009 W.P.NO. 29 OF 2005:- Between:- K.Parameswar ..Petitioner And The Senior Manager HR-RMX/BHEL, Heavy Power Equipment Plant, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents AND W.P.NO. 31 OF 2005:- Between:- S.Narender and others ..Petitioners And The Senior Manager HR-RMX/BHEL, Heavy Power Equipment Plant, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:- The grievance of the petitioners in these two cases is with regard to the action of the Heavy Power Equipment Plant, a constituent of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, in insisting upon sponsorship by the Employment Exchange as per Rule 6.1 of its Recruitment Rules for recruitment to various categories of posts. The petitioners challenge the vires of the said rule on the ground that the same is in violation of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, MALKAPURAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT VS. K.B.N.VISWESWARA RAO[1]. It is, however, to be noticed that in the case before the Supreme Court, there was no recruitment rule or regulation, which posited that sponsorship by the Employment Exchange was a condition precedent for consideration for appointment. Such is not the situation in the present cases. Rule 6.1 of the Recruitment Rules of the respondent organization specifically requires sponsorship by the Employment Exchange for aspiring for appointment to the posts in the respondent organization. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, once a rule or regulation is prescribed by the organization requiring sponsorship by the Employment Exchange, such requirement cannot be held to be illegal or unconstitutional. In the scheme of public employment, such a norm would ensure that transparency is maintained in the process, thereby curtailing the scope for manipulation and arbitrariness. In such circumstances, rule 6.1 of the Recruitment Rules of the respondent organization cannot be said to be violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K.B.N.VISWESWARA RAO’s case. It is to be noticed that the respondent-organization conducted interviews pursuant to the notification, in January, 2005 itself. It is stated that the said recruitment was completed long ago. No steps were taken by the petitioners in these two cases to implead the persons selected and appointed pursuant to such recruitment. The writ petitions cannot therefore be adjudicated on merits in the absence of such affected parties. Thus, on counts more than one, these writ petitions are bound to fail. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22nd December, 2009 AMD [1] (1996)6 SCC 216