IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22561 of 2010 Between: C. Rama Krishna ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Personnel Officer, Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22561 of 2010 ORDER: (Per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) The petitioner’s grievance, which sought to be declared as illegal and arbitrary, is that the respondents are not receiving his application and not allowing him to appear for the Written Test and Interview along with other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Radio Mechanic without following the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner also seeks to direct the respondents to receive his application and allow him to appear for the Written Test and Interview for the post of Radio Mechanic and consider his case for appointment to the post of Radio Mechanic without insisting that his name must be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he passed ITI with Electronic Mechanic Trade Test in July 1996 and did National Apprenticeship Training at respondent-organization from 15-10-1997 to 14-10-1998 in the trade of Electronic Mechanic. He got registered his name in the Ranga Reddy District Employment Exchange on 16.02.2002 and again on 23.02.2010. While so, respondents sent a requisition dated 09.08.2010 to the Ranga Reddy District Employment Exchange to sponsor the names of candidates who are aged below 35 years and who passed ITI with Electronic Mechanic with National Apprenticeship at the respondent-Organization for filling up of 19 posts of Radio Mechanic and the Ranga Reddy District Employment Exchange sent sponsored names list to the respondents. The respondent- Organization, without following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, without giving paper notification and without receiving applications from the eligible candidates including him, is going to conduct the Written Test, Trade Test and Interview with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Central Government issued a circular memo on 18.05.1998 to all its departments and undertakings clarifying that in addition to notifying the vacancies to the Employment Exchange, arrange for publication of the recruitment notice in Employment News published by the Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Government of India, and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Organization, without following the law laid down by the Apex Court, without giving paper notification and without receiving applications from the eligible candidates including him, is going to conduct the Written Test, Trade Test and Interview with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange in violation of the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on EXCISE SUPDT. MALKAPATNAM vs. K.B.N.VISWESHWARA RAO[1], PRABIR KUMAR MAJI vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[2] and UNION OF INDIA vs. MISS PRITILATA NANDA[3]. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recruitment rules of the respondent-Organization provide for recruitment only from out of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange and contended that in case where the rules or regulations themselves provide for recruitment only from out of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, the employer is not required to issue any notification inviting applications and get the same published in the newspapers and consider those applications along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange and, in the absence of any such rule or regulation, the employer is bound to invite applications from the interested candidates and follow a fair and transparent procedure satisfying the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in THE CHIEF MANAGER, PERSONNEL & HRD SECTION, STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. SMT. K.LAKSHMAMMA AND ANOTHER[4]. 5. In SMT. K.LAKSHMAMMA case (1 supra) it is clearly held that in case where the rules or regulations themselves provide for recruitment only from out of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, the employer is not required to issue any notification inviting applications and get the same published in the newspapers and consider those applications along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange and, in the absence of any such rule or regulation, the employer is bound to invite applications from the interested candidates and follow a fair and transparent procedure satisfying the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the employer is bound to follow the procedure in terms of the directions issued by the supreme court in VISWESHWARA RAO case (1 supra). It is also held that it is for the concerned authority to decide whether they wish to call the candidates from open market or from the employment exchange or from both sources for a selection by them and if the employer decides to adopt both the courses, it cannot be precluded from doing so. In view thereof, when the recruitment rules of the respondent-Organization provide for recruitment only from out of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, it cannot be prevented from doing so. The facts in the other decisions, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not apply to the case on hand. The Writ Petition is thus devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. 2nd November 2010 CVRK [1] (1996) 6 SCC 216 [2] 2008 (TLS) 521385 [3] 2010 (7) SCALE 269 [4] 2003 (1) DECISIONS TODAY (AP) 370