THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16455 of 2002 O R D E R: The writ petitioner is a member belonging to Scheduled Caste community. He studied up to SSC and got his name enrolled with the local Employment Exchange at Kakinada. When the 3rd respondent college notified one post of Attender in July 1998, to be filled in by the members belonging to Scheduled Caste community, he submitted his application directly to the 3rd respondent college. However, since the 3rd respondent college has notified the said vacancy to the local Employment Exchange seeking candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category to be sponsored, the 3rd respondent college was not willing to entertain the application of the writ petitioner directly. The 3rd respondent college has expressed its inability to entertain his application, inasmuch as the Selection Committee is intending to confine the process of selection only to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In those set of circumstances and quite erroneously the writ petitioner has approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by instituting O.A.No. 7247 of 1998 seeking directions to the respondents to permit the case of the writ petitioner also to be considered for appointment as an Attender in the 3rd respondent college along with those sponsored by Employment Exchange. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, entertaining the said O.A., passed orders on 28.10.1998 directing his candidature to be considered along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. At the selections, the writ petitioner has been selected. Therefore, the 3rd respondent college has submitted the selections for approval of the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education passed orders on 31.05.2002 pointing out that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon service matters of employees working in private aided junior colleges and hence, the order passed by the said Tribunal directing the 3rd respondent college to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner herein for appointment as an Attender in the said college is unsustainable and hence, cannot form a proper basis for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for such appointment. Hence, the 3rd respondent college was directed to conduct fresh selections to the post of Attender, following the procedure prescribed therefor. It is this order, which has been challenged in this Writ Petition. The principle relating to consideration of candidates for employment is based upon the recognized fundamental right that every candidate has a right to stake a claim for such consideration, provided the same is not a private employment. When an aided vacancy in an educational institution is sought to be filled in, it acquires the trappings of public employment. Therefore, the opportunities for consideration for employability against such posts must be thrown open. Consideration of claims cannot be confined only to those candidates, who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is one thing to note that vacancies have got to be compulsorily notified to the Employment Exchange and the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange are liable to be considered accordingly, but it is altogether a different thing to say that if a candidate is not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, his case need not or will not be considered. In fact, this issue has been put at rest by the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao[1]. Therefore, if a candidate has got the necessary qualifications and eligibility to seek consideration for employment, he cannot be denied such consideration only on the specious plea that his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange concerned. The order of rejection passed in the instant case by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education for approving the selection of the writ petitioner is that he is not one of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and secondly, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to entertain a service dispute relating to employment in private aided educational institutions. So far as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, the objection taken by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education is well-founded. He is right in pointing out that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has no such power or jurisdiction to entertain a service dispute concerning employment in a private aided educational institution, but however, since the principle relating to consideration of the candidature of other suitable and eligible candidates along with those sponsored by the Employment Exchange has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment, it is only appropriate that the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education should not take into account and consideration the fact that the case of the writ petitioner has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange for consideration of his case for appointment as an Attender in the 3rd respondent college. The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education is, therefore, required to independently examine the records relating to and pertaining to the selection carried out by the 3rd respondent for filling the post of Attender. If the selections have been carried out fairly, reasonably and transparently, then, there should not be any objection for approving the appointment of the writ petitioner against the said vacancy, so long as he is also a member belonging to Scheduled Castes, inasmuch as the said vacancy is liable to be filled in by the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category. Therefore, I direct the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education to undertake scrutiny of the selections carried out by the 3rd respondent college for recruitment for the post of Attender to be filled in by the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category and if those selections have been carried out fairly and transparently, and in that process if the writ petitioner emerged as successful, he should pass orders approving his appointment. The decision in this regard be taken on or before 15th of October 2010 and the same be communicated to the writ petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent college. It is needless to observe that in case, selection of the writ petitioner is approved, his date of appointment will have to be reckoned with effect from the date on which the 3rd respondent appointed him as such in its college and it shall not be linked up to the date of approval, that might now be conveyed or communicated by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education. To the extent indicated supra, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th June 2010 ksld [1] (1996) 6 SCC 216