THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.A.Nos. 990, 297 and 1467 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Since these appeals involve common questions, they are being taken up together for disposal. The appellants in all these appeals is the Life Insurance Corporation, who by invoking Clause 15 of the Letter Patent seeks to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writs at the admission stage, filed by the respondents herein the prospective candidates, seeking for appointment. Briefly, the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondents/petitioners in these three writ petitions, the subject matter in these appeals, filed individual Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking for a direction in the nature of Mandamus to the appellant herein to appoint him, if he is, selected as watchman under the control of the appellant. The case set forth in support of the writ petition is quite narrow, namely, that it is only due to the fact that the respondent/petitioner is not sponsored by the employment exchange, hence, he is not being considered for appointment to the said post. Further, it was pointed out that no such vacancies were notified in the newspapers by way of publicity nor any applications are called, and therefore, restricting the choice only to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange is fatal. In support the reliance was placed on Excise Superintendent V. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao[1]. Following the said decision of the apex Court in this case, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ at the admission stage since there is no necessity of any further adjudication in the writ petition and therefore directed the appellant to permit the respondent/petitioner to appear for the test and interview and if the respondent/petitioner is otherwise found eligible, he should be considered for appointment. Similar is the order in the second case where a direction is given to attend the interview for the post of Watchman as and when it is held. In the third case, the learned single Judge taking note of the fact that in pursuance of the interim orders which is already granted earlier, the petitioner was called for interview along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, and therefore, no further adjudication is required and observed that the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision should be followed, and recording the same, the writ was disposed of. Hence these appeals. Heard Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri B.Ramkishan Rao and Sri A.Radha Krishna, the learned counsel who appeared for the contesting respondents in the writ petitions. The main submission made on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that the very disposal of the writ petition, almost at the admission stage, and the manner in which it has been disposed of is not correct. Further, it was specifically pointed out that several other cases were already pending concerning the very same principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above Excise Superintendent (Supra 1). Further, it is the case of the appellant that having regard to the Circulars 2D/1/1996 dated 19-11-1996 and Circular dated 2-3-1999, the procedure followed is perfectly correct and justifying, and therefore, there is no question of considering any such candidate nor there is any necessity of issuance of advertisement in the local newspapers. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents pointing out that the directions as has been issued are more formal and there is no illegality or any irregularity in considering the petitioners’ case for such appointment. Thus, there are no merits in the appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. It is to be noticed that this Court while admitting the appeal on 21-3- 2002 granted interim suspension of the orders of the learned Single Judge as per the orders in WAMP.515 of 2002. On considering the submissions and on perusal of the material, the point which arises is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the directions given by the learned Single Judge for considering the case of the petitioners for appointment in spite of non-sponsoring of their names through employment exchange is correct. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, which are virtually not in dispute, the fact remains that none of the respondents/petitioners are the candidates, who are sponsored from the employment exchange. Further, it also shows that the appellant has called for the candidates from the employment exchange and it is only those names are being considered. Since, the petitioners’ cases were not considered in spite of the applications alleged to have been field by them, they approached this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petitions. The earlier case as relied upon by the respondents/petitioners before the learned Single in Excise Superintendent (Supra 1), is a case where the applicant therein was not sponsored by the employment exchange for selection to the post which was in question therein, for which the appointment was sought to be made by the Excise Superintendent, which is a post under the Government. The applications were filed independently by them for considering their claim, but they remained unconsidered, hence, they approached the tribunal, but ultimately the matter went all the way to the apex Court and wherein it was held by considering the scope of the provisions under Section 4 (1) of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 that the restriction of the selection only to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange is not proper and in addition requisitioning the names from the employment exchange should be called for by publishing in the newspaper having wider circulation. Such a procedure would sub-serve fair play and the quality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all the eligible candidates. It is this decision, which was sought to be followed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions, which are assailed in these appeals. In the later case in Arun Tewari Vs. Zilamansavi Shikshak Sangh[2], the Supreme Court was considering once again a recruitment process under the Service Law, vis-à-vis, the source of candidates for appointment, and whether it should be by an advertisement or through employment exchange. In that case there is a reference to the aforesaid decision of Excise Superintendent (Supra 1) and it was observed that the said case of Excise Superintendent (Supra 1) stands on a different footing. Since in that case it was felt that the better course for the State would be to invite applications from employment exchanges as well as to advertise and also give wide publicity through T.V, Radio, Etc. The Court had to consider whether persons who had applied directly and not through employment exchange should be considered and their claim was upheld for consideration. Further, it was observed that there are different methods of inviting applications. However, coming back to the facts involved in the said case there was a statutory requirement for recruitment through a competitive examination and after interviewing them through a Junior Service Selection Board, since the posts which were to be filled up swelled up to 7 thousand, hence the authorities thought it fit to amend the said Rule and the decision was taken to fill up the vacancies district wise by calling the candidates from district employment exchange without involving the selection board. It is this process, was held to be not unfair in the exigency situation. I n Chief Manager, Personal and HRD Section, S.B.I v. K.Lakshmamma[3] a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Justice B.Sudershan Reddy as he then was again considering the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 held that a Writ of Mandamus does not lie compelling the employer to act contrary to its own regulations or rules, as the case may be. Further it was pointed out that it is precluded from considering the candidature of any other candidate except those sponsored by the employment exchange, and there is an obligation on the part of the management therein which is the bank to implement its own regulations and legally bound to consider the candidature of only those whose names are sponsored by the employment exchange. Those regulations 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. 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 view of the aforesaid principles, the ultimate principles which emerge especially in view of the decision of the aforesaid Division Bench are that necessarily the management or the employer has to follow the rules and conditions as contained with them rather than falling back to call for the applications by way of advertisement. In this case, it has been pointed out by the appellants that in view of the circulars dated 19-11-1996 and 2-3-1999, the question of calling for the applications by way of advertisement does not arise, and necessarily, it has to be waived where the vacancies are the same. There is no serious dispute on the part of the respondent in regard to the aforesaid Circular and the procedure contemplated. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid principles, no doubt, where it has been left open for the employer either to restrict to sponsor through employment exchange in the event rules contemplate or otherwise follow both. However, as far as these present appeals are concerned, since all the writ petitions were disposed of at the time of admission without affording opportunity to the appellant herein and more so having regard to the undisputed factum of existence of such circular waiving of any such issuance of publication calling for applications, there is no other option for us but to hold that the impugned directions are wholly unsustainable and cannot be supported by any law, and in fact, they go contrary to the well laid principles in the aforesaid decisions. In the circumstances, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the orders of the learned Single judge in W.P.No.23663 of 2000 dated 10-4-2002, W.P.No.14961 of 2001 dated 23-7-2001 and W.P.No.25290 of 2000 dated 12-4-2002 are set aside. No costs. ______________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) _______________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J) Date: 25-10-2010 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri JusticeB.Prakash Rao) W.A.Nos. 990, 297 and 1467 of 2002 Dated: -10-2010 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY P.D Judgment W.A.Nos. 990, 297 and 1467 of 2002 Prepared by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Circulated to His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy for perusal. [1] 1996 (6) Scale 676 [2] (1998) 2 SCC 332 [3] 2003 (4) ALT 222 (DB)