THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 31849 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent, the Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank in not permitting the petitioner to appear for the written test/interview for the selection and appointment to the post of temporary part-time sweeper as illegal and contrary to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao[1]. The essential facts of the matter are that the respondent bank has proposed to recruit sweepers on part-time basis for rendering service in various branches of the bank and they have notified to the local employment exchange concerned for sponsoring eligible and suitable candidates for the said purpose and that they are not considering the candidature of other similarly placed qualified candidates on the plea that their names have not been sponsored by the employment exchange. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, apart from placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao’s case (cited supra), also relied upon a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9164 of 2007 in support of his contention that the other qualified candidates should also be considered for recruitment. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank that the respondent Syndicate Bank has proposed to recruit candidates sponsored by the employment exchange only and hence, it has not chosen to notify the vacancies in subordinate staff available in various branches of the bank. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that her candidature should be considered by the respondent bank without her name being sponsored by the employment exchange. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Chief Manager, Personal and HRD Section, State Bank of India v. Smt. K. Lakshmi[2] which considered the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao’s case and held that in case where the rules or regulations provided for recruitment only from out of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, the employer is not required to issue any notification inviting applications or get such notifications published in the newspapers and consider the rest of the applications along with those sponsored by the employment exchange. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25060 of 2009 (Naveen Kumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Dynamics Limited), which judgment was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench by the judgment rendered on 21.06.2010. The Division Bench has noticed that yet another Division Bench had occasioned to consider the subject in detail and came to the conclusion that the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 does not take away the right of the employer in the public sector to choose its own method of recruitment and appoint persons to its service other than those drawn from the employment exchanges. The Division Bench therefore, held that the employer is free to choose the source of candidates for its recruitment and if the employer accordingly chooses the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange alone, the employer in such cases cannot be compelled to notify the vacancies for the general public to respond and compete along with those sponsored by the employment exchange concerned. Therefore, the Division Bench has dismissed the appeals preferred and confirmed the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25060 of 2009. The learned counsel for the respondent bank has also placed reliance upon another judgment of a Division Bench rendered in Writ Petition No. 22561 of 2010 as recently as on 02.11.2010 which has also subscribed to the same view as noticed supra. Hence, the learned counsel contends that non-consideration of the candidature of the writ petitioner herein or any other similarly placed candidates from the open market is not irregular or illegal. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. Permission is accorded and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ------------------------------------- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 22nd December 2010 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 216 [2] 2003(1) Decisions today 370