THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25060 OF 2009 Dated: 19.11.2009 Between; Naveen Kumar … petitioner And 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Dynamics Limited, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad., and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25060 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the respondent – M/s. Bharat Dynamics Limited – in not implementing the preliminary proposal dated 11.08.2009 for appointment to the post of Junior Technician (Radio Mechanic) Group-C as arbitrary and illegal. Bharat Dynamics Limited having proposed recruitment to the posts of Junior Technician (Radio Mechanic / Electronics / Junior Technical Assistant / Diploma in Electronics), sent a requisition to the District Employment Officer to sponsor the candidates possessing the qualification of I.T.I. Fitter. The petitioner claims that he is fully qualified to hold the post of Junior Technician (Radio Mechanic) and other posts i.e., Turner & Fitter Group ‘C’ and that he got his name registered with the District Employment Officer. However since his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he submitted the application directly to the respondent seeking appointment to the post of Junior Technician. The petitioner along with five others filed W.P.No.13472 of 2009 and this Court while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 08.7.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.17503 of 2009 directed the respondents to permit all the petitioners to appear for the selection process without insisting that their names should be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the written test held on 12.72009, and by letter dated 11.8.2009 the respondent sent a preliminary proposal to the petitioner for the post of Junior Technician (Radio Mechanic) calling upon him to send his acceptance. Pursuant thereto, though the petitioner sent the acceptance and got relieved from his previous employer, the respondent failed to issue the appointment order. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not implementing the preliminary proposal dated 11.8.2009, this writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Though no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent company submitted that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the respondents, the candidates for non-executive posts have to be sponsored only by the Employment Exchange and no candidate can apply directly. It is further contended that since the petitioner’s claim has not been sponsored through the Employment Exchange he cannot be appointed for the post in question. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, MALKAPATNAM v. K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO[1] contended that the respondents cannot restrict the recruitment only to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Supreme Court in the above case, observed as under: “ Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.” An identical question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.822 of 2000. After considering the observations made by the Supreme Court in K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO’S case (1 supra) and the other decided cases on the subject, the Division Bench by judgment dated 10.6.2003 held that the ratio raid down by the Supreme Court in K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO’S case (1 supra) would come into play where the employer is required to issue public notification inviting applications and consider the cases of those applicants also along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is further held by the Division Bench as under : “In our considered opinion, 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. If the employer decides to adopt both the courses, it cannot be precluded form doing so. But, if the employer decides to restrict his choice to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, the same does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution” Thus, it was concluded by the Division Bench as under : “For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold 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, and to consider the cases of those who submit applications directly on their own accord along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, even though the rules or regulations, as the case may be, prohibit such consideration.” In the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.822 of 2000, dated 10.06.2003, and having regard to Rule 2.1 of the Service Rules of the Company which specifically provides that the non-executive vacancies shall be filled up only from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the 2nd respondent is not required to issue any notification inviting applications from all the persons interested. Consequently, the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for appointment cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Having taken into consideration the very same Rule 2.1 of the Service Rules of the respondent Company, this Court dismissed W.P.Nos.13109, 13398 & 13413 of 2009 by order dated 18.11.2009. Accordingly, this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.11.2009 gbs [1] 1996 (7) Supreme 201