THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI + WRIT PETITION No.13109 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13398 OF 2009, AND WRIT PETITION No.13413 OF 2009. % 18/11/2009 # 1.M. Sravan Kumar and 4 others. … Petitioners Vs. $ 1. The District Employment Officer, Rangareddy, Rangareddy District. .. Respondents < Gist > Head Note: ! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K. Venkateswarlu ^ Counsel for the 1st respondent : Govt. pleader for Labour Counsel for the 2nd respondent : Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, Standing Counsel for BDL Cases referred : [1] 1996 (7) Supreme 201 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13109 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13398 OF 2009, AND WRIT PETITION No.13413 OF 2009. COMMON ORDER : These three writ petitions are filed with a common prayer to declare the action of the respondent – M/s. Bharat Dynamics Limited – in not considering the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Technicians on the ground that the names of the petitioners were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as arbitrary and illegal. The 2nd respondent - 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 petitioners claim that they are fully qualified to hold the post of Junior Technician (Radio Mechanic / Electronics) and that they got their names registered with the District Employment Officer. However since their names have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, they submitted the applications directly to the respondent seeking appointment to the post of Junior technicians. As the respondent did not permit the petitioners to appear for the written test and interview scheduled on 12.7.2009 on the ground that the names of the petitioners were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, these writ petitions have been filed. This Court while issuing notice by order dated 7.7.2009 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. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were accordingly permitted for the written test held on 12.7.2009. On behalf of the 2nd respondent company, a detailed counter- affidavit has been filed stating that as per its Recruitment and Promotion Rules the candidates for non-executive posts have to be sponsored only by Employment Exchange and no candidate can apply directly. It is further stated that in response to the letter addressed by the respondent company to sponsor the candidates for the post of Junior Technician and Junior Technician Assistant to fill up 30 vacancies, the Employment Exchange, Rangareddy District had sponsored 593 names. As, the names of the petitioners were not included in the list, they were not called for written test and interview. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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.” However, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the 2nd respondent company the non-executive vacancy shall be filled up only by the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The said Rule 2.1 runs as under: ”All direct recruitment vacancies in wage Groups-10 and below to be notified to the local employment exchanges. Vacancies of scientific and technical nature in wage groups 6 and 7 should be simultaneously notified to the Central Employment Exchanges also. If the employment exchanges are unable to sponsor suitable candidates within the prescribed time limits, the vacancies may be advertised in the press on a local/regional basis. Where adequate number of suitable candidates are not available against local/regional advertisement, the vacancies may be advertised on All India basis.” Having regard to the above Rule, the question that arises for consideration is whether the 2nd respondent is bound to issue a public notification inviting applications from the interested and eligible candidates to fill up non-executive vacancies. 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 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 2nd respondent in confining the recruitment only through the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange cannot be found fault with and no Mandamus as prayed for can be issued. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.11.2009 Note:- LR copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs [1] 1996 (7) Supreme 201