LPA No. 952 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 852 of 2010 Date of decision 10 .8.2010 Yadvinder Singh Virk etc. ... Appellants Versus State of Haryana etc. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. J.S.Mannipur ,Advocate for the appellants 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 29.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the writ petition. The short question raised in the appeal is whether selection and appointment of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange alone would offend the equality clause of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra and has been answered against the appellant by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent Malkapatna Krishna District A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others 1996(6) SCC 216. The earlier view in the case of Union of India v. N.Hargopal 1998(3) SCC 308 has been watered down by virtue of the observations made in the case of K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao's case (supra). The learned Single Judge after complying the aforesaid principles has set aside the appointment of respondent nos 4 and 6 being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the LPA No. 952 of 2010 2 Constitution. The views of their Lordship are discernible from para 4 of the judgement in K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao's case (supra) which reads thus: “ This Court in Union of India Ors. Vs. N. Hargopal Ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 308] noted the contention of counsel appearing for respondents therein that excluding the candidates who were not sponsored through medium of employment exchange and restricting the choice of selection to the candidates sponsored through the medium of employment exchange, would offend the equality clause of Articles 14 and land held that the contention was attractive and it was not open to the Government to impose restriction on the field of choice. But in view of the fact that even the paper publication would not reach many a handicapped who would be unable to have access to the newspaper, it was held that the sponsorship through the medium of employment exchange would not violate Articles 14 and 16. On the other hand, it would advance the rights to the handicapped imposed by the state and central Governments to consider the cases of the candidates through medium of employment exchange while holding that such a restriction was not intended to be applicable to the private employment as held in para 6 of the judgment.” In view of the above, we are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. There is ample support to the aforesaid view and we are not inclined to interfere. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 10 .8.2010 Judge okg