Last Updated on
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18/02/2004 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN W.P.No.22371 of 2001 R.Raghavan .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Secretary to Government School Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Director of School Education Chennai-6. 3. The District Educational Officer Trichy. 4. The Secretary Rathna Higher Sec. School Pettavaithalai Trichy District-639 112. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran Spl. Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 No appearance for 4th respondent :ORDER
The fourth respondent/school is an aided minority institution. When a
post of Record Clerk arose in the fourth respondent/school, the fourth
respondent/school called for qualified candidates from the employment exchange
for selecting a suitable candidate for the said post. Along with the list of
candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, the fourth respondent/school
also considered the applications of candidates who applied for the said post
in response to the advertisement published in the Tamil daily, viz., Dinamalar
on 21.7.2001. In the said selection, the petitioner was selected by the
School committee of the fourth respondent/School and he was appointed as a
record clerk in the fourth respondent/school by an order dated 8.10.2001.
However, the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 6.11.2001, refused to
approve the appointment of the petitioner as Record Clerk in the fourth
respondent/school, on the only ground that the name of the petitioner was not
sponsored by the employment exchange.
2. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the third respondent dated 6
.11.2001, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ
of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings
of the third respondent dated 6.11.2001 passed in O.Mu.No.11686/A1/2001, quash
the same and consequently for a direction, directing the third respondent to
approve the appointment of the petitioner in the fourth respondent/school.
3. It is not in dispute that even though the name of the petitioner
was not found in the list of candidates sponsored by the employment exchange
for filling up of the post of Record Clerk in the fourth respondent/school,
the petitioner’s name was considered based on the application of the
petitioner in response to the advertisement published in the tamil daily,
viz., Dinamalar on 21.7.2001, inviting applications for the said post.
4. The Apex Court in Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao,
(1996) 6 SCC 216, held that:
“… 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 o nly 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.”
5. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Excise
Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, referred supra, in my considered opinion,
the refusal to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the fourth
respondent/ school, merely on the ground that the name of the petitioner was
not found in the list of candidates sponsored by the employment exchange is
arbitrary, unreasonable and violative Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the the writ petition is allowed with a
direction to the third respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner
from the date of his appointment, namely 8.10.2001 and pay the entire arrears
of salary, if any, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. No costs.
1. The Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of School Education
3. The District Educational Officer