Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from selection to 723 posts in the Excise Department of Andhra Pradesh. Respondents, who were not sponsored through the employment exchange, applied independently for consideration but were not considered. They approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.9501/91 and batch seeking appointment. The Tribunal issued interim directions to consider their cases and to appoint them if selected by the competent authority. Many candidates came to be appointed under these interim orders. The Tribunal majority held that sponsorship of candidates through the employment exchange was valid and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, while the minority held it violative. The State appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The State contended, relying on Union of India v. N. Hargopal, that restriction to employment exchange sponsored candidates was valid and the tribunal directions were contrary to law. The respondents argued that such restriction denied the right to be considered for employment and that many eligible candidates could not get their names sponsored; the better course would be to adopt both the employment exchange and newspaper publication. The Supreme Court noted the earlier decision in Hargopal, where the Court had observed that restricting choice to sponsored candidates might offend equality but upheld sponsorship due to problems of handicapped persons accessing newspapers. However, in the present case, the Court preferred the respondents' contention. It held that it was common knowledge that many candidates are unable to have their names sponsored despite being registered or waiting for registration, with the result that the choice of selection was restricted and deserving candidates were deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. The Court therefore directed that it should be mandatory for requisitioning departments or undertakings to call for names by publication in newspapers having wider circulation, display on office notice boards, announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins, and then consider the cases of all candidates who have applied. This procedure would ensure fair play and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The appeals were disposed of, holding that no case was made out to disturb the directions issued by the tribunal for appointment of the selected candidates, and those directions survived. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Employment - Equal Opportunity - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16 - The Court held that while sponsorship through employment exchange is valid, it is mandatory for requisitioning departments or undertakings to also call for names by publication in newspapers having wider circulation, display on office notice boards, announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins, and then consider the cases of all candidates who have applied to subserve fair play and equal opportunity. Held that the directions issued by the tribunal for appointment of selected candidates under interim orders survive.
Issue of Consideration
Whether restricting selection to candidates sponsored through employment exchange violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; and whether additional modes of publicity are required to ensure equal opportunity in public employment.
Final Decision
The appeals were disposed of; no case was made out to disturb the directions issued by the Tribunal for appointment of the selected candidates; those directions survived. No costs.
Law Points
- Employment exchange sponsorship is valid
- equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 requires additional publicity through newspapers
- notice boards
- radio
- television
- employment news bulletins
- all eligible applicants who apply must be considered
- directions for appointment of selected candidates under interim orders survive.
