Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, nine individuals who had worked as apprentices with Respondent No. 3 (Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, Nagpur) and were registered with the Employment Exchange, filed a writ petition challenging the list of candidates sent by Respondent No. 2 (Employment Exchange Officer) to Respondent No. 3 for employment. They contended that the Employment Exchange had arbitrarily classified candidates as locals and non-locals, and that their names were not forwarded despite their registration. They argued that such classification was discriminatory and violative of their fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the Employment Exchange had forwarded names from the local exchange to give preference to candidates residing in local areas, which could not be considered discriminatory. The court further noted that the petitioners had no vested right to get employment, as the recruitment was not on an all-India basis through an advertisement. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Classification by Residence - Employment Exchange forwarded names of local candidates to employer - Petitioners, who were apprentices and registered with Employment Exchange, challenged classification as discriminatory - Court held that giving preference to local candidates cannot be considered discriminatory and petitioners have no vested right to employment - Held that the classification was not arbitrary or illegal (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the classification of candidates by the Employment Exchange as locals and non-locals for forwarding names to the employer is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- No vested right to employment
- Classification based on residence not discriminatory
- Employment Exchange can give preference to local candidates
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (01) 48
Writ Petition No. 387 of 1996
Mr. Deopujari (Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2), Ms. U.R. Tanna (holding for Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Counsel for Respondent No.3)
Bijaon son of Late Shridhar Biswas and others
The State of Maharashtra, The Employment Exchange Officer, General Manager, Ordnance Factory
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the list of candidates sent by Employment Exchange to employer on ground of discrimination based on residence.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the list of candidates sent by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3 and to direct that their names be considered for employment.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that their names were not forwarded by the Employment Exchange due to arbitrary classification of candidates as locals and non-locals, which they claimed was discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights.
Issues
Whether the classification of candidates by the Employment Exchange as locals and non-locals is arbitrary and illegal.
Whether the petitioners have a vested right to employment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they had worked as apprentices and were registered with the Employment Exchange, but their names were not forwarded due to an arbitrary classification based on residence, which violated their right to equality.
Respondents contended that the Employment Exchange forwarded names of local candidates to give preference to local residents, which is not discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi
The classification of candidates by the Employment Exchange as locals and non-locals for forwarding names to the employer is not discriminatory as it is based on a reasonable classification of residence. Petitioners have no vested right to employment, especially when recruitment is not on an all-India basis through advertisement.
Judgment Excerpts
We find that the Respondent No.2 sent the names from the local Employment Exchange, probably to give preference to candidates residing in the local areas, and this cannot be considered to be discriminatory in nature.
The Petitioners do not have any vested right in getting employment, as this was not a case whether recruitment was to be made on all India basis through an advertisement.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 387 of 1996 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the list of candidates sent by the Employment Exchange. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 10th January 2006.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14
