R. Raghavan vs The Secretary to Government School Education Department, The Director of School Education, The District Educational Officer and The Secretary Rathna Higher Sec. School

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—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.

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.

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.

The Apex Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Others, , 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 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.

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.

For the aforesaid reasons, 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.