Madras High CourtWP/37682/2004disposed of

T. Govindan v. The Director Of Employment &

2017-07-13Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.37682 of 2004 T.Govindan .. Petitioner Vs.

1) The Director of Employment & Training Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

2) The District Employment Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram 605 602

3) The Indian Institute of Professional Studies, (Department of Distance Education) Affiliated to Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, 2/268, Vishwa Klhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow - 226 010 .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in A/3-/7915/04 dated 18.11.2004 and quash the same and directing the second respondent to register the qualification of the petitioner with him.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kothandaraman For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, Government Advocate For 3rd Respondent :

No appearance

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in A-3/7915/04 and for a direction to the second respondent to register his qualification.

2. According to the petitioner, he had completed Bachelor of Arts, (B.A.) History in Governments Arts College at

Thiruvannamalai, during 1997-2000 and obtained a degree from the Madras University. Thereafter, he pursued the degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.,) from Bharathiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradhesh during the year August 2000. Thereafter, he approached the second respondent/District Employment Officer, Villupuram District to register his name with educational qualifications obtained in B.A. & B.Ed., and also produced the degree certificates and mark sheets along with relevant enclosures. But, the petitioner's request was turned down by the second respondent, stating that he has to approach the Court and obtain necessary orders to get his name registered in the Employment Exchange.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several persons got appointment based on this type of qualification and by registering their names in the Employment Exchange. But, unfortunately the same did not happen in the case of the petitioner and thereby, by this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to be issued by this Court to the second respondent to register his name in the Employment Exchange.

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

The attitude of the second respondent in passing the impugned order A-3/7915/04, dated 18.11.2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner for registering the petitioner's name in the Employment Exchange, stating that his name would be registered only after obtaining appropriate orders from this Court, is not appreciable.

There is nothing wrong in registering the name of a person with his educational qualification. If the qualification submitted by the petitioner is not found to be genuine, then, the petitioner will not only lose his seniority in the Employment Exchange, but, will also lose his employment. If the petitioner produces records to show that he is qualified from a recognized university, then there is no hurdle for the second respondent to register his name. 6.

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. N.Hargopal, (1987) 3 SCC 308, wherein, it was held that in the absence of a better method of recruitment, any restriction of employment in Government Departments should be through the medium of Employment Exchanges, which does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

"9. ... In the case of public employment, it is necessary to eliminate arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce uniformity of standards

and orderliness in the matter of employment. There has to be an element of procedural fairness in recruitment. If a public employer chooses to receive applications for employment where and when he pleases, and chooses to make appointments as he likes, a grave element of arbitrariness is certainly introduced. This must necessarily be avoided if Articles 14 and 16 have to be given any meaning. We, therefore, consider that insistence on recruitment through Employment Exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The submission that Employment Exchanges do not reach everywhere applies equally to whatever method of advertising vacancies is adopted. Advertisement in the daily press, for example, is also equally ineffective as it does not reach everyone desiring employment.

In the absence of a better method of recruitment, we think that any restriction that employment in government departments should be through the medium of employment exchanges does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. With this modification of the judgment of the High Court, the appeals and the special leave petitions are disposed of. No orders are necessary in the writ petition."

Now-a-days, seeking employment based on the registration in the Employment Exchange is no longer the only method of recruitment in the light of the Apex Court decision in the case of Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh vs. KBN Visweshwara Rao reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216, wherein, it is held as under:

"6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. 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."

Taking note of the ratio laid down in the said decision, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to anyone in this matter and hence, the second respondent is directed to register the name of the petitioner along with his educational qualifications in the Employment Exchange. With the above direction and observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

No costs.

Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.45182 of 2004 is closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS V ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To:

1) The Director of Employment & Training Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

2) The District Employment Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram 605 602