ARUN KUMAR NAYAK versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 20-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ARUN KUMAR NA YAK 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER '.10, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Selection-Requisition sent to employment exchange for filling up posts 
C -Employment exchange sponsoring list of candidates-Subsequenrly 
corrigendum issued for wiJ·~r publicity of posts by public notification -
Candidates applied pursuant lo public notification blll not considered by 
Departme/1/--Candidature uf only one person from list sponsored by 
employmenl exchange found to be complete who was considered and selected-
D Selection challenged -Held, there was no element of selection and the process 
of selection 11·as a mocke1:i· - Tribunal correct(!' quashing selection process 
and directing selection process afresh taking into consideration applications 
received fi'o1.i both Employment £rchange and candidates who applied pursua/1/ 
to public notification. 
E 
On 18.9.1997 a requisition was made to the local Employment 
Exchange for the post of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (EDSPM) 
stipulating that preference would be given to ST/SC Candidates. 
Employment Exchange sponsored a list of 40 candidates including name 
of respondent No.4 who belonged to General Category. Subsequently, 
F corrigendum was issued on 19.8.1998 requiring public Notification having 
wider publicity along with the requisition made to the Employment 
Exchange in terms of directions issued in the case of Excise Department 
Malkapatnam, Krishna Districl, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors .. 
1199616 SCC 216. On 9.9.1998 a public Notification inviting applications 
was issued stipulating that if number of 3 eligible candidates belonging to 
G ST Community did not offer candidature, the vacancy shall be offered to 
candidates belonging to OBC and SC candidates respectively, in order of 
deficiency in representation. Pursuant to public Notification appellant 
applied for the post as an OBC candidate. Candidates including appellant, 
who applied pursuant to advertisement were eliminated by respondent 
H 
404 
-· 
ARUN KUMAR MAY AK r. U.0.1. 
405 
No.2, Supdt. of Post Offices, on the ground that since recruitment process A 
had already commenced pursuant to requisition made to Employment 
Exchange on 18.9.1997, public Notification issued on 9.9.1998 inviting 
applications was superfluous. and unnecessary. Out of 40 candidates 
sponsored by Employment Exchange, only 7 candidates submitted 
applications when called upon to do so out of which 6 were disqualified B 
as they failed to produce all necessary documents. The candidature of only 
respondent No.4 was considered who was selected on 15.10.1998. 
• ..... ' 
. . 
. 
App.ellant challe!lged selecti.on of respondent No.4 before Central 
Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Tribunal quashed entire selectiOn process 
and directed respondent department to conduct selection process afresh C 
and to consider aH applications received from both Employment Exchange. 
and the candidates who submitted applications pursuant to public 
Notification dated 9.9.1998 on merit. However, High Court set aside the 
order of Tribunal and confirmed appointment of respondent No.4: Hence 
this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD :I. The Selection Committee considered only the case of 4th 
respondent whose candidature according to the Committee was complete 
D 
in all respects and he was selected subsequently. Six candidates who 
applied pursuant to the public Notification were disq.ualified. The stand E 
of the department was correctly rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal 
was of the view that there was no element of choice before the department 
since the only candidate remained to be conside.red was the 4th · 
Respondent. There was no element of selection. The process of selection 
was a mockery. [408-D, E, Fl 
F 
2. Intimation to the Employment Exchange about the vacancy and 
candidates sponsored from the Employment Exchange is mandatory. This 
Court has held that in addition and consistent with the principle offair 
. play, justice and equal opportunity, the appropriate department or 
establishment should also call for the names by publication in the G 
newspapers having wider circulation, announcement on radio, television 
and employment news bulletins and consider all the candidates who have 
applied. Th is view was taken to afford equal opportunity to all th~ eligible 
candidates in the matter of employment. The rationale behind such 
direction is also consistent wi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.