LexTHE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT MALKAPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH versus K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT MALKAPATNAM, A KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH v. K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO AND ORS. AUGUST 22, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Constitution of!ndia, 1950 : A1ticles 14 a11d 16. Se1vice Law-Equality of oppo1t1111ity in employment-Restlicting selec- C tion to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange-Employment under State-Candidates sponsored through Employment Exchange- Respondents applied independently for consideration as they were not sponsored through Employment Exchange-As their claim was not c01isidered they sought direc- tions from Tribunal for their appointment-111terim directions issued by T1ibu11al to consider cases of respondent~Pursuant to interim directions D issued by Tiibunal many candidates were selected-Appeal prefe1red by State-Held 110 case was made out to disturb the directions issued by the Tribunal for appointment of the selected candidates-Held the plinciples of fair play justice a11d equal opportunity require that it should be ma11datory for the requisitioning autho1ity to intimate the Employment Exchange-In addi- tion, the appropliate Department or undertaking or establishment, should call for the names by publication i11 the newspapers having wider circulatio11 and also display on their office notice boards or am10w1ce on radio, television and employment 11ews-bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. U11ion of India & Ors. v. N. Hargopal & Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 308, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal no. 11646- 11724 of 1996. From the .Judgment and Order dated 21.4.92 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. Nos. 9501-10, 11938-39- 11309-12/91, 53143, 56222, 49638, 49640, 49656-59, 52869 52877, 53141- 42/90, 11801, 11836-37/91,55763, 56217, 56227, 56309, 56402, 56435-36/90, E F G 11821-23 & 11112-16 of 1991. H 73 A B c 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. K. Ram Kumar and C. Balasubramanian, for the Appellant. L.N. Rao, R. Sauthanakrishnan, K. R. Nagaraja, Manoj Swarup, and Santanu Bhowmick for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the order dated April 21, 1992 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in 0.A. No. 9501/91 and batch. The admitted position is that the respondents were not spon- sored through the employment exchange for selection to the 723 posts sought to be filed up from the candidati::s sponsored through the medium of employment exchange. The respondents independently applied for con- D sideration of their claims but they were not considered. Consequently, they approached the Tribunal and sought direction for their appointment. In- terim directions were issued to consider their cases and to appoint, if selected by the selecting authority. Though the Tribunal held that sponsor- ship of the candidate through the medium of employment exchange was E valid and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since many of the candidates came to be selected in terms of the interim direction, orders were issued to appoint the selected candidates. There is a difference of opinion in this behalf. Whereas the majority of two members held that it is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the minority view wa:s that it was violative .. Thus, these appeals by special leave. F This court in Union of India & Ors. v. N. Hargopal & Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 308, noted the contention of counsel appearing for respondents therein that excluding the candidates who were not sponsored through medium of employment exchange and restricting the choice of selection to the candidates sponsored through the medium of employment exchange, G would offend the equality clause of Articles 14 and 16 and held that the contention was attractive and it was not open to the Government to impose restriction on the field of choice. But in view of the fact that even the paper publication would not reach many a handicapped who would be unable to have access to the newspaper, it was held that the sponsorship through the H medium of employment exchange would not violate Articles 14 and 16. On EXCISE SUPERINI'ENDENf, MALKAPA '!NAM v. KB.N. VISWESHW ARA RAO 75 the other hand, it would advance the rights to the handicapped. In that A view, this Court uphel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.