Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusN. HARGOPAL & ORS.
- Citation
- 1987 INSC 105
- Decided
- 13 April 1987
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
The Act applies to government establishments but does not compel any employer to appoint only exchange‑sponsored candidates; Government instructions to its own departments are permissible and do not breach Articles 14 and 16.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to government establishments and whether it obliges any employer to recruit only candidates sponsored by employment exchanges. It held that government offices are "establishments in public sector" and thus fall within the Act’s definition, but Section 4(4) makes clear that the Act imposes no duty to appoint only exchange‑sponsored candidates. The Court further ruled that the Government may issue instructions to its own departments to fill vacancies through exchanges, provided such instructions do not violate the Constitution, and that such a restriction does not offend Articles 14 and 16. Private employers and statutory bodies cannot be compelled by government instructions. The appeal was disposed of, with the High Court’s view on the Act’s applicability to government establishments reversed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to government establishments.
- Whether the Act obliges public‑sector or private‑sector employers to recruit only candidates sponsored by employment exchanges.
- Whether Government instructions to fill vacancies through employment exchanges violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Government can compel statutory bodies or private employers to follow such instructions.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956s. 617
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
- Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959s. 2(e), s. 2(f), s. 2(g), s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 4(4)
Subjects
Employment lawPublic sector recruitmentEmployment Exchanges ActConstitutional lawEqualityArticles 14 and 16Government instructionsStatutory interpretationPrivate sector
Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
v.
N. HARGOPAL & ORS.
APRIL 13, 1987
y
B [0. CHINN APPA REDDY AND MURARI MO HON DUTT, JJ.]
Service Law.
Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies)
Act, 1959: Ss. 2(e), (f) and 4-Establishment in public sector/private
C sector-Whether bound to appoint only persons sponsored by employ-
ment exchanges-Statute whether covers government departments.
Constitution of India, Arts. 14 & 16: Insistence on recruitment
through employment exchanges-Whether offends equality clause.
D Sub-section (1) of s. 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory
Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 requires every·establishment in
public sector to notify vacancy in any employment to the employment
exchange. Suh-section (2) lays down similar requirement in respect of
every establishment in private sector, while suh-s. (4) lays down that
nothing in sub-ss. (1) and (2) shall be deemed to impose any obligation
E upon any employer to recruit any person through the employment
exchanges to rdl any vacancy merely because that vacancy has been
notified. An 'establishment' is defined ins. 2(e) of the Act to mean any
office or any place where any industry, trade, business or occupation is
carried on, an 'establishment in public sector'in s. 2(f) as an establish-
ment owned, controlled or managed by the Government or a Depart-
F ment of the Government, and an 'establishment in private sector' ins .
. 2(g) as an establishment which is not an establishment in public sector.
Instructions issued by the Government oflndia from time to time
enjoined upon employers-Central Government offices, quasi-
Government institutions and statutory organisations and estahlish-
G ments in the private sector to restrict their field of choice for vacancies
to which the Act applied in the first instance, to candidates sponsored
by employment exchanges.
A question arose as to whether an 'establishment in the public
sector', or an 'establishment in the private sector', as defined in the
H . Act, could make appointments to posts to which the Act applies, of
910
UNION v. N. HARGOPAL 911
persons not sponsored by the employment exchanges, and whether the A
~I Act covers Government establishments also.
The High Court held that the Act had no application to Govern-
ment establishments, that it casts no obligation either on the public
sector establishments or on the private sector establishments to make
the appointment from among candidates sponsored by the employment B
-~.. exchange only, and that any insistence that candidates sponsored by the
employment exchanges alone should be appointed would be contrary to
- the right guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Disposing of the Appeal of the Union of India, the Court,
HELD: 1. The High Court was wrong in holding that the Act was
c
not applicable to Government establishments. If the definition of
'establishment' in s. 2(e). which includes an 'office', is read alongside
the s. 2(t), it will be clear that Government offices are also included in
the expression 'establishment in public sector'. [914E]
D
2.1 There is no provision in the Act which obliges an employer to
employ those persons only who have been sponsored by the employment
exchanges. Section 4(4) of the Act makes it explicitly clear that the
employer is under no obligation to recruit any person through the emp-
loyment exchanges to fill iu a vacancy merely because that vacancy has
been notified under ss. 4(1) and 4(2). The compulsion extends only to f
notification of vacancies that may occur in the establishment before
filling them up. [915G-H; 916G]
2.2 The object of the Act is not to restrict, but to enlarge the field
I
of choice so that the employer may choose the best and the most efficient
_)
and to provide an opportunity to the worker to have his claim for F
appointment considered without having to knock at every door for
employment. [918B-C]
3. The Government is at perfect liberty to issue instructions to its
own departments and organisations to adhere to the role that not
merely vacancies should be notified to the employment exchanges but the G
vacancies should also be filled by candidates sponsored by the employ-
ment exchanges, provided the instructions do not contravene any con-
stitutional provision or any statute. But these instructions cannot bind
other bodies which are created by statute and which function under the
authority of ·statute. In the absence of any statutory presumption, the
statutory authority may adopt and follow such instructions if it thinks H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
A fit. Otherwise, the Government may not compel statutory bodies
appointment of persons from among candidates sponsored by employ-
ment exchanges only. Private employers cannot be so compelled by any
instructions issued by the Government. [921C-E] I
4. Any restriction that employment in Government Departments
B should be through the medium of employment exchanges ·does not
offend Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In public employment, it is
-
necessary to eliminate arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce
uniformity of standards and orderliness. There has to be an element of
procedural fairness in the recruitment. A public employer cannot '
choose to receive applications for employment where and when he
pleases and to make appointments as he likes. The insistence on recruit·
c ment through employment exchanges therefore, advances rather than
restricts the rights guaranteed by Arts. 14and16. [922E; B·D] >----,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIOI;: Civil Appeal Nos. 9-15
of 1986 etc.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.1985 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 8120, 8121, 7932, 8095, 8032, 8107
and 8109 of 1984.
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, C.V. Subba
E Rao, R.P. Srivastava, B. Parthasarthi, K.V. Sreekumar, D. Vidya-
nandam, M.K.D. Namboodary, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. V. Grover, Ms.
-
Anita, W.A. Qadri, A. Subba Rao, A.T.M. Sampath, R. Venkatara-
mani, R.A, Perumal, S.M. Garg and S. Markandeya for the appearing
parties.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The question raised in these appeals is
whether an 'establishment in the public sector' or an 'establishment in
the private sector' as defined in the Employment Exchanges (Com-
pulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 may make appointments
G to posts to which the Act applies, of persons not sponsored by the \;-
Employment Exchanges? A further question is whether the Act covers
Government establishments also? A Division Bench of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh l1as held that the Act has no application to Govern-
ment establishments, that the Act casts no obligation either on the
public sector establishment or on the private sector establishment to
H make the appointments from among candidates sponsored by the
UNION v. N. HARGOPAL [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.l 913
Employment Exchanges only and that any insistence that candidates A
sponsored by the Employment Exchanges alone should be appointed
would be contrary to the right guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the Union of India argued that the object and the scheme of the
Employmtnt Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act
and the instructions issued by the Government of In~ia from time to B
time left no option to the employers but to confine their field of choice
to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. It was argued
that such insistence that appointments should be made from candi-
dates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges only did not offend
Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He also argued that the Act was
applicable to Government Establishments also. c
We may refer to the provisions of the Employment Exchanges
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 without further
ado. The title of the Act itself suggests that the compulsion is in regard
to notifying of vacancies only and nothing more. The preamble to the
Act, like the title of the Act, also does not suggest any compulsion in D
the making of appointments, but only in the notifying of vacancies.
The preamble says "An Act to provide fot the compulsory notification
of vacancies to employment exchanges." Section 2(e), (f) and (g)
~ defines "establishment", "establishment in public sector" and
- "establishment in private sector" as follows:-
"(e) "establishment" means-
E
-' (a) any office, or
I (b) any place where any industry, trade, business or
~ occupation is carried on; F
(f) "establishment in public sector" means an establish-
ment owned, controlled or managed by-
(1) the government or a department of the Govern-
.--i ment;
(2) A Government company as defined in section 617
G
of the Companies Act, 1956;
(3) A corporation (including a cooperative society)
established by or under a Central, Provincial or State H
A
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
Act, which is owned, controlled or managed by the
Governmnt;
I
'( f
(4) A local authority; i,'
(g) "establishment in private sector" means an establish-
B ment which is not an establishment in public sector and
where ordinarily twenty-five or more persons are emp~
loyed to work for remuneration;"
The High Court thought that the definition of "establishment in public
sector" as meaning an establishment owned, controlled or managed
-
by the Government or a Department of the Government indicated that
c an establishment in public sector was something different from the
Government or a Department of Government and did not include the
Government or Department of the Government. It had to be some-
thing which could be owned, controlled or managed by the Govern-
ment or a department of the Government. The High Court also
D thought that the expression 'public sector' was used in contradiction to
'private sector' and that it could not include offices of the Govern-
ment. The expression would only take in an agency or instrumentality
of the State, but not the State itself. We are unable to agree with the
conclusion of the High Court on this part of the case. If the definition
of 'establishment' which includes an 'office' is read alongside the
E definition of 'establishment in public sector', it will be clear that
Government offices are also included in the expression 'establishment
in public sector'. That is the interpretation which the Government
itself is advancing before us and that is how the Government has
always understood the provision during these three decades as will be
evident from the instructions issued by the Government from time to
F time to which we shall be referring later in the course of our judgment. We
are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the Act is not
applicable to Government establishments.
Section 3 of the Act specifies posts, vacancies to which the Act
does not apply. Section 4 provides for the notification of vacancies to
G employment exchanges. It is desirable to extract the whole of sec. 4 '
·"v-,
which is as follows:-
"4. (1) After the commencement of this Act in any State
or area thereof, the employer in every establishment in
public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up
H any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, I
I
1
UNION v. N. HARGOPAL [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.] 915
notify that vacancy to such employment exchanges as may
be prescribed. A
(2) The appropriate Government, may, by notifica-
tion in the Official Gazette, require that from such date as
may be specified in the notification, the employer in every
establishment in private sector or every establishment B
pertaining to any class or category of establishments in
private sector shall, before filling up any vacancy in any
employment in that establishment notify that vacancy to
such employment exchanges as may be prescribed, and the
employer shall thereupon comply with such requisition.
(3) The manner in which the vacancies referred to in sub- c
section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be notified to the
employment exchanges and the particulars of employments
in which such vacancies have occurred or are about to occur
shall be such as may be prescribed.
D
(4) Nothing in sub-sections (l) and (2) shall be deemed to
impose any obligation upon any employer to recruit any
person through the employment exchanges to fill any
vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified
under any of the sub-sections."
- Section 5 deals with the duty of the employers to furnish information
and returns in prescribed forms. Section 6 provides for official access
to records and documents. Section 7 provides for penalities. Section 8
deals with cognizance of offences. Section 9 provides for protection of
E
action taken is good faith. Section JO vests the rule making power in the
Central Government. F
It is evident that there is no provision in the Act which obliges an
employer to make appointments through the agency of the Employ-
ment Exchanges. Far from it, sec. 4( 4) of the Act, on the other hand,
makes it explicitly clear that the employer is under no obligation to
recruit any person through the Employment Exchanges to fill in a G
vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified under sec. 4( !)
or sec. 4(2). In the face of sec. 4(4), we consider it utterly futile for the
learned Additional Salicitor General to argue that the Act imposes any
obligation on the employers apart from notifying the vacancies to the
Employment Exchanges. The learned Additional Solicitor General
invited our attention to the speach of the Minister of Labour and H
,
916' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S,C,R,
A Employment and Planning (Shri Nanda) made at the time of the intro-
duction of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of
Vacancies) BilL Far from being of any assistance to the learned
Addititional Solicitor General, the speech appears to be against his
submission, In his speech, the Minister quoted from the report of the
Training and Employment Services Organisation Committee and
B observed that the recommendation of the Committee offered a full
explanation of the provisions of the BilL The recommendation of the
Committee which he quoted was, "Though we have not, for the
present, recommended compulsion on private employers to recruit
through the employment exchanges, we recommend that they be re-
quired on a compulsory basis to notify to the Exchanges all vacancies,
other than vacancies for unskilled categories, vacancies of very
c temporary duration and vacancies proposed to be filled through pro-
motion," The Minister further said, "The main thing is that an obliga-
tion is being placed that after this legish.tion becomes operative, from
that date, the employer in every establishment in the public sector
shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establish-
D ment, notify that vacancy to such Employment Exchanges as may be
prescribed. And so far as the private sector is concerned, there is this
furth2r qualification that the Government concern may specify by
notification that the employer in every establishment in private sector
or every establishment pertaining to any class or category of establish-
ments in private sectors shall, before filling up any vacancy in any
E employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such
Employment Exchanges as may be prescribed. This is the kernel of this
provision. This is the main object, th~t is, an obligation placed on the
employer to notify the vacancies that may occur in their ,establishment
-
before filling these vacancies." The Minister was conscious that there i
was a likelihood of the Bill being misunderstood as compelling the
F employers to make appointments through the Employment Exchanges
only, He clarified the position saying, "The misunderstanding is as if
1 this Bill gives power to the Government to compel the employers to
recruit only such persons as are submitted by the employment
exchanges, That is not so, This compulsion extends only to notification
, of vacancies. Naturally the employer has to consider the names which
G are submitted by the employment exchanges but there is no compul-
sion that they must restrict to the choice only to :he least that is
submitted to them. Of course, there is also the objection from the
other side that it may not go far enough. We believe that even this will
make things very much better, In any case, when the Committee re-
ported, they also suggested this much advance. At present, they said,
H we should have only compulsory notification, but not compel the emp-
UNION v. N. HARGOPAL [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.] 917
loyers to recruit only out of the least that is sent by the employment A
exchanges."
As we said the speech of the Minister, at the time of the intro-
duction of the Bill, is totally destructive of the contention of the
learned Additional Solicitor General that the employers are under an
obligation to recruit persons for appointment through the Employ- B
ment Exchanges only. The learned Additional Solicitor General re-
J quested us to give a purposive interpretation to the provisions of the
\ Act and insist that employers, in making appointments, should restrict
-~-~their field of choice to candidates sponsored by the employment
exchanges. We are unable to appreciate the argument since there is no
provision of the Act which requires interpretation by us and which we C
may reasonably interpret as compelling the employer to appoint
persons sponsored by the employment exchanges. On the other hand,
-~ we have already referred to sec. 4(4) which is explicit that there is no
such obligation on the part of the employer. We also notice that the
object of the Act is not to restrict the field of choice in any perticular
manner, but to enlarge the field of choice. That is why in his intro- D
ductory speech, the Minister said, " ......... a large number of
employers, particularly in similar industrial establishments and in
construction works, do not employ any scientific method, but depend
_\ for their supply of labour on agents or recruit in a haphazard manner
-r from amongst these assembled at factory gates or at works sites. The .
. methods adopted are not always dictated by a consideration of effi- E
-~ cient service, but as more a matter of bestowing patronage and favour.
This applies in varying degrees to a large number of employers." The
Minister discussed the existing position and anticipated position in the
,.... following words:-
"The Act of notification of vacancies has important conse- f
quences. In the first place, so far as the employer is con-
cerned, he will be placed in a position to have a much wider
hoice for the purpose of selection. Now, what is the pre-
sent position? Any person knocks at the gate of the factory
or the mill or other establishment and from those few who
are there they choose. Now it would be possible for them to G
haye a wider area of selection. The names of so many
others who may not be able to go and knock at every gate,
can be submitted and out of them, the best can be selected.
So far as the quoting of selection is concerned, it should
improve because of the wider range of choice. On the side
of the worker certainly it means a more equitable distribu- H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
tion of employment opportunities. It should not be neces-
A sary for a person to be all the day moving from place to
place. It should be sufficient for him to register at a place,
give all the particulars about his qualifications and then he
should be sure that at any rate, his name will be considered
along with other names and there will be some regard for
B fitness in the choice of people who enter these new places
for employment."
It is, therefore, clear that the object of the Act is not to restrict,
but to enlarge the field of choice so that the employer may choose the---->\
best and the most efficient and to provide an opportunity to the worker
C to have his claim for appointment considered without the worker
-
having to knock at every door for employment. We are, therefore,
firmly of the view that the Act does not oblige any employer to employ ).---
those persons only who have been sponsored by the employment
exchanges.
D The next question for consideration is whether the instructions
issued by the Government from time to time have the effect of compel-
ling the employers to restrict their field of choice to candidates
sponsored by the employment exchanges. We may straightaway rafer
to some of the instructions on which reliance was placed by the learned
Additional Solicitor General. In O.M. No. 14/11/64-Estt. (D) dated
E March 21, 1964, the Ministry of Home Affairs addressed all the
Ministries regarding recruitment of staff through the agency of the
National Employment Service and the utilisation of Employment
Exchanges by quasi-government institutions and statutory organisa-
tions. It is enough if we extract paragraphs I, 4 and 5 of this communi-
cation which are as follows:-
F
"1. The undersigned is directed to say that in paragraph 6
of this Ministry's office Memorandum No. 71/40-DGS
(Apptts) dated the 11th December, 1949 (copy enclosed) it
was laid down that all vacancies in Central Government
Establishments, other than those filled through the Union
G Public Service Commission should be notified to the
nearest Employment Exchange and that no Department or
office should fill any vacancy by direct recruitment unless
the Employment Exchanges certified that they were unable
to supply suitable, candidates. Subsequently in this
Ministry's Office Memorandum Nos. 71/49-DGS (Apptts)
H dated 30th January, 1951 and 71/222/56-CS(C) dated the
UNION v. N. HARGOPAL [CHINNAPPA REDDY. J.] 919
14th December, 1956 (copy enclosed). The Ministry of A
Finance etc. were requested to issue immediate instruc-
tions to all quasi-Government institutions and statutory
Organisations with which they were concerned asking them
to fall in line, as far as possible, with the Central Govern-
ment establishments in the matter of recruitments, by
suitably amending their recruitment rules or adopting B
Resolutions to achieve this object if necessary. The
Ministries were also requested to impress upon these in-
stitutions that it was in their own interest as well as in the
'j-4_...- interest of the country as a whole that recruitment should
be made through the Employment Exchanges, as a large
number of experienced and trained hands were available on C
their registers 'and the need for tapping other sources of
recruitment should arise only if the Employment Exchange
has certified that they were unable to nominate suitable
recruits from their registers.
D
4. Under the EE (CNV) Act, recruitment of staff through
the Employment Service is voluntary su far as the private
sector is concerned. Even so, efforts are made by the E
Employment Service to persuade the private sector to
accept candidates sponsored by the Employment Exch~n-
ges. The Directorate General of Employment and Training
are placed in a very embarrassing situation when they have
to approach the State Governments and establishments in
the private sector to utilise the Employment Service in fil- F
ling up the vacancies, when some establishments in the
public sector do not recognise the Employment Service as
the normal channel of recruitment.
5. It is accordingly requested that the Ministry of Finance
etc., may issue instructions to all quasi-Government irrsti- G
tutions and Statutory Organisations with which they are
concerned requiring them to notify vacancies in the manner
and form prescribed in Rule 4 of the EE( CNV) Rules 1960
to the prescribed Employment Exchange and to fall in line
with the Central Government Departments in the recruit-
ment of staff through the agency of the Employment H
'
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.
service. The need for issuing advertisements for inviting
A
applications or tapping other sources of recruitment should
be considered only if the Employment Exchanges issue
non-availability certificates. A copy of the instructions
issued by the Ministry of Finance etc., may kindly be
endorsed to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Directo-
B rate General of Employment and Training."
It will be noticed that in order to give effect to such instructions in the >-
case of quasi-Government institutions and statutory organisations, it
would be necessary to suitably amend the recruitment rules or adopt ~
resolutions to achieve that object. This is so mentioned in para 1. In
Office Memorandum No. 14/22/65-Estt. (H) dated June 12, 1968, the
c Ministry of Home Affairs informed all the other Ministries:-
"The undersigned is directed to say that in paragraph 6 of
this Ministry's O.M. No. 71/49/DGS (Apptt) dated the
11th December, 1949, it was laid down that all vacancies in
D Central Government Establishments, other than those fil-
led through the Union Public Service Commission, should
be notified to the nearest Employment Exchange and that
no Department or Office should fill any vacancy by direct
recruitment unless the Employment Exchange certified
that they were unable to supply candidates."
E
In office Memorandum No. 14024/2/77-Estt(D) dated April 12, 1977,
the Department of Personnel addressed all the Ministries/Depart-
ments and said,
F
"As the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, etc.
are aware, in accordance with the instructions issued by the
Central Government (vide marginally-noted communica-
""
\..
tions), all vacancies arising under Central Government
Offices/establishments (including quasi-Government insti-
tutions and statutory organisations), irrespective of the
nature and duration (other than those filled through the
G Union Public Service Commission), are not only to be
notified to, but also to be filled through, the Employment ~
Exchange alone and other permissible sources of recruit-
ment can be tapped only if the Employment Exchange con-
cerned issued a'non-availability' c.ertificate. There can be
no departure from this recruitment procedure unless a
different arrangement in this regard has been previously
;'
UNION v. N. HARGOPAL (CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.] 921
agreed to in consultation with this Department and the A
Ministry of Labour (Directorate General of Emloyment
and Training). Similar instructions are also in force requir-
ing vacancies against posts carrying a basic salary of less
than Rs.500 p.m. in Central Public Employment
Exchanges."
B
It is clear that it is the desire of the Government of India that all
Government Departments, Government Organisation and statutory
- bodies should adhere to the rule that not merely vacancies should be
notified to the Employment Exchanges, but the vacancies should also
be filled by candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. It
was only when no suitable candidates were available, then other
sources of recruitment were to b~ considered. While the Government C
is at perfect liberty to issue instructions to its own departments and
organisations provided the instructions do not contravene any
constitutional provision or any statute, these instructions cannot bind
other bodies which are created by statute and which function under the
authority of statute. In the observation of any statutory prescription D
the statutory authority may however adopt and follow such instruc-
tions if it thinks fit. Otherwise, the Government may not compel
statutory bodies to make appointments of person from among candi-
dates sponsored by employment exchanges only. The question, of
course, does not arise in the case of private employers which cannot be
so compelled by any instructions issued by the Government. E
The further question is whether the instruction issued by the
Government that in the case of Government Departments the field of
choice should, in the first instance, be restricted to candidates
sponsored by the employment exchanges offend Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Shri P. Parmeshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for F
some of the respondents strenuously urged that such a restriction
would offend the equality clauses of the Constitution, namely, Arts. 14
and 16. He urged that when Parliament had gone into the question and
decided that there should be no compulsion in the matter of appoint-
ment by way of restriction of the field of choice, it was not open to the
Government to impose such compulsion. He argued that it would be G
unreasonable to restrict the field of choice to these sponsored by the
employment exchanges. In a country so vast as India, in a country
where there was so much poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, it was not
right that employment opportunities should necessarily be channelled
through the employment exchanges when it is not shown that the
network of employment exchanges is so wide, that it reaches all the H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
A corners of this vast country. He argued that it is futile to expect that
persons living in distant places could get themselves registered with
employment exchanges situated far away. The submission of Shri ''!'- ,'
I "
Parmeshwara Rao is indeed appealing and attractive. Nonetheless, we
are afraid we cannot uphold it. The object of recruitment to any
service or post is to secure the most suitable person who answers the
8 demands of the requirements of the job. In the case of public employ-
men!, it is necessary to eliminate arbitrariness and favouritism and
introduce uniformity of standards and orderliness in th> matter of
employment. There has to be an element of pracedural fairness in
>-·
recruitment. If a public employer chooses to receive applications for
employment where and when he pleases, and chooses to make
c appointments as he likes, a grave element of arbitrariness is certainly
introduced. This must necessarily be avoided if Arts. 14 and 16 have to
.-"'(
-
be given any meaning. We, therefore, consider that insistence of
recruitment through employment exchanges advances rather than 'r-
restricts the rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The submission that employment exchanges do not reach every-where
D
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 restric-
lion that employment in Government Departments should be through
the medium of employment exchanges does not offend Arts. 14 and 16 -~-
E 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 . -
P.S.S
• Appeals disposed of.
~.
\.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Employment law"Sign in to search