Dismissed

B.T.Purna Kumar v. The District Employment Officer

Telangana HC9 Apr 2010WP/13394/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed five writ petitions challenging the respondent employer's refusal to consider direct applications for Junior Technician posts. Relying on earlier precedents, the Court held that the employer could validly restrict recruitment to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per its rules, without issuing a public notification, and no writ of mandamus would lie.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; no costs; no mandamus to issue public notification.

B.T.Purna Kumar Vs The District Employment Officer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13394 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13406 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13646 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13768 OF 2009, AND WRIT PETITION No.13819 OF 2009.

¶3

Dated: 23.12.2009

¶4

Between: 1. B.T. Purna Kumar and others. … Petitioners

¶5

And

¶6

1. The District Employment Officer, R.R. District., And another. … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.13394 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13406 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13646 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.13768 OF 2009, AND WRIT PETITION No.13819 OF 2009.

¶9

COMMON ORDER :

¶10

All these writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent - M/s. Bharat Dynamics Limited – in not considering the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Technicians on the ground that their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, MALKAPATNAM v. K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RA O^[1] contended that the respondents cannot restrict the recruitment only to the candidates

¶13

sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that as per the recruitment and promotion rules of the 2^nd respondent company, the non-executive vacancy shall be filled up only by the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore the impugned action cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. An identical question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.822 of 2000. After considering the observations made by the Supreme Court in K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO’S case (1 supra) and the other decided cases on the subject, the Division Bench by judgment dated 10.6.2003 held that the ratio raid down by the Supreme Court in K.B.N. VISWESHWARA RAO’S case (1 supra) would come into play where the employer is required to issue public notification inviting applications and consider the cases of those applicants also along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is further held by the Division Bench as under :

¶15

“In our considered opinion, it is for the concerned authority to decide whether they wish to call the candidates from open market or from the employment exchange or from both sources for a selection by them. If the employer decides to adopt both the courses, it cannot be precluded form doing so. But, if the employer decides to restrict his choice to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, the same does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”

¶16

Thus, it was concluded by the Division Bench as under :

¶17

“For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that a Writ of Mandamus does not lie compelling the employer to act contrary to its own regulations or rules, as the case may be, and to consider the cases of those who submit applications directly on their own accord along with the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, even though the rules or regulations, as the case may

¶18

be, prohibit such consideration.”

¶19

In the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.822 of 2000, dated 10.06.2003, and having regard to Rule 2.1 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the 2^nd respondent which specifically provides that the non-executive vacancies shall be filled up only from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, this Court dismissed W.P.No.13109 of 2009 and etc., by a common order dated 18.11.2009 holding that the 2^nd respondent was not required to issue any notification inviting applications from all the persons interested and consequently the action of the 2^nd respondent in confining the recruitment only through the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange cannot be found fault with and no Mandamus as prayed for can be issued.

¶20

Since the petitioners herein are also similarly situated, following the order in W.P.No.13109 of 2009 and etc., dated 18.11.2009, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶21

G. ROHINI, J.

¶22

Dt. 23.12.2009 gbs

¶23

[1] 1996 (7) Supreme 201

B.T.Purna Kumar v. The District Employment Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.T.Purna Kumar v. The District Employment Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.v.Narsing Rao, Vs A.P. Transco

V.Maheswara Reddy and Another Vs Sri Venkateswara University/Registand 3

The Superintending Engineer Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour

G.V.S. Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Ramachandra Rao, Vs Varakolu Janardhan Rao

P. Rajani D/o. Gangaraju, Vs Smt. Rachal Cheterjee, IAS

S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Vs Upender Reddy