Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that Rules 14, 15 and 16 of the Rules regarding selection of the candidates have been fully complied with. Rule 14 leaves the appointing authority free to issue advertisement in the manner as he thinks fit. The appointing authority not only placed the advertisement on the notice board of his office but, also, sent the copies of the same to the Commissioner, Udaipur, Deputy Secretary, General Administration, Jaipur as well as to the Collector, Rajsamand, Tehsil Headquarter of Panchayat Samiti and the District Employment Exchange Officer, Rajsamand for placing it on their notice boards and, therefore, there is no violation of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1963. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent- petitioners that the Employment Exchange Act is not applicable to the government offices and is applicable only to the establishments in public sector. Even this requirement of calling the names from the employment exchange was put to an end on 29.1.90 and was revived on 1.9.93 and this condition was not in force on the date when the advertisement was Issued. It has, also, been submitted that the condition only requires that the persons registered with the employment exchange should be given appointments and all the petitioner-respondents, who were, given appointments, were registered with the employment exchange. Regarding the ban on the appointments it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the 'No Objection Certificate.' was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner before making the appointments and even if there was a ban imposed by the administrative order then that can be considered to be mandatory between the State and its officers and not qua the third party. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance over: G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and Ship Lal v. Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 303 of 1985 and other connected appeals decided on 8.9.87. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners that the termination of the services of the respondents is clearly discriminatory as those persons selected and appointed in the same manner by the District Education Officer, Udaipur have been allowed to continue in service while the services of the respondent-petitioners have been terminated.

11. Admittedly, in the present case, the advertisement, was not published in any of the news papers and it was pasted on the notice board of the Office of the District Education Officer, Rajsamand. The copies of this notification were, also, sent to the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, Deputy Secretary, General Administration, Jaipur, Collector, Rajsamand and the District Employment Exchange Officer, Rajsamand. It was, also, sent for fixing on the notice boards to the Office of the District Collector, Rajsamand, Tehsil Office as well as to the Panchayat Samiti, Rajsamand. It was, also, sent to the Deputy District Education Officer, Nathdwara and Deogarh for sending the list of the daily wages employees working in their offices. There is nothing on record to suggest that the notification sent by the appointing authority were affixed on the respective notice boards of the departments. In all 332 applications were initially received by the last date which was fixed as 21.8.93. The appointing authority thereafter extended the date and notified on its own notice board that the persons interested may directly appear before the Selection Committee alongwith the particulars on 9.9.93 and 750 persons were interviewed. Merely because 750 persons appeared for interview, it cannot be said that the wide publicity has been given, the compliance of the Rules has properly been made and the vacancies have been properly advertised. As the vacancies were not properly advertised, therefore, the complaints were made by the President, N.S.U.I., District Employment Exchange Officer and the other organisations. Without publication in the daily news paper having circulation in the area, it cannot be said that the vacancies have been properly advertised and the requirement of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1963 has been satisfied. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the notification does not require to be published in the news paper, is against the wishes of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1963.

16. The District Education Officer, Rajsamand, in the present case, by his letter dated 23.7.93 requested the District Employment Exchange Officer, Rajsamand to send the list of the candidates registered with the employment exchange by 27.7.93. The District Employment Exchange Officer returned the letter with the remark that the time left at his disposal is very short and at least 21 days are required to send the list. He, also, informed the appointing authority that in the letter it has, also, not been mentioned that how much posts are reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Handicapped persons and in the absence of any Roster Point, the list of the candidates cannot be submitted. The District Education Officer, in reply, by his letter dated 31.7.93 did not inform the category-wise vacancies and informed that the appointments will be given only in accordance with the Roster System and the names should be sent within a week. Without waiting for the list from the Employment Exchange, the appointing authority proceeded with the process. Asking the Employment Officer, without intimating the Roster Point as per the directions of the Home Ministry and giving one week's time to the Employment Exchange Officer for sending the names, cannot be said to "advertising the vacancies through employment exchange as per Rule 14 of the Rules, 1963." It was merely a formality observed by the District Education Officer but the compliance of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1963 has not been made. The selections made by the District Education Officer in contravention of Rule 14, were, therefore, rightly cancelled by the concerned authorities.

27. It is not the case of the respondents that any person selected during this process by the District Education Officer, Rajsamand has been retained in service. The only grievance made by the respondents is that the persons who have been given' appointments by the District Education Officer, Udaipur by the same process, have been allowed to continue in service. The appellants' case is that the enquiry against those appointments was, also, undertaken and the enquiry is still pending. The appointments given to the Lab. Boys in Udaipur District were given by a separate process and forms a separate class and the enquiry in that matter is, also, pending. No person, who was given appointment in Rajsamand District by this selection process has been retained and the whole selection list has been quashed. There is, therefore, no question of any discrimination exercised by the appellants in terminating the services of the petitioner- respondents. Moreover, the appointments of the respondents were for a fixed period which ended on 31.3.94 and the extended period, also, expired on 30.4.94. Thereafter no extension was given to them. After the lapse of the time for which the appointments were given to the respondents, their services automatically came to an end. These appointments were purely temporary and for a fixed period and no order was required to be passed. If any order for relieving them has been passed then that is of no consequence and the services of the respondents were rightly terminated after the expiry of the period for which the appointments were given.