Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On a bare reading of the said paragraph it appears that the ratio decidendi of the judgment of K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors. (supra) is not that a non-sponsored candidate as per his choice and/or due to showing of any favour by the employer, would be entitled to appear in the interview. Right of non- sponsored candidate to appear in the interview is subject to declaration of the vacancy and invitation of the names of eligible candidates for appearance in the interview by advertising the same in the daily newspaper and in the notice board of the employer along with alternative modes of declaration of the vacancy by the electronic media, namely, television, radio etc. If we consider that the ratio of the judgment in K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors. (supra) is to this effect that anybody as per his choice may appear in the interview or any person as per favour shown for any consideration by the employer would be allowed to appear in the interview without any wide publication of the vacancy in the daily newspaper and in the notice board inviting applications from the eligible candidates, same will hit the basic structure of the Constitution in terms of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which speaks that equality in employment is the basic structure of the Constitution. That concept that equality of opportunity in employment is the basic features of the Constitution in terms of Article 14 and 16 has been summed up by Jagganath Rao,J. in the three Judges' Bench in the case Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 168 by holding "neither Parliament nor the Legislatures could transgress the basic feature of the Constitution, namely, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is facet". Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy speaking for the majority in the case Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1992) Suppl. (3) SCC 217, while acknowledging that equality and equal opportunity is a basic feature of our Constitution explained and exalted the position of the said Constitutional provision. Deducing therefrom, a Constitution Bench judgment in the case Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 held "adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution, so Court is responsible for ordering the need of compliance of Article 14 and 16". It is further held thereto that in public employment adherence to the rule of equality is a basic feature of Constitution by observing the role of High Court as sentinel and guardian of equal right protection to perform its duty. In the said case Uma Devi (3) & Ors. (supra), it has been further held that appointment in violation of the constitutional scheme would be a nullity.