Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The writ petitioner though in paragraph 10 pleaded accordingly that as per Visweshwara Rao (supra) the post was required to be advertised so that the non-sponsored candidates could appear subserving the fair play doctrine as postulated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but did not pray for any such order in the writ application. In the writ, the writ petitioner prayed in paragraph (a) - a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the writ petitioner only to appear in the Selection Committee for consideration of his candidatures. Hence, the prayer (a) aforesaid which is the only prayer in the writ even on the basis of the pleadings of the writ application was not a just prayer to allow the same. The writ petitioner in the writ pleaded one thing namely the right of all non-sponsored candidates to appear in the interview and for that reason referred the case of Visweshwara Rao (supra) whereby the open advertisement of the vacancy was directed to be made but in the prayer portion the writ petitioner simply prayed for only his appearance without any advertisement of the vacancy in the newspapers which if allowed would per se be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Which Is within the field of basic structure of the Constitution. Hence, on that pleading also vis-a-vis the prayer as made, the same cannot be allowed by the Writ Court as the same would be nothing but a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, denying right of other identically situated candidates.

20. Beside the point of Visweshwara Rao (supra) another point is striking in our mind that allowing of any individual non-sponsored candidate to appear in the interview will cause a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the other persons identically placed are not getting any opportunity to appear in the interview due to lack of any advertisement of the vacancy in the newspapers which also otherwise would cause an injury to the basic, structure, of the Constitution of India where equality in every respect is the basic foundation in terms of the Judgment as pronounced in the case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala , Indira Gandhi v. Raj Naryan reported in 1975 (supp.) SCC 1, Minerva Mills v. Union of India and subsequently the case Woman Rao v. Union of India in the broader angle of basic structure concept. Even to allow one individual candidate to appear in the interview by the Writ Court per se would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thereby would damage the basic structure of the Constitution which has been dealt with in the case State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, a Constitution Bench Judgment by holding, inter alia, that in public employment adherence to the rule equality is a basic feature of the Constitution Under the service Jurisprudence the same principle is squarely applicable in the present case in hand. Uma Devi (supra) also has been relied upon by the Apex Court in the service matter to answer the point of basic feature of the Constitution in the service law on angle of equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the case R.S. Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh .' Hence, having regard to the aforesaid findings and observations' the another point as raised fails.