S. Ramu Vs. Executive Officer, T.T. Devasthanam and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
labour and industrial - appointment - article 226 of constitution of india and employment exchanges (compulsory notification vacancies) act, 1959 - procedure of recruitment followed by respondents for appointment of attenders challenged by appellant - appellant was one of the applicant and rejected on ground that candidates sponsored by employment exchange (ee) were entitled to be appointed only - appellant challenged the same - court observed that there was no illegality in procedure and same was not prohibited by act - in case where respondents decided to consider candidates sponsored by ee any direction or writ to contrary cannot be issued against it - appeal accordingly dismissed. - - 551) :while the government 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.orders.c. pratap, c.j.1. this appeal by the original with petitioner is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single judge by his order dt. 22nd november, 1991. 2. hearing counsel on either side and going through the impugned order, no interference therewith is warranted. 3. the appellant applied for the post of class iv attender in the tirumala tirupathi devasthanam (ttd). the stand of the devasthanam has been that, as and when it becomes necessary to appoint attenders in class-iv category, the procedure followed is it notify the vacancies of the posts and consider only those who are sponsored by the employment exchange. we see nothing illegal or invalid therein. on the contrary, it regulates the process of recruitment and reduces to the minimum, if not extinguishes, the scope for the any arbitrariness in the matter of such appointments. 4. in union of india v. n. haragopal 1987 - i - llj - 545 it has been observed by the supreme court thus (p.551) : 'while the government 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 absence of any statutory prescription, the statutory authority may, however, adopt and follow such instructions if it thinks fit.' 5. thus, while the employment exchanges (compulsory notification of vacancies) act 31 of 1959, does not, in express terms, apply to the devasthanam herein, nothing prevents the devasthanam from considering, as and when occasion so arises, only candidates sponsored by or through the employment exchange. if the devasthanam decides otherwise, a writ may not lie to compel it to do so. but, if it decides to consider candidates sponsored only by or through the employment exchange, writ or direction to the contrary cannot be issued against it. the appellant herein wants his claim to be considered by the devasthanam without being sponsored by or through the employment exchange. in accordance with the devasthanam's standard policy it will consider, and that also as and when occasion arises, only candidates sponsored by or through the employment exchange. 6. the learned single judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition. this appeal suffers the same fate and is dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.C. Pratap, C.J.

1. This appeal by the original with petitioner is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge by his order dt. 22nd November, 1991.

2. Hearing counsel on either side and going through the impugned order, no interference therewith is warranted.

3. The appellant applied for the post of Class IV Attender in the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD). The stand of the Devasthanam has been that, as and when it becomes necessary to appoint Attenders in Class-IV category, the procedure followed is it notify the vacancies of the posts and consider only those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. We see nothing illegal or invalid therein. On the contrary, it regulates the process of recruitment and reduces to the minimum, if not extinguishes, the scope for the any arbitrariness in the matter of such appointments.

4. In Union of India v. N. Haragopal 1987 - I - LLJ - 545 it has been observed by the Supreme Court thus (p.551) :

'While the Government 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 absence of any statutory prescription, the statutory authority may, however, adopt and follow such instructions if it thinks fit.'

5. Thus, while the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act 31 of 1959, does not, in express terms, apply to the Devasthanam herein, nothing prevents the Devasthanam from considering, as and when occasion so arises, only candidates sponsored by or through the Employment Exchange. If the Devasthanam decides otherwise, a writ may not lie to compel it to do so. But, if it decides to consider candidates sponsored only by or through the Employment Exchange, writ or direction to the contrary cannot be issued against it. The appellant herein wants his claim to be considered by the Devasthanam without being sponsored by or through the Employment Exchange. In accordance with the Devasthanam's standard policy it will consider, and that also as and when occasion arises, only candidates sponsored by or through the Employment Exchange.

6. The learned single Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition. This appeal suffers the same fate and is dismissed. No costs.