- (1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge which reads as under : "the petitioner is permitted to appear for the interview for the purpose of selection for appointment to the post in question, as prayed for in the writ petition, along with other sponsored candidates on or before 30th of December, 2006 or any other subsequent date or dates. The case of the petitioner will be considered at par with other sponsored candidates for such selection. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Learned Advocate for the writ petition is given liberty to communicate the gist of the order to the concerned authority. "
(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same has been passed at the first hearing of the matter. We are of the considered opinion, that the aforesaid order cannot be sustained on the simple ground that the order finally disposing of a writ petition must be a speaking order. Such an order can only be passed after hearing the Counsel for all the affected parties. In normal circumstances it ought to be made-only after the parties have been given an opportunity to place on record their respective cases by way of affidavit, written statement or otherwise. On numerous occasions the Supreme Court has observed that short cryptic orders disposing of the writ petitions are not appropriate for disposing of the matters finally. In our opinion, this appeal cannot be disposed of finally at this stage as a large number of writ petitions have been disposed of and are being disposed of by this Court relying on a special Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Mahata vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. In our opinion, the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the proposition that as soon as an individual files a writ petition and claims that he has not been considered, as his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange would automatically be entitled to the order that he be interviewed along with the sponsored candidates. Such a direction would be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution as well as the law laid down by the supreme Court in a catena of judgments. The Supreme Court has categorically laid down in the case of Arun Kumar Nayek vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2006 (8) SCC 111 that advertisement for vacancies in a newspaper having wider circulation, announcement on Radio, Television and Employment newspaper bulletins are essential requirements for filling up vacancies on government posts as well as posts in Government instrumentality such as boards, Corporations and Co-operative Societies etc. Employment in a school would certainly fall within the definition of 'public employment'. Such employment cannot be limited only to candidates who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The relevant observations in paragraph 9 of the said judgment are as under : "9. This Court in Visweshwara Rao, therefore, held that intimation to the employment exchange about the vacancy and candidates sponsored from the employment exchange is mandatory. This Court also held that in addition and consistent with the principle of fair play, justice and equal opportunity, the appropriate department or establishment should also call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation, announcement on radio, television and employment news bulletins and consider all the candidates who have applied. This view was taken to afford equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates in the matter of employment. The rationale behind such direction is also consistent with the sound public policy that wider the opportunity of the notice of vacancy by wider publication in the newspapers, radio, television and employment news bulletin, the better candidates with better qualifications are attracted, so that adequate choices are made available and the best candidates would be selected and appointed to subserve the public interest better. "
(3.) SIMILAR observations have been made in the case of Excise Superintendent, malkapatnam, Krishna District, A. P. vs. K. B. N, Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216. In paragraph 6 of the judgment it has been observed as follows : "6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Fetter view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. ";