- (1.) This appeal is directed against Order dated 31.8.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil writ petition No. 969 of 1992 vide which the appellants were directed to consider the cases of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) for appointment as Mazdoors on regular basis.
(2.) A persual of the record shows that the respondents were employed as daily- wage Mazdoors in the printing and Stationary Department of the Government of Haryana on different dates between December 12, 1983 and April 19, 1986. Their services were terminated on May 31, 1989. They challenged the same in Civil Writ Petition No. 7606 of 1989. During the pendency of the petition, the department sent requisition to the Employment Exchange for filling up 15 posts on regular basis. The respondents again invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the appellants to consider their cases for regular appointment by contending that the zone of consideration cannot be confined to those sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The appellants contested the writ petition and relied on Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 in support of their stand that regular appointments can be made only from amongst the candidates registered with the Employment Exchange.
(3.) After considering rival pleadings and hearing the counsel for parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the following observations : "It is no doubt correct that the Parliament has enacted the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The purpose of this Act is to provide avenues for various categories of people to have their names registered so that whenever there is an appropriate job or vacancy, their claim may be considered. It is also a method of providing the employer, which includes the Government, with a forum from where a list of eligible persons can be procured. However, the provisions of the Act cannot be read to mean that the choice of suitable candidates has to be confined to the persons whose names are registered with the Employment Exchanges. It is not unlikely that a person, though fully qualified, may not get his name registered with the employment exchange. It is equally possible that person may get a temporary employment after his name has been registered with the employment exchange which may result in deletion of his name from the list of persons registered with the appropriate authority. In either event, the right of a person to compete for a public service cannot be curtailed or confined to only such persons as are registered with employment exchange. If an eligible person applies for a job, the employer is bound to consider his/her claim and cannot exclude such a person from consideration only on the ground that he/she is not registered with the employment exchange of the name has not been sponsored by the said authority. Such a course of action would be totally violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This precisely what appears to have been done by the respondents. Their action in doing so cannot be sustained. However, since the petitioners have been interviewed in pursuance of the orders of this Court it is directed that their result be announced and in case they have been found suitable by the selection committee, their claim for appointment be considered in accordance with the relevant criteria adopted by the appropriate authority. The needful shall be done within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.";