GOPAL CHAI CHETRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A copy 9f the writ petition has been served on Shri S.A. Laskar, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate Assam appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, we find it unnecessary to issue notice to respondents 4 to 6.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case can be summarised as follows : He had been serving as Peon -cum -Chowkidar from 1982 till 1988 continuously in the office of the 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Taxes, North Lakhimpur, though his appointments were against leave vacancies for all these years. He is a registered unemployed in the Employment Exchange at North Lakhimpur, Registration No. being 1794/81. The 3rd respondent sent a letter requesting District Employment Officer, North Lakhimpur (not a party to this petition) to sponsor, names of suitable candidates for appointment to the post of Peon -cum -Chowkidar and the latter sent a panel of names to the 3rd respondent. He did not sponsor the petitioner's name. Petitioner submitted an application to 3rd respondent seeking appointment to the post and the 3rd respondent forwarded his application to the District Employment Officer for being sponsored. The District Employment Officer, by Annexure -4 letter dated 23.1.91 declined to sponsor the petitioner's name. Among the candidates sponsored by the District Employment Officer, 3rd respondent, selected respondents 4, 5 and 6 and they have been appointed on 15.2.91. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to 3rd respondent to appoint him in the post of Peon -cum -Chowkidar. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been working continuously for 8 years in leave vacancies and he is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post, which is sought to be filled up regularly or temporarily and the petitioner's candidature cannot be ignored merely because the local Employment Exchange does not sponsor the petitioner's name. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mehboob Rahman v. State of Mizoram and Ors.1991 (2) GLJ 170 and in particular the following observations in that judgment:

(3.) EMPLOYMENT Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 has been enacted to facilitate the working of the Employment Exchanges with a view to find job opportunities to unemployed youth. Section 4 requires employers in every establishment in public sector to notify vacancies to the prescribed Employment Exchange for filling up any vacancies in their establishment. This Court in Mehboob Rahaman's case has held that sponsoring by Employment Exchange is not compulsory. On a consideration of the facts of the case it appears that the observation quoted above that "the petitioner cannot be deprived from the post if he is otherwise qualified" is an obiter dictum.