1987 (4) TMI 491 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 to Government establishments.
2. Obligation of employers to appoint candidates only through Employment Exchanges.
3. Constitutionality of restricting recruitment to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges under Articles 14 and 16.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 to Government Establishments:
The primary issue was whether the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to Government establishments. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held that the Act does not apply to Government establishments. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view. The Court interpreted the definitions of "establishment," "establishment in public sector," and "establishment in private sector" provided in Section 2 of the Act. The Court concluded that Government offices are included in the expression "establishment in public sector." The Court emphasized that the Government itself had always understood the provision in this manner, as evident from the instructions issued over three decades. Therefore, the Act applies to Government establishments.

2. Obligation of Employers to Appoint Candidates Only Through Employment Exchanges:
The second issue was whether the Act obliges employers to make appointments exclusively from candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges. The Court referred to Section 4 of the Act, which mandates the notification of vacancies to Employment Exchanges but does not impose any obligation on employers to recruit only through Employment Exchanges. Section 4(4) explicitly states that notifying a vacancy does not compel the employer to recruit any person through the Employment Exchanges. The Court also examined the speech of the Minister of Labour and Employment and Planning during the introduction of the Bill, which clarified that the Bill's intention was only to mandate the notification of vacancies, not to compel recruitment through Employment Exchanges. Consequently, the Court held that the Act does not impose any such obligation on employers.

3. Constitutionality of Restricting Recruitment to Candidates Sponsored by Employment Exchanges under Articles 14 and 16:
The third issue was whether the Government's instructions that restrict recruitment to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the argument that such restrictions could be seen as unreasonable given the vastness and diversity of India. However, the Court emphasized that the objective of public employment is to secure the most suitable candidates while eliminating arbitrariness and favoritism. The Court found that recruitment through Employment Exchanges advances the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 by introducing uniformity and procedural fairness. The Court also noted that other methods, such as advertising vacancies in daily newspapers, are equally ineffective in reaching all potential candidates. Therefore, the Court concluded that the restriction does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 applies to Government establishments and does not obligate employers to recruit exclusively through Employment Exchanges. The Court also ruled that restricting recruitment to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appeals and special leave petitions were disposed of accordingly.