J. Bhasker v. Chairman Agrl. Marketting Committee & Anr.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for test and interview for selection to the post of Attender without insisting that he should be sponsored by the employment exchange. In the writ petition, the emphasis is on the past service, though temporary. But temporary service is not an incadre service and that does not give any right to the post. Necessarily, the petitioner has got to be selected on regular basis. For that, he has to participate in writing test and also interview. For participation in the test and consequent interview, the petitioner needs to be sponsored by the employment exchange. That is what was insisted upon by the respondents. The respondents are the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. Aggrieved by the said demand of the respondents that the petitioner should be sponsored by the employment exchange so as to be considered for the post, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that he is entitled for preference on the basis of his past service and also directions to consider his case without insisting upon the sponsoring of his name by the employment exchange. Notice before admission was ordered and meanwhile interim directions were issued to consider the case of the Petitioner without insisting upon the sponsoring of his name by the employment exchange. A petition to vacate the said directions has been filed and the matter came up for hearing.

2. While the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inspite of the interim directions, the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner, the defence set up by Ms. Nanda, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the interim directions are fit to be vacated as sponsoring from the employment exchange is a must for considering the case of the petitioner. Mr. Kali has pointed out to several other orders passed by some learned Judges of this Court, but Ms. Nanda seeks to distinguish the same from the case like the instant one on the ground that by virtue of rule making power under Section 33 of to above Act, rules were framed titled “Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Market Rules, 1969 and that Rule 178 thereof, makes it mandatory on the part of the respondents to consider for recruitment only of such persons who are sponsored by the employment exchange.

3. It is then contended by Mr. D.P Kali, the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 3 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the employment exchange Act) exempts the posts of Attender and the like from the purview of the Employment Exchange Act and as such, the proviso to Rule 178 of A.P Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Market Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the A.P Agricultural Market Rules”) is ultra vires and cannot be given effect to and should be ignored. But, Ms. Nanda, the learned standing counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the above rule sustains as the Employment Exchange Act is an enabling one and even though the post of Attender is not specifically covered by the said Act, nothing prevents the authorities from adopting a particular course i.e drawing the list only through employment exchange so as to ensure fairness in consideration for employment of all the aspirants and by this uniform policy, arbitrariness on the part of the authorities is ruled out, as there will not be any scope for pick and choose. For that reason, she contends that the above Rule 178 of A.P Agricultural Market Rules is salutary, valid and intra vires. In this regard she has cited the judgment rendered in C. Srinivasulu v. Executive Officer, T.T Devasthanams (1) 1992 (2) A.L.T 4 (NRC) which was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court of which I am a party, following the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. N. Haragopal (2) (1987) 3 SCC 308 : AIR 1987 SC 1227. She has also cited a judgment rendered by Sri Justice Upendralal Waghray in G. Trilochana Rao v. A.P Residential Schools for Backward Classes (3) 1991 (II) 10 A.L.T 616 which was upheld even in Writ Appeal No. 1041/91.

4. Even though there is no mandate under the Employment Exchange Act on the part of the Agricultural Market Committees to notify the vacancies of Attenders to the employment exchange concerned, the agricultural market committees are not precluded from choosing the candidates only through the media of employment exchange and more so, in view of Rule 178 of A.P Agricultural Market Rules and accepting the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents, I hold that Rule 178 of A.P Agricultural Market Rules, 1969 is valid and the Agricultural Market Committees can consider the candidates for all posts including that of Attenders only by notifying the vacancies to the employment exchange and drawing a list from it.

5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

6. Interim directions are vacated. No costs.