Skip to content


Parmeshwar Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and 14 ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303, 1305, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328
Judge
Reported in1981WLN178
AppellantParmeshwar Lal
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and 14 ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredMadras v. The District Employment Officer
Excerpt:
employment exchange act, 1959 - section 4--employment through employment exchange--government not empowered to ban employment except through employment exchange--held, termination of services of persons employed without reference to employment exchange is illegal.;on a plain reading of the provisions of the employment exchange act and also above the two decisions of the high courts on them, in which the scheme of the act has been interpreted, it is patent that no statutory prohibition is intended against employment of employees without reference of the employment exchange. in other words, so far as the statute is concerned, the government has not been given authority or power in law to put a ban on employment except through the employment exchange by taking resort to any of the provisions..........appointed on temporary basis. their services have been terminated on account of a circular of the state government dated 13th may, 1980 that no employee should be appointed without his registration before the employment exchange. in case any such appointment shall be made between 10-12-79 to 13-5-80, their services should be terminated.2. it is not in dispute that on 10th december, 1979, the state government issued the following order:jktlfkku ljdkjje ,oa fu;kstu fohkkxdzekad ik- 7@5@j@fu@79 t;iqj fnukad 10&12&1979 vkns'k fo'k; %&& fu;kstu dk;zky;ks }kjk laizsf'kr vk'kkrh;ks dh lwph es ls gh fu;qfdr dh vfuok;zrk dh lekfir a ftu jktdh; dk;zy;ks jkt; ds lkoztfud {ks= o v)z 'kkluh; lalfkkvks es fu;qfdr djus gsrq fu;sktu dk;zky;ks }kjk leizsf'kr 'kkffkz;sk dh lwph ls gh djuk vfuok;z gks ds.....
Judgment:

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. These 23 writ petitions have been filed by the employees of the State of Rajasthan against the order of their termination. All these employees were appointed on temporary basis. Their services have been terminated on account of a Circular of the State Government dated 13th May, 1980 that no employee should be appointed without his registration before the employment exchange. In case any such appointment shall be made between 10-12-79 to 13-5-80, their services should be terminated.

2. It is not in dispute that on 10th December, 1979, the State Government issued the following order:

jktLFkku ljdkj

Je ,oa fu;kstu foHkkx

Dzekad Ik- 7@5@J@fu@79 t;iqj fnukad 10&12&1979 vkns'k

fo'k; %&& fu;kstu dk;Zky;ks }kjk laizsf'kr vk'kkrh;ks dh lwph es ls gh fu;qfDr dh vfuok;Zrk dh lekfIr A

ftu jktdh; dk;Zy;ks jkT; ds lkoZtfud {ks= o v)Z 'kkluh; laLFkkvks es fu;qfDr djus gsrq fu;sktu dk;Zky;ks }kjk lEizsf'kr 'kkfFkZ;sk dh lwph ls gh djuk vfuok;Z gks ds lEcU/k es jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj izfdz;k viuk;h tkos A

1- dkuwu ds izko/kkuks ds vuqlkj 'kfDr;ks dh vf/klwpuk fu;sktu dk;Zky;ks dks iwoksZDr tkjh jgsxh] iwoZor% gh fu;kstu foHkkx mDr vf/klwpuk ij lEizsf'kr tkjh j[ksxs Aij fu;kstdkvks ds fy, ;g vfuok;Z gksxk fd og p;u djrs le; muls ;g LorU=rk gksxh fd og fu;kstu dk;Zy;ks }kjk laizsf'kr vk'kkFkhZ;ks ds vfrfjDr vU; ,sls vk'kkFkhZ;ks ds izkFkZuki=ks ij Hkh ;skX;rk ,oa ik=rk ds vk/kkj ij fopkj djds tks fu;kstu dk;kZy; es iathd`r gks A izR;sd fu;kstrk fu;qfDr vkns'k ftles IkzR;sd fu;qDr vk'kkFkhZ;sk dk iath;u dzekad vafdr gks dh ,d izfr lEcfU/kr fu;kstu dk;kZy; dsk vfuok;Zr% Hksts A

2- jktdh; {ks= rFkk jkT; ds lkoZtfud {ks= ,oa v)Zljdkjh 'kkldh; laLFkkvks ij mijksDr izfdz;k leku :Ik ls ykxw jgsxh A dsfUnz; yksd {ks= dsfUnz; ljdkj ds funsZ'kks ds vuqlkj dk;Z djsxs A

3- tks Hkh 'kkldh; foHkkx yksd {ks= ;k v)Zljdkjh laLFkk, fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu vkeaf=r djus gsrq foKkiu tkjh djuk pkfg,] ml foKkiu dks vfuok;Z :Ik ls jkstxkj lans'k es Nius lh/ks fu;kstu lsok funs'kky; dks Hksts A jkstxkj lans'k ds vfrfjDr vU; Ik= if=dkvks es Nikus dh vko;'drk fu;sdrk ds foosdk/khu gksxh A

vkKk esa

gLrk{kj

[kq'kgky flag

mi 'kkld lfpo

Thereafter on 13th May, 1980, Ex. 2 was issued by the State Government by which the order dated 10th December, 1979 was withdrawn. Ex. 2 reads as under:

jktLFkku ljdkj

Dzekad Ik- 7@51@Jfu@79 t;iqj 13 ebZ 1980 & vkns'k &

fo'k; %&& fu;kstu dk;kZy;ks }kjk lEizsf'kr vk'kkFkhZ;ks dh lwph es ls gh fu;qfDr dh vfuok;Zrk dh lekfIrA

bl foHkkx ds mijksDr fo'k;d lax laLFkd vkns'k fnukad 10&12&1979 ds vUrZxr vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks Afd jktdh; dk;Zy;ks jktdh; lkoZtfud {ks=ks o v)Z'kkluh; laLFkkvks es fu;qfDr djus gsrq fu;kstu dk;Zky;ks }kjk lEizsf'kr vk'kkFkhZ;ks dh lwph es ls Hkh fu;qfDr djuk vfuok;Z gh gksxh A fnukad 10&12&1979 ds mDr vkns'k dks rqjUr izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj 10&12&1979 ds vkns'k tkjh gksus ls iwoZ dh fLFkfr dks ;Fkkor dk;e j[kk tkrk gS A

dqN foHkkx es fu;fer HkrhZ djus lEcU/kh vYikof/k dh rnFkZ fu;qfDr;ks ds lEcU/k es izfdz;k fjDr gS ,slas foHkkx es fnukad 10&12&1979 ls iwoZ izfdz;k ds vuqlkj gh dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg, A,sls foHkkxks es tks fu;qfDr fnukad 10&12&1979 ds Ik'pkr o rnZFk :Ik ls ,oa fu;eks ds fo:) dh x;h gS mugs fujLr dj fnukad 10&12&1979 la iwoZ izpfyr izfdz;k ,oa fu;eks ds vuqlkj fu;fer fd;k tko A

vkKk ls

gLrk{kj

vkj0 ds0 'kkL=h

'kklu lfpo

A direction has been given in this Circular that all those persons, who have been appointed after 10-12-79 according to the instructions of 10-12-79 should be removed.

3. The impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioner has been passed in compliance of the order dated 13th May, 1980. The sole point for consideration in these cases is whether a civil servant can be removed from service under Rule 23A of the R.S.R. on the ground that on account of change of policy decision, his appointment was illegal, having not been made through the employment exchange.

4. Before I deal with the individual case on the ground of cases which may have some difference, it would be convenient to decide the law point involved.

5. Mr. Shishodia and Mr. Lodha who appeared for respondents have submitted that under Article 162 of the Constitution. Since the relevant rules are silent, it was open to the State to insist on appointments through employment exchange only and exception can be taken to it in law. In support of this, the respondents relied upon the judgment of Sant Ram's case AIR 1967 SC 1910, para 7 of this judgment reads reads as under:

We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr. N.C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the Rules already framed. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point the Government can fill up gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not in-consistant with the rules already framed.

6. Mr. Purohit and Mr. Kala, who appeared for the petitioners, jointly submitted that the Employment Exchange Act, 1959 no where authorises the State Government to prohibit employment otherwise through employment exchange. Contrary to it, sub-clause (4) of expressly says that the provisions of this section would not impose any obligation upon any employer to recruit any person through the Employment Exchange to fill in vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified under any of those sub-section. Section 4 reads as under :

4. Notification of vacancies to Employments Exchanges:

(1) After the commencement of this Act in any State or area thereof, employer in every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such Employment Exchanges as may be prescribed.

(2) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, require that from such date as may be...in the notification, the employer in every establishment in private sector or every establishment...pertaining to any class or category of establishments in private sector shall before filling up any...vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such Employment Exchanges as may be prescribed, and the employer shall there upon comply with such requisition.

(3) The manner in which the vacancies referred to in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be notified to the Employment Exchange and the particulars of employments in which such vacancies have occurred or are about to occur shall be such as may be prescribed.

(4) Nothing in sub-sees.(1) and (2) shall be deemed to impose any obligation upon any employer to recruit any person through the Employment Exchange to fill any vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified under any of those sub-sections.

Mr. Purohit also pointed out that in a series of judgments reported in Nand Kishore Sakarlal v. State of Gujarat 1967 (2) LL J 806. The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras v. The District Employment Officer, Madras 1968 (1) Lab. I. C. 599. The Muncipal Committee, Amritsar v. The State of Punjab 1971 (2) SLR 420, consistent view has been taken that there cannot be any prohibition of appointment except through the Employment Exchange.

7. Whether the State Government is competent to prohibit the appointment except through the Employment Exchange in a particular service is a question which is of great importance and it is not necessary to decide the same in this bunch of cases.

8. In the instant cases what has been done is that after the petitioners were legally and properly appointed by the competent authorities, now they are sought to be removed from service on the ground that the State Government has taken a decision to withdraw the earlier notification by which the appointing authorities were permitted to appoint employees without reference to the Employment Exchange. In other words, the question which requires adjudication is whether once the government has appointed employee without reference to the Employment Exchange on account of its policy decision duly communicated to the appointing authorities, would a reversal of any such policy decision subsequently would result in retrospective application.

9. Unbounbtedly in the instant case, the Circular dated 10th Dec. 1979 abolished the system of employment through the Employment Exchange. Again on the dates when the petitioners were appointed, the appointing authorities were not communicated any ban on employment without employment exchange reference. As per the facts disclosod in the writ petitioners, the petitioner in writ cases no. 1303/80, 1325/80, 1326/80, 1328/80, 1329/80, 1330/80 were appointed on 15th May, 1980 under work Charge Rules. The petitioners in writ petition no. 1305/80, 1319/80, 1320/80, 1321/80, 1322/80, 1323/80, 1324/80 and 1327/80 were appointed as class IV servants on 15th may. Again petitioners in writ petitions No. 1401/80, 1645/ 80, 1646/80, 1647/80 petitioners were appointed on 28-2-80.

10. The cases of petitioners Surendramal, Girdhari, Hiraram and Kesaram stand on a different footing, as they were appointed through the Employment Exchange.

11. It would, thus, be seen that the appointing authorities appointed all the petitioners before the Government order, which was issued on 12th August, 1980 reached them.

12. In view of Section 4(4) of the Employment Exchange Act, there is no statutory prohibition nor any such prohibition can have statutory force and, therefore, the appointments of any of the civil servants without reference of employment exchange cannot be termed as illegal simpliciter.

13. Whether on account of the administrative instructions issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, the government can insist on employment through Employment Exchange only is a question of very wide import and as mentioned earlier, I am of the view that since it would not directly arise in this case, I should refrain from deciding it.

14. However, in all these cases, the appointments, per se are not illegal not they are against any administrative instructions. It is not even the case of the respondents that those appointments were made after the Government earlier order and putting a ban was received by the appointing authorities. In the very nature of things, if appointing authority would not receive that order, they would not have embarked upon the hazardous work of contravention of the government order and making appointments in disregard of them. Since the appointments per se were not illegal and were perfectly legal, the respondents cannot be allowed to treat them invalid on account of the impugned order containing the instructions dated 13-5-80. The order dated 13th May, 1980, which was issued as per the endorsement below it on 13th June, 1980 directs that all appointments which have been made from 10-12-79 should be quashed unless they are consistent with order, which was prevailing before 10-12-79.

15. It is true that the government is entitled to change its policy from time to time. It the government insist on appointments through Employment Exchange, the subordinate officers should normally follow it because that order would not be per se invalid. However, once a policy decision has been taken on 10-12-79 removing the ban for appointment through employment exchange, it is difficult to appreciate how the appointments made in pursuance of this decision would become illegal on the change of a decision on 13th May, 1980. As thousands of employees must have been appointed during this period throughout Rajasthan and the respondents cannot be allowed to play with their Careers by giving restrospective effect to the change of policy decision A civil servant undoubtealy has got legal right to insist on continuation in service even though hi may be a temporary employee till he is removed on a legal ground change of policy decision normally cannot be made RETROSPECTIVE TO THE deteriment of the civil servant who has got a vested right to continue in service according to the various Rules of state. The Rajasthan Civil Service Rules no where provides for the termination of service of the government employees on the basis of such policy decisions. No amendment has been made in the rules by the respondents to give effect to such policy decisions restrospectively.

16. It is well established law that service conditions of the civil servants cannot be changed retrospectively except by framing of the under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or by amendment of any existing rule in an statute. The net result of the condition contained in the last line of the government order dated 13th May, 1980 is that the appointments made between 0-12-79 to 13-5.80 without reference of the Employment Exchange would be treated as invalid and a civil servant would be liable to be removed. Such an administrate instruction cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

17. It is true that a civil servant is liable to be removal from service under Rule 23A of the R.S.R. in case of a temporal employee. The respondents are, therefore, entitled to remove any temporary employee by following the procedure under Rule 23A of the R.S.R.

18. If in the present case there would have been an order of removal under Rule 23A of the R.S.R. simpliciter without mentioning that it is being done on account of the government decision of 13-5-80 to remove employees, who have been appointed without reference to Employment Exchange, then this Court would not have interfered with the order of removal. But this is not the case here. The impugned orders of removal expressly mentions that the government has directed that all those employees who have been appointed between 1-12-79 to 13-5-80 without reference of the Employment Exchange should be removed and their employments and appointments are quashed. That being so, since I have held that the government was not competent to pass such an order for declaring the appointments as illegal retrospectively and removing the civil servant, the impugned orders are also illegal and liable to be quashed.

19. The Punjab Haryana High Court in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. The State of Punjab (supra), observed as under:

Held, Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 is mandatory in terms that it makes it obligatory for an employer in every public sector to notify to the Employment as may be prescribed the vacancy or vacancies sought to be filled up. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 leaves no room for doubt that the obligation in case on the employer that he must recruit the person sponsored by the Employment Exchange simply because the vacancy had been notified to the latter under Sub-section (1) of Sub-section (2) or Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. After having notified the vacancies, the employer may go on rejecting the candidates sent up by the employment exchange. The Schome of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 appears to be that the unemployed persons should get their names registered with an Employment Exchange so that an opportunity was available to them in a public or private sector as the case may be and not that the whole law of master and servant, be put at naught and that an employer forced to recruit only the persons coming though the employer exchange no matter whether he is fit for the job or not, nor is any appointment made without complying with the provisions of Section 4 rendered invalid. Section 7 of the Employment Exchange Act, 1959 provides for penalties and it is only the failure to notify the vacancies that has been made punishable.

In this case of Punjab and Haryana, the Court was concerned, with the employment made by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar.

20. The facts have been narrated at page 421, which are as under:

The petitioner Committee did inform the Employment Exchange giving necessary particulars of the vacancies of different categories that were to be filled up, what appears to have happened is that lists of eligible candidates were sent by the Employment Exchange but some persons whose names were registered with that Employment Exchange also applied directly to the Committee. The interview letters were sent to all of them, namely, those sponsored by the employment exchange and direct applicants. Interview Committees were appointed and after selection, lists of suitable candidates prepared. There resolutions Nos. 1470, 1472 and 1474 were passed on 21st March, 1970 where by appointments were made in all three categories referred to above, and those included as well whose names had not been received from employment exchange. Copies of the resoultions were sent to the Deputy Commissioner as required by subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Municipal Act, Deputy Commissioner respondent stayed implementation of the resolutions vide memorandum No. LFS/767, dated 6th May, 1970 annexure D and sent for the relevant files. On receipt of the stay order from the Commissioner the Executive Officer of the Committee wrote back to him saying that some of the candidates had actually joined their duties and in their case the order of withholding of the Committee's resolution did not arise. So far as other persons were concerned, who had joined, it was intimated that the matter was being put up lo the Committee for orders. The Committee then passed a resolution No. 296 of 16th June, 1970, Annexure 'F' where in its policy in the matter of filling up of vacancies was explained. It was reiterated that only those persons had been appointed who were registered with the Employment Exchange or sponsored by the later. By majority resolution that all those selected by the committee should be permitted to join inspite of the stay order issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, in the meantime, referred the matter to the State Government which addressed, the impugned communication Annexure `C' to the Committee, where by the latter was directed that it should terminate the services of all these Employmees who had been recruited from outside the lists of candidates received from the Employment Exchange, and that vacancies arising by the said termination should be filled up from the candidates of the Employment Exchange. The Government threatened to hold the Committee responsible for non-compliance of its orders though it was not made clear as to how the threat would be executed. Since an audit objection had been raised and the Auditor General was not sanctioning payment of salaries to the employees recruited by the Committee in the aforesaid circumstances, the Committee filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3125/of 1970 in this Court.

The Court observed as under:

A plain reading of Sub-section (4) leaves no room for doubt that no obligation is cast on the Employer that he must recruit the person sponsored by the Employment Exchange simply because the vacancy had been notified to the latter under subsection (1) or Sub-section (2). Its true analysis, the position is that after having notified that vacancies, the employer may go on rejecting the candidates sent up by the Employment Exchange. The scheme of the Act appears to be that the employed persons should get their names registered with an Employment Exchange so that an opportunity was available to them in a public or private sector as the case may be and not that the whole law of master and servant be put at naught and that an Employer forced to recruit only the persons coming through the Employment Exchange, no matter whether he is fit for the job or not, nor is any appointment made without complying with the provisions of Section 4, rendered invalid. Section 7 provides for penalties and it is only the failure to notify the vacancies that has been made punishable. No amount of executive instructions can override a direct provision in a statute and my attention has not been invited by the learned counsel for the State to any provision of law under which those instuctions could be deemed to have been issued. Even in the instructions itself, it is stated in most unambiguous terms that it is only the notification of vacancies that is compulsory and that no such compulsion arises for recruitment. Instructions asking an Employer not to recruit any one unless a non availability certificate is obtained from an Employment Exchange is directory only and more in the nature of advice, but it cannot have any staturory sanction rendering an appointment in contravention of those instructions illegal or invalid. The directions issued in Annexture 'G' are, therefore, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

21. In the Cosmpolitian Club, Madras v. The District Employment Officer, Madras (supra), the Madras High Court observed as under:

The Act was brought on the statute book only for the purpose of enabling the appropriate authorities to assess the employment potential in various categories of employment. The Act was clearly intended to serve a statistical need to assess any future policy in connection with the imparting of training to potential employees.

Taking into consideration the object of the enactment, the definitions used in the Act must be understood in their widest sense, and if that should be done, the presence or absence of a profit motive in the carrying on of a business is wholly immaterial in construing the relevant expression.

It would be, thus be seen that on a plain reading of the provisions of the Employment Exchange Act and also above the two decisions of the High Courts on them, in which the scheme of the Act has been interpreted, it is patent that no statutory prohibition is intended against employment of employees without reference of the Employment Exchange. In other words, so fas as the statute is concerned, the Government has not been given authority or power in law to put a ban on employment except through the Employment Exchange by taking resort to any of the provisions of the Employment Exchange Act.

22. Whether the State can do so under Article 162 of the Constitution by administrative instructions is a question on which I am expressing no opinion because it has not directly arisen in this case. However, in view of the vast unemployment problem with which the State is faced and on account of nepotism, favourtism and corruption, it would be in public interest if proper provisions are made either by way of amendment in this Act or otherwise by the legislature. I am saying so because even in the absence of such a provision, it is almost the universal practice that appointments should be made through the Employment Exchange and as per the reply of the State in this case, the experiment which they made for permitting employment without the Employment Exchange, have failed. In para no.7, the respondents have mentioned as under:

But after some time this experiment could not stand to the test of the time and the State Government had again to resort to revive its previous policy and for this necessary instructions were issued by the State Government that no employment on the temporary or urgent basis or on the permanent vacancies, should be done unless and until a clearance is obtained from the Employment Exchange. In pursuance of this revised policy the order Ex./2 has been passed.

It sounds curious that inspite of the working of the Employment Exchange Act for more than 2 decades, the respondents have not thought it proper to make necessary amendment in the law in order to strengthen their policy by barring employment without the Employment Exchange by giving statutory force by legislation. In the present state of law it is more for information and statistical authorities for collecting data of unemployment present in the country, though in practice, it might have been used for the purpose of providing employment also.

23. I am, therefore, of the view that the government order dated 13th May, 1980 deserves to be quashed so far as it provides that all employments made between the period of 10th December, 1979 up to 13th May, 1980 without reference to the Employment Exchange being illegal should be quashed. It may be that the language has not been used properly because the intention might have been to insist on compliance in future. However, as the language stands, it has got the potentiality of the mischief by declaring all appointments without the Employment Exchange during this period to be illegal resulting in disastorous consequence for the civil servants.

24. Since the impugned orders of termination are based precisely on this part of the Government order, they are also quashed. Since I am taking the view that the impugned orders of termination are liable to be quashed on the above ground, it is not necessary to examine in details each case. All that can be said is that all these appointments have been made without receipts of the order dated 13-5-80 by the appointing authorities. This would be obvious from the endorsement below the order, which in no case is earlier to the date of the appointment orders i.e. 15th May, 1980.

25. Now in the cases of Surendremal, Girdhari, Hiraram, and Kesaram, the facts are such which only show that how the State functionaries some times apply the government orders without examining the implications of them. These four employees were undisputedly appointed through the Employment Exchange. That being so, the government order dated 13th May, 1980 had no effect on their appointments. Still the State function aries have used this weapon for terminating their services which provides a glaring example of their non application of the mind or abuse of authority. These 4 cases are, therefore, liable to be accepted, even otherwise.

26. The resultant position is that all these 23 writ petitions are accepted. The impugned orders of termination of services of all these 23 temporary employees are quashed.

27. The respondents are directed to reinstate them in case any of them have been removed from service and also pay them full salary and all employments.

28. The government order dated 19th May, 1980 in so far as the last sentence contained in it, which has been extracted above by which the services of all temporary employees appoined without the Employment Exchange reference during the period from 10-12-79 to 13th Nov. 1980 has been declared as illegal and has been quashed, and is quashed. The respondents are prohibited from giving effect to it in the present form.

29. It is, however, made clear that the respondents are not debarred from terminating the service of any of the petitioners if the same is required to be done according to the exigencies of the services under Rule 23 A of the RSR but while doing so it is made clear that the ground of employment without the Employment Exchange should not be considered, as that would be putting old wine in a new bottle and virtually passing the same order, which is being quashed by this Court. All the petitioners would get their costs from the respondents.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //