TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagaraja, Manoj Swarup and Santanu Bhowmick, Advocates, for the Respondents. Order 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. These appeals by special leave arise from the order dated 21-4-1992 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 9501 of 1991 and batch. The admitted position is that the respondents were not sponsored through the employm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half. Whereas the majority of two members held that it is not violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution, the minority view was that it was violative. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 4. This Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal 1987 3 SCC 308 noted the contention of counsel appearing for respondents therein that excluding the candidates who were not sponsored through medium of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exchange, while holding that such a restriction was not intended to be applicable to the private employment as held in para 6 of the judgment. 5. Shri Ram Kumar, the learned counsel for the State, contended that in view of the above decision, the direction issued by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. On the other hand, S/Shri Shanti Swarup and L.R Rao, the learned counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|