Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Bombay High Court has held that direct recruitment to a government service would prima facie violate Article 16 (2) of the Constitution, if the proper rules or selection criteria are not followed. The Court was hearing a petition from a man whose father, a retired Class IV employee, had requested the Manager of the Government Central Press, Mumbai to appoint his son to the same post. The petitioner stated that on the basis of GRs dated April 14, 1981, and March 6, 1990, he could be directly recruited to the post without fulfilling any other criteria other than that stated on the GR dated April 14, 1981. The petitioner’s counsel, Geeta Gaikwad, submitted to the Court the names of 6 other employees who she contended were appointed in a similar manner. However, the Government’s counsel, AGP NC Walimbe argued that the two GRs read in consonance with each other provide for relaxation in the matter of registration with the local employment exchange.
After hearing both sides, the Court came to the conclusion that direct recruitment was not possible, and that the petition was bound to be dismissed. The MAT had clearly interpreted the two GRs and the Government’s stance was correct. It also dismissed the contention of the petitioner that he was being discriminated against and upheld the original MAT order.
86540
103860
630
114
59824