ORDER R.L. Gulati, J. - The petitioner is a second class B.A. His name was registered in the District Employment Exchange, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh in the year 1967. Two vacancies of junior clerks fell vacant in the office of the Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Farrukhabad. These vacancies were notified to the District Employment Exchange Farrukhabad on 10-6-1968 by the Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari stating that, he wanted candidates having the following qualifications :- (a) Candidates must be Intermediate II class; (b) Age should not be more than 25 years except retrenched employees, scheduled castes, bona fide gold-smiths etc. (c) They should know Hindi English Typing very well; (d) Preference may be given to the experienced hands. The District Employment Exchange sent up a panel of four persons. The name of the petitioner was not sent up. The petitioner thereupon applied direct to the Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Farrukhabad stating that although he was registered in the District Employment Exchange vet his name had not been sent up and requested that he should be permitted to appear in the competitive test. This permission was granted and ultimately the petitioner was selected for one of the posts. The Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari wrote a letter on 22nd June, 1968, to the District. Employment Exchange Officer stating that three out of 4 candidates sent up by him did not possess the necessary qualifications and none of them could produce the certificate of having passed the Intermediate Examination and in those circumstances he allowed the petitioner and the another candidate to appear for the test. In the end he wrote :- "I appoint Sri Tewari the most suitable candidate, and hope you will have no objection in his appointment and will strike off his name from your registers." Thereafter the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on June 26, 1968. By this letter the petitioner was informed that he had been appointed as a temporary junior clerk subject to certain conditions, the first two of which are relevant and read:- 1. His appointment is being made in stop-gap arrangement subject to pending selection through employment exchange. 2. His services are purely temporary and will be terminated on joining of some retrenched employee of the department. 2. The petitioner continued to work on this post upto the year 1970. On October 6, 1970, he was transferred from Farrukhabad to Kanpur. His appointment is being made in stop-gap arrangement subject to pending selection through employment exchange. 2. His services are purely temporary and will be terminated on joining of some retrenched employee of the department. 2. The petitioner continued to work on this post upto the year 1970. On October 6, 1970, he was transferred from Farrukhabad to Kanpur. Before he could join at Kanpur his post was allotted to someone else. The petitioner was asked at Kanpur to go back to Farrukhabad but when he came back to Farrukhabad he was again told to go to Kanpur and this way he shuttled between Kanpur and Farrukhabad for quite some time. He could not be accommodated either at Kanpur or at Farrukhabad. Finally, by an order dated 25th November, 1970. his services were terminated by the fourth respondent, namely, the Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, Farrukahbad. This order is material and is reproduced below :- "The services of Shri S.N. Tewari, E.C. of this office is hereby terminated with effect from the forenoon of 26th November. 1970, as his appointment was totally subjected to t.he pending selection through Employment Exchange as he was not selected through Employment Exchange which is against the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and Rules made thereunder." 3. It is against this order that the present, writ petition has been filed- 4. The termination order apparently is based upon condition No. 1 of the conditions mentioned in the petitioner's appointment letter. According to that condition the petitioner's appointment was in stop-gap arrangement, subject to the pending selection through Employment Exchange. It is not the case of the respondent that the Employment Exchange had recommended some other qualified and suitable candidate who could replace the petitioner. Thus the first condition that the petitioner's appointment was subject to the pending selection by the Employment Exchange did not come into play. The second ground upon which the termination order is based appears to be that as the petitioner had not been selected through the Employment Exchange the same was against the provisions of Employment. Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the relevant, provisions of the aforesaid Act. 5. The only provision of that Act which is relevant is Section 4. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 says:- "4(1). Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the relevant, provisions of the aforesaid Act. 5. The only provision of that Act which is relevant is Section 4. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 says:- "4(1). After the commencement of this Act in any State or area thereof, the 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 exchange as may be prescribed." Sub-section (4) of Section 4 then provides:- "4(4) Nothing in sub-sections (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." It is clear that all that is required is that the vacancies in the public sector should be notified to the employment exchange but because of such a notification it is not incumbent upon the employer to employ only persons recommended by the employment exchange. The employer can make appointments direct and such appointments cannot be held to be invalid. This is plain from a reading of sub-section (4) of Section 4 and no authority is required to support it. However, such an authority is to be found in a decision of a Mysore High Court in the case of Narasimhamurthi (M.C.) v. Director of Collegiate Education, (1967) 2 Lab LJ 606 (Mys). A Division Bench of that High Court held that the object of the Act (Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959) is not to prohibit the appointment being made by employers to fill up vacancies occurring in their establishments. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 makes it clear that there is no obligation upon any employer to recruit persons through the employment exchange to fill up vacancies occurring in his establishment. There is no provision in the Act for rendering invalid any appointment made without complying with the requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4. 6. It is thus clear that the employment of the petitioner was not contrary to any provision of the aforesaid Act. The post which was given to the petitioner was duly notified to the Employment Exchange but as the candidates sent up by the Employment. 6. It is thus clear that the employment of the petitioner was not contrary to any provision of the aforesaid Act. The post which was given to the petitioner was duly notified to the Employment Exchange but as the candidates sent up by the Employment. Exchange were not found suitable, the petitioner who was also registered with the Employment Exchange was appointed direct. In my opinion, his employment was perfectly valid and could not be terminated on the ground that the same had been made in violation of the aforesaid Act. 7. The learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent in which it is stated that the Employment Exchange was not satisfied with the explanation and the circumstances in which the appointment of the petitioner was made, and the then Employment Exchange Officer, Farrukhabad requested the Soil Conservation Officer, not to appoint the petitioner directly in contravention of the Government Orders mentioned in the letter. He also suggested either to approve candidates out of the list sent by him or to hold fresh test and interview. In my opinion, the Employment Exchange Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing such instructions. The learned Counsel has not been able to point out any statutory provision under which the Employment Exchange Officer could force an employer to make appointment out of the recommendations made by him or to cancel any appointment directly made by the employer. The Employment Exchange Officer, to my mind, acts as a Liasion between persons seeking employment and the employers. He has no control over the employers either to appoint persons recommended by him or to disapprove any appointment made by the employer directly. Any way, as has already been shown above the appointment of the petitioner, even though not made on the recommendation of the Employment Exchange, was perfectly, good appointment and its validity could not be questioned by reason of the provisions in Section 4(4) of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. 8. In the result the petition succeeds and is, allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 25th November, 1970, is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner still in service and to pay him emoluments which he is entitled. The petitioner is entitled to the costs.